Aadel Collection

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy, submitted in accordance with Commission resolution 2000/42

          
          UNITED
          NATIONS
          Economic and Social Distr.
          Council
          GENERAL
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          1 February 2001
          Original: ENGLISH
          COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
          Fifty-seventh session
          Item 11(d) of the provisional agenda
          CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE QUESTIONS OF
          INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY, ADMINISTRATION OF
          JUSTICE, IMPUNITY
          Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence ofjudges and
          lawyers Dato' Param Cumaraswamy, submitted in accordance with
          Commission resolution 2000/42
          E
          GE.01-10830 (E)
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 2
          Executive summary
          This is the seventh annual report of the Special Rapporteur whose mandate, created by
          Commission resolution 1994/4 1, calls upon him:
          (a) To inquire into any substantial allegations transmitted to him and report his
          conclusions thereon;
          (b) To identify and record not only attacks on the independence of the judiciary,
          lawyers and court officials but also progress achieved in protecting and enhancing their
          independence, and make recommendations including the provision of advisory services or
          technical assistance when they are requested by the State concerned;
          (c) To study, for the purpose of making proposals, important and topical questions of
          principle with a view to protecting and enhancing the independence of the judiciary and lawyers.
          The report contains eight chapters dealing with his terms of reference, methods of work,
          the activities undertaken during the year, some theoretical issues, professional standards, some
          judicial decisions reflecting the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, situations
          in 41 countries or territories, and his conclusions and recommendations. During the year the
          Special Rapporteur sent out several interventions including five urgent appeals and seven urgent
          appeals in association with other special rapporteurs.
          In the course of the year, the Special Rapporteur undertook visits to South Africa,
          Belarus and the Slovak Republic and separate reports on these missions will be before the
          Commission.
          The Special Rapporteur has included in the present document a summary of his
          observations with respect to his attendance of the trial of H.M. Soeharto from 30 August
          to 2 September and from 13 to 15 September 2000. He has also summarized the developments
          concerning the defamation suits pending against him in Malaysia. With regard to the
          United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Special Rapporteur has expressed
          his continued concerns over the investigations into the murders of Patrick Finucane and
          Rosemary Nelson. With regard to South Africa, the Special Rapporteur has expressed his
          concern regarding a recent proposal by the Government to alter the regulation of the legal
          profession.
          The Special Rapporteur has also drawn the attention of the Commission to the invitations
          extended to him by the Governments of Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. The Special
          Rapporteur intends to undertake missions to those countries during the course of this year.
          The details, including the dates, are currently being discussed.
          Among the recommendations, the Special Rapporteur has once again called upon the
          Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to establish an
          independent judicial inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane.
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 3
          CONTENTS
          Paragraphs Page
          Introduction 1 - 2 6
          I. TERMS OF REFERENCE 3 - 6 6
          II. METHODS OF WORK 7 9
          III. ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR 8-27 9
          A. Consultations 8 - 11 9
          B. Missions/visits 12 - 15 10
          C. Communications with governmental authorities 16 - 20 10
          D. Cooperation with intergovernmental and
          non-governmental organizations 21 11
          E. Cooperation with other United Nations procedures
          and bodies 22-27 11
          IV. THEORETICAL ISSUES 28 - 30 13
          A. Judicial corruption 28 - 29 13
          B. Human rights defenders 30 13
          V. STANDARDS 31-32 14
          VI. JUDICIAL DECISIONS REFLECTING THE INDEPENDENCE
          AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY 33 14
          VII. SITUATIONS IN SPECIFIC COUNTRIES OR
          TERRITORIES 34- 244 14
          Algeria 36-38 15
          Argentina 39-41 15
          Australia 42 - 44 16
          Azerbaijan 45 - 50 16
          Bahrain 51 - 52 17
          Belarus 53 - 55 18
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 4
          CONTENTS ( continued)
          Paragraphs Page
          VII. SITUATIONS IN SPECIFIC COUNTRIES OR
          TERRITORIES ( continued )
          Brazil 56-61 18
          Burundi 62-63 19
          Cameroon 64 - 65 20
          Chile 66 - 67 20
          China 68 - 72 20
          Colombia 73 - 84 21
          Democratic Republic of the Congo 85 - 87 23
          Egypt 88 - 92 24
          Gambia 93 - 95 24
          Guatemala 96 - 102 25
          Indonesia 103- 114 26
          Iran (Islamic Republic of) 115- 118 28
          Israel 119- 121 28
          Jamaica 122- 123 29
          Kenya 124- 127 29
          Kyrgyzstan 128- 131 30
          Lebanon 132- 135 30
          Malaysia 136- 153 31
          Mexico 154- 160 34
          Myanmar 161 - 162 35
          Nepal 163 - 165 35
          Pakistan 166- 170 36
          Palestine 171 - 177 37
          Panama 178-182 38
          Peru 183 - 184 39
          Senegal 185 - 189 39
          Slovakia 190- 196 40
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 5
          CONTENTS ( continued)
          Paragraphs Page
          VII. SITUATIONS IN SPECIFIC COUNTRIES OR
          TERRITORIES ( continued )
          SouthAfrica 197-201 42
          Spain 202-205 42
          Sri Lanka 206-212 43
          United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 213 - 229 44
          United States of America 230 - 234 47
          Yemen 235 - 237 48
          Yugoslavia 238 - 242 49
          Zimbabwe 243 - 244 49
          VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 245 - 252 50
          A. Conclusions 245 - 249 50
          B. Recommendations 250 - 252 50
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 6
          Introduction
          1. The present report is submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights
          resolution 2000/42. It is the seventh annual report to the Commission by the Special Rapporteur
          since the mandate was established by the Commission in its resolution 1994/4 1, renewed in
          resolution 2000/42 and endorsed by the Economic and Social Council in its decision 2000/264
          (see also E/CN.4/1995/39, E/CN.4/1996/37, E/CN.4/1997/32, E/CN.4/1998/39, E/CN.4/1999/60
          and E/CN.4/2000/61).
          2. Chapter I of the present report contains the terms of reference for the discharge of the
          mandate. Chapter II refers to the methods of work applied by the Special Rapporteur in the
          discharge of his mandate. In chapter III, the Special Rapporteur presents an account of the
          activities undertaken within the framework of his mandate in the past year. Chapter IV provides
          a brief discussion on theoretical issues which the Special Rapporteur considers to be important
          for the development of an independent and impartial judiciary. Chapter V describes standards
          and guidelines for judges and lawyers that have been adopted or are in the process of being
          adopted by various associations around the world. Chapter VI contains a brief summary of
          judicial decisions asserting the importance of and the principle of judicial independence.
          Chapter VII contains brief summaries of urgent appeals and communications to and from
          governmental authorities, along with observations of the Special Rapporteur. Chapter VIII
          contains the conclusions and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur.
          I. TERMS OF REFERENCE
          3. At its fiftieth session, the Commission on Human Rights, in resolution 1994/41, noting
          both the increasing frequency of attacks on the independence of judges, lawyers and court
          officials and the link which exists between the weakening of safeguards for the judiciary and
          lawyers and the gravity and frequency of violations of human rights, requested the Chairman of
          the Commission to appoint, for a period of three years, a special rapporteur whose mandate
          would consist of the following tasks:
          (a) To inquire into any substantial allegations transmitted to him or her and report his
          or her conclusions thereon;
          (b) To identify and record not only attacks on the independence of the judiciary,
          lawyers and court officials but also progress achieved in protecting and enhancing their
          independence, and make recommendations including the provision of advisory services or
          technical assistance when they are requested by the State concerned;
          (c) To study, for the purpose of making proposals, important and topical questions of
          principle with a view to protecting and enhancing the independence of the judiciary and lawyers.
          4. Without substantially changing the mandate, the Commission endorsed in its
          resolution 1995/36 the decision of the Special Rapporteur to use, beginning in 1995, the short
          title “Special Rapporteur on the independence ofjudges and lawyers”.
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 7
          5. In resolutions 1995/36, 1996/34, 1997/23, 1998/35, 1999/31 and 2000/42 the
          Commission on Human Rights took note of the annual reports of the Special Rapporteur,
          expressing appreciation of his working methods, and requested him to submit another annual
          report on the activities relating to his mandate to the Commission on Human Rights.
          6. Several resolutions adopted by the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-sixth session
          are also pertinent to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and have been taken into
          consideration in examining and analysing the information brought to his attention with regard
          to various countries. These resolutions are, in particular:
          (a) Resolution 2000/13 on women's equal ownership of, access to and control over
          land and the equal rights to own property and to adequate housing, in which the Commission
          encouraged all human rights treaty bodies, special procedures and other human rights
          mechanisms regularly and systematically to take a gender perspective into account in the
          implementation of their mandates;
          (b) Resolution 2000/29 on hostage-taking, in which the Commission urged all
          thematic special rapporteurs and working groups to continue to address, as appropriate, the
          consequences of hostage-taking in their forthcoming reports to the Commission;
          (c) Resolution 2000/30 on human rights and terrorism, in which the Commission
          urged all relevant human rights mechanisms and procedures, as appropriate, to address the
          consequences of the acts, methods and practices of terrorist groups in their forthcoming reports
          to the Commission;
          (d) Resolution 2000/38 on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, in which
          the Commission invited the working groups, representatives and special rapporteurs of the
          Commission on Human Rights to pay attention, within the framework of their mandates, to the
          situation of persons detained, subjected to violence, ill-treated or discriminated against for
          having exercised the right to freedom of opinion and expression as affirmed in the relevant
          human rights instruments;
          (e) Resolution 2000/39 on human rights in the administration ofjustice, in particular
          juvenile justice, in which the Commission called upon all special rapporteurs, special
          representatives and working groups of the Commission to continue to give special attention to
          questions relating to the effective protection of human rights in the administration of justice,
          including juvenile justice, and to provide, wherever appropriate, specific recommendations in
          this regard, including proposals for advisory service and technical assistance measures;
          (f) Resolution 2000/40 on the incompatibility between democracy and racism, in
          which the Commission invited the mechanisms of the Commission and the treaty bodies to
          continue to pay particular attention to violations of human rights stemming from the rise of
          racism and xenophobia in political circles and society at large, especially as regards their
          incompatibility with democracy;
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 8
          (g) Resolution 2000/52 on the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic,
          religious and linguistic minorities, in which the Commission called upon special representatives,
          special rapporteurs and working groups of the Commission to continue to give attention, within
          their respective mandates, to situations involving minorities;
          (h) Resolution 2000/68 on impunity, in which the Commission invited the special
          rapporteurs and other mechanisms of the Commission to continue to give due consideration to
          the issue of impunity in the discharge of their mandates;
          (i) Resolution 2000/85 on the rights of the child, in which the Commission
          recommended that, within their mandates, all relevant human rights mechanisms, in particular
          special rapporteurs and working groups, regularly and systematically take a child's rights
          perspective into account in the implementation of their mandates, especially by paying attention
          to particular situations in which children are in danger and where their rights are violated, and
          that they take into account the work of the Committee on the Rights of the Child;
          (j) Resolution 2000/86 on human rights and thematic procedures, in which the
          Commission requests the thematic special rapporteurs, representatives, experts and working
          groups:
          (i) To make recommendations for the prevention of human rights violations;
          (ii ) To follow closely and reflect in their reports progress made by
          Governments in the investigations carried out within their respective
          mandates;
          (iii) To continue close cooperation with relevant treaty bodies and country
          rapporteurs;
          (iv) To include in their reports information provided by Governments on
          follow-up action, as well as their own observations thereon, including in
          regard to both problems and improvements, as appropriate;
          (v) To include regularly in their reports gender-disaggregated data and to
          address the characteristics and practice of human rights violations under
          their mandates that are specifically or primarily directed against women,
          or to which women are particularly vulnerable, in order to ensure the
          effective protection of their human rights;
          (vi) To address also in their reports the characteristics and practice of human
          rights violations under their mandates that are specifically or primarily
          directed against children, or to which children are particularly vulnerable,
          in order to ensure the effective protection of their human rights, and, if
          possible, to include also age-disaggregated data.
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 9
          The resolution also requested the thematic rapporteurs, representatives, experts and working
          groups to include in their reports comments on problems of responsiveness and the result of
          analyses, as appropriate, in order to carry out their mandates even more effectively, and to
          include also in their reports suggestions as to areas where Governments might request relevant
          assistance through the programme of advisory services administered by the Office of the
          High Commissioner for Human Rights.
          II. METHODS OF WORK
          7. The Special Rapporteur, in the seventh year of his mandate, continued to follow the
          methods of work described in his first report (E/CN.4/1995/39, paras. 63-93).
          III. ACTIVITIES OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR
          A. Consultations
          8. The Special Rapporteur visited Geneva for his first round of consultations
          from 2 to 8 April 2000 in order to present his report to the Commission at its fifty-sixth session,
          and returned to Geneva from 17 to 21 April after attending a workshop on judicial integrity in
          Vienna. During this period the Special Rapporteur met with representatives of the regional
          groups to brief them on his work and to answer any questions they might have. He also held
          consultations with representatives of the Governments of Saudi Arabia and South Africa. In
          addition, he held a briefing for interested non-governmental organizations and also met
          individually with several NGOs.
          9. The Special Rapporteur visited Geneva from 28 May to 11 June 2000 for his second
          round of consultations and to attend the 7th meeting of special rapporteurs/representatives,
          experts and chairpersons of working groups of the special procedures of the Commission on
          Human Rights and of the advisory services programme, which was held from 5 to 9 June 2000.
          The Special Rapporteur also attended the Expert Consultation Workshop on Special Procedures
          and the Treaty Bodies: Forging New Relationships, organized by the Carter Center and the
          Jacob Blaustein Institute, which was held on 1 and 2 June 2000. During his visit, the Special
          Rapporteur met with the Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations Office
          at Geneva.
          10. The Special Rapporteur again visited Geneva from 10 to 14 October for consultations.
          During the visit the Special Rapporteur met with the Permanent Representatives of Egypt,
          Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe.
          11. The Special Rapporteur travelled to Geneva on 24 November 2000, in order to
          prepare for the mission to Slovakia which took place from 27 to 30 November 2000.
          On 24 November 2000, the Special Rapporteur met with the Permanent Representative of
          Lebanon.
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 10
          B. Missions/visits
          12. During 2000, the Special Rapporteur undertook three in situ missions. The first mission,
          to South Africa, took place from 7 to 13 May 2000. The second mission, to Belarus, took place
          from 12 to 17 June 2000. Owing to the urgency of the situation the Special Rapporteur also
          conducted a short mission to Slovakia from 27 to 29 November 2000. The reports of these
          missions, containing his findings, conclusions and recommendations, can be found in addenda
          to the present report. During the year the Special Rapporteur also travelled to Indonesia
          from 30 August to 2 September 2000 and from 13 to 15 September 2000 to observe the
          proceedings in the trial of H.M. Soeharto.
          13. During the period under review the Special Rapporteur informed the Government of
          Zimbabwe of his wish to carry out an in situ investigation. At the fifty-sixth session of the
          Commission of Human Rights the Government of Zimbabwe indicated its willingness to
          facilitate such a mission. Details are currently being negotiated. In conjunction with the
          Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur
          on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, he informed
          the Governments of India and Pakistan of his wish to carry out a joint in situ investigation.
          He also reminded the Government of Egypt of his previous requests to undertake a mission.
          14. The Special Rapporteur informed the Government of Mexico on 13 September 2000 of
          his wish to delay the conduct of the mission to Mexico until 2001. The Special Rapporteur felt
          that owing to the significant political changes that were taking place in the country due to the
          election of a new Government, it was most desirable that the mission take place after the new
          Government assumes office.
          15. During his visit to Geneva from 10 to 14 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur met with
          the Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia, who reiterated his Government's support for the
          conduct of an in situ mission this year. Details and the dates are being discussed with the
          Permanent Mission.
          C. Communications with governmental authorities
          16. During the period under review, the Special Rapporteur transmitted five urgent appeals to
          the following States: Brazil, Jamaica, Slovakia (2) and United States of America.
          17. Seeking to avoid unnecessary duplication of the activities of other thematic and country
          rapporteurs, the Special Rapporteur has joined during the past year with other special rapporteurs
          and working groups to transmit seven urgent appeals on behalf of individuals to the
          Governments of the following six countries: Algeria, together with the Special Rapporteur on
          torture and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women; Argentina, together with the
          Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; Colombia, together with
          the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; Democratic Republic
          of the Congo (2), together with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the
          Democratic Republic of Congo, the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Rapporteur on
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 11
          the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Israel, together
          with the Special Rapporteur on torture; Lebanon, together with the Special Rapporteur on the
          promotion and protection of the right to freedom of expression and opinion.
          18. The Special Rapporteur transmitted 42 communications to the governmental authorities
          of the following: Australia, Azerbaijan (2), Bahrain, Belarus, Brazil (2), Chile, China,
          Colombia (2), Egypt, Guatemala (4), Indonesia, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon, Malaysia,
          Mexico (3), Nepal, Pakistan (4), Palestine, Panama, Spain (2), Sri Lanka (2), United Kingdom
          of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (2), United States of America, Yemen and Yugoslavia (2).
          The Special Rapporteur also sent two joint interventions to the Islamic Republic of Iran, together
          with the Special Representative on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran,
          and Senegal, together with the Special Rapporteur on torture.
          19. The Special Rapporteur received replies to urgent appeals from the Governments of
          Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Cameroon, Colombia, Lebanon, Slovakia, and United States
          of America.
          20. Replies to communications were received from the governmental authorities of
          Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Brazil, China, Colombia, Egypt, Gambia, Kenya,
          Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, Palestine, Panama, Peru, Senegal, Spain, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom
          of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Yemen. Other
          communications were received from the Governments of Azerbaijan, Colombia and Guatemala.
          D. Cooperation with intergovernmental and
          non- governmental organizations
          21. The Special Rapporteur has continued the dialogue with intergovernmental and
          non-governmental organizations in the implementation of his mandate and thanks these
          organizations for their cooperation and assistance during the year.
          E. Cooperation with other United Nations procedures and bodies
          1. Special rapporteurs and working groups
          of the Commission on Human Rights
          22. The Special Rapporteur has continued to work closely with other special rapporteurs
          and working groups. As previously indicated, in order to avoid duplication he has, where
          appropriate, made joint interventions with other special rapporteurs and/or working groups.
          On issues relevant to his mandate, the Special Rapporteur makes reference in the present report
          to reports of other special rapporteurs and working groups.
          2. The Centre for International Crime Prevention
          23. In his third, fourth, fifth and sixth reports (E/CN.4/1997/32, paras. 26-37;
          E/CN.4/1998/39, paras. 23-24; E/CN.4/1999/60, paras. 28-34; E/CN.4/2000/61, paras 23-24),
          the Special Rapporteur referred to the importance of the work done by the Centre for
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 12
          International Crime Prevention in overseeing the implementation of the Basic Principles on the
          Independence of the Judiciary. The Special Rapporteur regrets that he was unable to attend the
          ninth session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in April 2000.
          However, he continued to receive assistance from the secretariat as and when needed with regard
          to standards.
          24. The Special Rapporteur has been informed that the tenth session of the Commission on
          Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in May 2001 will consider the status of the
          implementation of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. The Special
          Rapporteur will continue to liaise with the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime
          Prevention (UNODCCP) with respect to this matter.
          25. As stated in his fifth report (E/CN.4/2000/61, para. 24) the Special Rapporteur received
          an invitation from the Executive Director of UNODCCP to attend the Tenth United Nations
          Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Vienna in
          April 2000. The Special Rapporteur regrets that he was unable to attend.
          3. Activities and Programmes Branch of the Office
          of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
          26. As mentioned in his third, fourth, fifth and sixth reports (E/CN.4/1997/32, para. 31;
          E/CN.4/1998/39, para. 26; E/CN.4/1999/60, para. 35; E/CN.4/2000/61, para. 25), the
          Special Rapporteur is collaborating with the Activities and Programmes Branch of the Office
          of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to develop a training manual for judges and
          lawyers in the context of the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education. The
          Special Rapporteur apologizes for having been unable to devote sufficient time to this project.
          4. Promotional activities
          27. As stated in his third, fourth, fifth and sixth reports, the Special Rapporteur considers the
          promotion of the importance of the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession and
          the respect of the rule of law in a democratic society, in the spirit of the Vienna Declaration and
          Programme of Action, to be an integral part of his mandate. In this regard, the Special
          Rapporteur continued to receive invitations to address legal forums, seminars and conferences.
          Owing to other commitments, the Special Rapporteur could not accept all the invitations.
          Nevertheless, he did accept the following invitations:
          (a) From 15 to 16 April 2000 to attend and observe a workshop of the Judicial
          Group for the Strengthening of Judicial Integrity in Vienna. The workshop was organized
          within the framework of the Global Programme against Corruption and in conjunction with the
          Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.
          Ten Chief Justices from Asia and Africa or their representatives participated in the workshop;
          (b) On 24 June 2000 to deliver the keynote address at the Conference on
          Human Rights Defenders in Dublin. The conference was organized by the Irish Council for
          Civil Liberties;
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 13
          (c) From 6 to 8 October 2000 to participate and address the Amnesty International
          World Lawyers' meeting on the theme “Defending human rights” in Belfast, Northern Ireland;
          (d) On 28 October 2000 to deliver the keynote address at a symposium on
          “Mandatory sentencing - rights and wrongs” organized by the University of New South Wales
          in Sydney, Australia;
          (e) On 1 and 2 December 2000 to participate in an expert seminar on the
          implementation of the mandate of the Special Representative on human rights defenders, held
          in Cartigny, Geneva, organized by the International Service for Human Rights;
          (f) From 26 to 28 January 2001 to participate in a meeting on the Princeton Project
          on Universal Jurisdiction, held at Princeton University. The meeting is sponsored by Princeton
          University, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, the hiternational
          Commission of Jurists, the Urban Morgan histitute for Human Rights of the University of
          Cincinnati and the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights.
          (g) From 24 to 26 February 2001 to attend and observe the second workshop of the
          Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial hitegrity in Bangalore, India.
          IV. THEORETICAL ISSUES
          A. Judicial corruption
          28. In his sixth report to the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/2000/61, paras. 29-30)
          the Special Rapporteur drew attention to the growing concerns expressed over judicial
          corruption. The expressions of concern continued during the year and can be seen in the calls for
          greaterjudicial accountability in many countries. Calls for formal mechanisms to deal with
          complaints against judges are also growing. It is in this context the Special Rapporteur intends
          to focus greater attention on promoting judicial integrity and accountability which will
          strengthen judicial independence and public confidence in the judiciary.
          29. The Special Rapporteur will continue to work closely with the organizations and
          institutions that are currently addressing this issue. The Special Rapporteur has discussed this
          issue with the High Commissioner who has acknowledged its importance and affirmed that the
          matter will be followed closely by her Office.
          B. Human rights defenders
          30. The Special Rapporteur welcomes Commission resolution 2000/6 1 in which the
          Commission requested the Secretary-General to appoint a Special Representative to report on
          the situation of human rights defenders in all parts of the world. The Special Rapporteur will
          work closely with the Special Representative in the defence of human rights defenders who are
          lawyers acting in the discharge of their professional duties.
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 14
          V. STANDARDS
          International Association of Prosecutors
          31. In April 2000, the Special Rapporteur met the Executive Council of the hiternational
          Association of Prosecutors in Vienna and had discussions on further cooperation with that
          Association in the implementation of the Association's Standards of Professional Responsibility
          and its Statement of the Essential Duties and Rights of Prosecutors.
          32. The Special Rapporteur continues to refer in his interventions and reports to
          regional standards, particularly those of the Council of Europe and LAWASIA
          (E/CN.4/1996/37, paras. 86-91, E/CN.4/1997/32, para. 49, E/CN.4/1999/60, paras. 43-49,
          E/CN.4/2000/61, paras. 33-35).
          VI. JUDICIAL DECISIONS REFLECTING THE INDEPENDENCE
          AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY
          33. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the judgement of the Supreme Court of
          Bangladesh on 2 December 1999 in the case of Government of Bangladesh and
          Others v. Md. Masdan Hossain and Others . (Supreme Court of Bangladesh, Appellate
          Division, Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1999.) hi its judgement the Court ordered, inter alia , the
          separation of the subordinate judiciary from the executive so as to make the subordinate
          judiciary fully independent of the executive. hi its lengthy judgement the Court analysed
          the essential elements of judicial independence and in doing so applied some of the leading
          judgements on the subject from appellate courts of other jurisdictions, particularly Canada.
          This judgement stands out as a landmark and should serve as a precedent for courts in other
          countries to follow, particularly those in the Commonwealth, in order to provide for an
          independent judiciary.
          VII. SITUATIONS IN SPECIFIC COUNTRIES OR TERRITORIES
          34. This chapter contains brief summaries of the urgent appeals and communications
          transmitted to governmental authorities between 30 November 1999 and 30 November 2000, as
          well as of replies to the allegations received between 24 December 1999 and 24 December 2000.
          In addition, the Special Rapporteur takes note in this chapter of the activities of other
          mechanisms which are related to his mandate. Where he has deemed it necessary, the Special
          Rapporteur has included his own observations. He wishes to emphasize that the appeals and
          communications reflected in this chapter are based exclusively upon information that has been
          transmitted to him directly. Where information was insufficient, the Special Rapporteur was not
          in a position to act. He also recognizes that problems concerning the independence and
          impartiality of the judiciary are not confined to the countries and territories mentioned in this
          chapter. In this regard, he wishes to emphasize that readers of the present report should not
          interpret the omission of a particular country or territory from this chapter as indicating that the
          Special Rapporteur considers that there are no problems with the judiciary in that country or
          territory.
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 15
          35. In preparing this report, the Special Rapporteur has taken note of the reports submitted to
          the Commission by the country special rapporteurs/representatives and independent experts.
          Algeria
          Communication to the Government
          36. On 25 January 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent appeal with the
          Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women concerning
          the case of Nadhéra Mesbah. Ms. Nesbah was arrested on 19 December 1999 after being
          accused of fraud by one of her clients and placed in detention. Ms. Nesbah was pregnant at
          the time and suffered from diabetes. Her request for release on medical grounds was refused
          on 18 January and the trial was delayed until 25 January 2000.
          Communication from the Government
          37. On 8 February 2000 the Government replied to the allegation concerning
          Nadhéra Mesbah. The Government stated that Ms. Mesbah had been arrested for
          corruption. It was alleged that Ms. Mesbah had informed a client that, for a payment
          of 6 million Algerian dinars, Ms. Mesbah could secure leniency from the judge hearing the
          case. A complaint was lodged with the police and Ms. Mesbah was arrested in possession
          of the money. On 20 December 1999, Ms. Mesbah, despite her pregnancy, was placed in
          detention. On 25 January 2000, she was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment and
          fined 20,000 Algerian dinars. Ms. Mesbah has appealed. Because of her ill-health she was
          placed under surveillance in the civil medical hospital in Blida. On 18 February the
          Government informed the Special Rapporteur that Ms. Mesbah was provisionally released
          after her appearance before the court at Bilda on 9 February 2000.
          Observation
          38. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its response.
          Argentina
          Communication to the Government
          39. On 31 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent appeal with the
          Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions concerning lawyers
          Carlos Varela, Diego Lavado and Alejandro Acosta. The three lawyers have faced harassment
          since taking two cases in which police officers are accused of killing people in their custody.
          In June 2000, defamatory statements about the lawyers were circulated in the press. In
          August 2000, they received threatening phone calls and on 24 October 2000, their offices were
          broken into and files were stolen. An anonymous phone call later claimed that the Mendoza
          Investigations Police were responsible for the break-in.
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 16
          Communication from the Government
          40. On 21 December 2000, the Permanent Mission of Argentina to the United Nations Office
          at Geneva sent a note verbale to the Special Rapporteur regarding the case of Carlos Varela,
          Diego Lavado and Alejandro Acosta. The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that the
          police had opened an investigation into the break-in into the lawyers' offices. Further, security
          measures had been taken and until the cases were resolved the police would patrol the area at
          night and during weekends. It had also been suggested that a uniformed guard should be
          stationed outside the offices in order to provide better security.
          Observation
          41. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its response.
          Australia
          Communication to the Government
          42. On 14 November 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication to the
          Government concerning alleged statements by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory,
          Mr. Denis Burke. The Special Rapporteur had been informed that the Chief Minister had called
          for a Northern Territory magistrate to resign after he had stated from the bench that he agreed
          with a defence lawyer's criticism of mandatory sentencing laws in the context of the case
          being heard.
          Communication from the Government
          43. On 21 December 2000, the Government acknowledged receipt of the Special
          Rapporteur's communication.
          Observation
          44. The Special Rapporteur awaits a response from the Government.
          Azerbaijan
          Communications to the Government
          45. On 25 February 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication to the Government
          concerning the Azerbaijan Bar Association (ABA) which submitted an application for
          registration as an NGO on 18 June 1999 but was denied registration on 4 August 1999 and
          again on 19 November 1999. The reason given for the refusal was that the organization could
          not be registered until the draft Law on the Legal Profession had been passed.
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 17
          46. On 25 February 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication to the
          Government concerning a lawyer, Aslan Ismailov, who had been dismissed from the
          Bar Association on 18 March 1999, following a visit to the United States of America. It was
          alleged that Mr. Ismailov was dismissed because during his visit he directly contradicted
          statements by the Minister of Justice and the President's Legal Adviser, who were visiting the
          United States at the same time.
          Communications from the Government
          47. On 2 June 2000, the Government responded to the allegations regarding the ABA. The
          Government stated that the documents provided by the ABA in support of its application for
          registration were inconsistent with section I, articles 4 and 9, of the Law on Lawyers and their
          Activities which states that the activities of lawyers cannot be carried out by individuals who
          are not members of the Bar Association. As the founders of the ABA were not members of the
          Bar Association and did not exercise the functions of lawyers, they could not establish such an
          organization.
          48. On 2 June 2000, the Government responded to the allegations regarding Mr. Ismailov.
          The Government stated that Mr. Ismailov while a member of the Bar Association had founded a
          private law firm and engaged in entrepreneurial activities. Mr. Ismailov repeatedly refused
          requests by the Presidium of the Bar Association to explain his activities. Following an
          investigation, the Presidium of the Bar Association on 18 March 1999 ordered Mr. Ismailov to
          cease those of his activities which were in violation of the regulations on the simultaneous
          pursuit of legal activities and entrepreneurial activities. Following his refusal, the Presidium of
          the Bar Association revoked Mr. Ismailov's membership. Mr. Ismailov appealed but the
          decision of the Presidium was upheld in all the higher courts.
          49. On 16 October 2000, the Government sent a document detailing recent judicial and legal
          reforms.
          Observation
          50. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its responses. He is unable to express
          a view as to whether there has been a breach of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.
          Bahrain
          Communication from the Government
          51. On 7 February 2000, the Government sent a communication in response to an
          urgent appeal of the Special Rapporteur dated 6 July 1999 (E/CN.4/2000/61, paras. 46-49).
          The Government stated that Mr. Al-Jamri had been convicted by the High Court of Appeal
          on 7 July 2000 on various criminal charges and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.
          Mr. Al-Jamri was represented by four lawyers of his own choosing, the case was heard by
          three civilian judges, and the trial was conducted fairly. On 8 July 2000, after a public apology,
          Mr. Al-Jamri was pardoned by His Highness the Amir and released from custody.
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 18
          Observation
          52. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its response. He has not heard further
          from the source who sent the original complaint.
          Belarus
          Communication to the Government
          53. On 6 June 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication to the Government
          concerning the recent burglaries of the offices of well-known human rights lawyers, including
          those of Ms. Vera Stremkovskaya and Mr. Oleg Volchek. On 29 May 2000, unknown persons
          broke into the office of the Human Rights Centre, of which Ms. Stremkovskaya is a director,
          and stole various items, including computers, documents and human rights literature. It was
          alleged that breaking into human rights organizations had become a common practice in
          Belarus. Mr. Volchek's organization, Legal Assistance to the Population, was also burgled
          in May 2000.
          Communication from the Government
          54. On 28 July 2000, the Government responded to the Special Rapporteur's communication.
          The Government stated that reports had been filed with the District Internal Affairs Departments
          and that investigations were being carried out. The investigations involved a full inspection of
          the scene of the crime, the interviewing of inhabitants of the buildings where the offices are
          situated, and attempts to trace the stolen goods. A number of individuals are being investigated
          for complicity but it is not yet established who committed the crimes. The investigations are
          being monitored by the State Procurator.
          Observation
          55. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its response. While on mission in
          Belarus the Special Rapporteur expressed his concern about this matter to the Minister for
          Foreign Affairs.
          Bnizil
          Communications to the Government
          56. On 5 June 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication to the Government
          concerning the situation of lawyer Valdenia Aparecida Paulino. The Special Rapporteur had
          received information stating that Ms. Aparecida Paulino had been the subject of threats in
          connection with her representation of the families of two people who had allegedly been killed
          by police officers. It was alleged that two military police officers had approached a witness in
          the case and told him to take a message to Ms. Aparecida Paulino warning her “to take care”.
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 19
          57. On 16 June 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the Government
          concerning the situation of lawyer Henri Burin des Roziers. The name of Mr. Burin des Roziers
          had been included on a list of people “destined for death” which had been circulated publicly.
          This was allegedly in connection with his representation of the movement Peasants Without
          Land, five members of which had been executed recently.
          58. On 26 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a follow-up communication to
          the Government noting that a response had not been received to the communications
          dated 26 April 1999 (E/CN.4/2000/61, para. 83), 30 August 1999 (E/CN.4/2000/61, para. 85)
          and 5 June 2000. The Special Rapporteur also requested an update on the situation of lawyer
          Joilce Gomes Santana.
          Communications from the Government
          59. On 19 June 2000, the Government replied to the allegations concerning
          Henri Burin des Roziers. The Government stated that on 21 May 2000, the Ministry of Justice
          requested the Director General of the Federal Police to present a report on violence related to
          the land conflict in the area under the jurisdiction of the 17th squad of the Military Police of
          Para State. Further, on 31 May 2000 the Minister of Justice appointed Percilio de Souza Lima
          and Maria Eliane Menezes de Farias, members of the Council for the Protection of the Rights
          of the Human Person, to follow the trial of Jeronimo Alves do Amorim. Mr. Burin des Roziers
          was legal counsel for the prosecution in that case. On 6 June 2000 the trial was held,
          Mr. Alves do Amorim was convicted and received a sentence of 19 years and 6 months.
          60. On 23 June 2000, the Government replied to the communications of 30 August
          and 16 November 1999. The Government confirmed that lawyer Jolice Gomes Santana had
          received threats, and stated that the Ministry of Justice had offered to place her under the
          Federal Programme of Assistance to Victims and Threatened Victims. The Ministry of Justice
          also instructed the Federal Police to follow up her case.
          Observations
          61. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its responses. In the case of
          Henri Burin des Roziers, the Government has not responded to the allegation concerning the
          threat to the lawyer.
          Bunindi
          62. The Special Rapporteur has taken note of the report to the General Assembly of the
          Special Rapporteur of the Commission of Human Rights on the situation of human rights in
          Burundi (AI55/358). The report stated (paras. 75-82) that there is a serious problem with the
          slowness of the administration of justice and there was a rising incidence of corruption amongst
          judicial officials. In order temporarily to remedy this situation, the Ministry of Justice had
          sought to strengthen the Prosecutor's Office at the Court of Appeals by assigning teams of
          judges to speed up the investigation of cases. However, the report also noted that the ethnic
          imbalance in the judiciary and the bar still exists, although the proposed creation of a Higher
          School of the Magistrature would be a step towards alleviating this problem.
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 20
          Observation
          63. The Special Rapporteur will continue to liaise with the Special Rapporteur on the
          situation of human rights in Burundi.
          Cameroon
          Communication from the Government
          64. On 22 August 2000, the Government replied to a joint urgent appeal
          dated 26 October 1999, regarding the trial of Mr. Edwin Jumbien, Mr. Hassan Jumban
          and Mr. Simon Ngekqwei (E/CN.4/2000/61, paras. 93-97). The Government stated that the
          individuals concerned were tried by a military tribunal in connection with armed attacks in
          Bamenda in 1997, in accordance with Cameroonian positive law which states that crimes
          committed with the use of a firearm are in the first instance a matter for military tribunals,
          irrespective of the status of the individual. On 5 October 1999 they were sentenced to life
          imprisonment by the military tribunal in Yaoundé. The Government also stated that the
          individuals were assisted by a number of lawyers of their own choosing.
          Observations
          65. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its response. He expresses concern
          over the law which permits trials of civilians by military courts.
          Chile
          Communication to the Government
          66. On 26 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a follow-up communication to
          the Government noting that a response had not been received to the communication
          dated 21 May 1999 (E/CN.4/2000/61, para. 99).
          Observation
          67. The Special Rapporteur awaits the Government's response.
          China
          Communication to the Government
          68. On 3 February 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication to the Government
          requesting a copy of a directive issued by the President of the People's Supreme Court to all
          judges of provincial and military courts to curb nepotism and corruption amongst judges.
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 21
          Communications from the Government
          69. On 22 March 2000, the Government responded to the Special Rapporteur's
          communication of 19 November 1999 (E/CN.4/2000/6 1, paras. 103-104) concerning the
          Falun Gong. The Government stated that in cases against the Falun Gong tried in Beijing, the
          individuals concerned were represented by lawyers of their choosing, who conducted the defence
          independently. The request by the Beijing Bureau of Justice for figures from legal offices on
          requests for consultations related to Falun Gong was of no special significance and was a matter
          of normal professional guidance and administrative routine related to work statistics.
          70. On 16 May 2000 the Government sent a copy of the Provisional Rules for the Conduct of
          Unlawful Trials by Judicial Personnel of the People's Courts, in response to the Special
          Rapporteur's communication of 3 February 2000.
          Observations
          71. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its responses. The notice issued by
          the Beijing Bureau of Justice on 29 July 1999 in connection with the Falun Gong cases could be
          seen to be in breach of principle 16 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers as
          constituting an improper interference with the performance of the functions of lawyers.
          72. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the directive of the President of the People's Supreme
          Court to curb judicial corruption and improprieties.
          Colombia
          Communications to the Government
          73. On 23 May 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the
          Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions regarding lawyer
          Alirio Uribe Müfloz. It was alleged that the name Mr. Uribe Müfloz, a member of the
          José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers Collective, had appeared on a paramilitary death list that was
          circulated on 5 May 2000, on a leaflet alleging an imminent paramilitary offensive in Bogota.
          Mr. Uribe Müfloz, had reportedly been described as a guerrilla collaborator in a Colombian army
          intelligence report.
          74. On 16 June 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication to the Government
          concerning the investigations into the death of Nydia Erika Bautista, after she was abducted by
          soldiers in 1987. A Constitutional Court decision in 1997 had ruled that cases of human rights
          violations should be excluded from military courts, in accordance with United Nations
          recommendations. It was alleged that a decision of a military court had ordered the exhumation
          of the remains of Ms. Bautista. The family of Ms. Bautista filed a petition with a civil judge
          requesting suspension of that order on the basis of concerns about the independence and
          impartiality of the military tribunal. A petition had also been lodged with the Constitutional
          Court requesting the case to be transferred to the ordinary court system.
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 22
          75. On 26 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a follow-up communication to
          the Government noting that a response had not been received to the communication
          dated 18 May 1999 (E/CN.4/2000/61, para. 118).
          Communications from the Government
          76. On 29 May 2000, the Government responded to the Special Rapporteur's urgent appeal
          concerning Alirio Uribe Müfloz. The Government stated that the National Police had made
          arrangements to protect Mr. Uribe Müfloz's life after learning of a report being submitted on the
          matter to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. A security study was conducted in
          coordination with the Bogota Metropolitan Police and the Ministry of the Interior was contacted
          so the case could be studied by the Ministry's Regulations and Risk Evaluation Committee.
          The Government stated it would inform the Special Rapporteur about the outcome of the
          investigations.
          77. On 19 July 2000, the Government responded to the Special Rapporteur's communication
          regarding the investigations into the death of Nydia Erika Bautista. The Government stated that
          on 18 February 2000 the Military High Court confirmed the court order refusing the transferal
          of the case to the ordinary courts. At the request of the claimant, the Military Court of
          Investigation was given responsibility for conducting DNA tests.
          78. With respect to the petition to the Constitutional Court, the Government stated that
          the Constitutional Court had issued its decision on 29 June 2000. The Court overruled the
          decision of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice and annulled a court order
          dated 14 November 1996 by the Disciplinary Division of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary.
          The latter decision resolved the conflict ofjurisdiction between the Office of the Public
          Prosecutor and the 20th National Army Brigade in favour of the military. The Constitutional
          Court ordered the Disciplinary Division of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary to issue a new
          order.
          79. The Government also stated that it considered it to be inappropriate to make
          sweeping judgements about the unsuitability of the military criminal justice system, and that
          the effectiveness of trials taking place before military criminal courts should be judged on a
          case-by-case basis. Also, the military criminal courts had transferred to the ordinary court
          system a total of 529 cases in the last three years, some of which had concerned human rights
          violations.
          80. On 4 August 2000, the Government supplied supplementary information concerning
          Nydia Erika Bautista. The Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary ruled
          on 21 July 2000, that the ordinary criminal courts had jurisdiction in this case.
          81. On 21 December the Government replied to the Special Rapporteur's communication
          of 26 October 2000 regarding proposed legislation which would provide for the continuation of
          the use of faceless judges and prosecutors and secret witnesses in terrorism, torture, drug
          trafficking and illicit enrichment-related criminal trials, and which would provide for detention
          without trial. Law No. 504 of 25 June 1999, in force as of 1 July 1999, developed the
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 23
          constitutional principles of fair trial and independence of the judiciary. This law limited the use
          of faceless judges and prosecutors and secret witnesses to very specific cases. However, by
          judgement C 392/2000, the Constitutional Court declared these provisions unconstitutional.
          82. The Government also sent the following documents during the year on human rights in
          Colombia; Public Force and Human Rights in Colombia on 11 April 2000; Policy on Human
          Rights and International Humanitarian Law Progress Report on 24 July 2000; and Colombia
          Human Rights Observatory on 22 August 2000 and 17 October 2000.
          Observations
          83. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its responses. He is waiting to hear
          the outcome of the investigations into the Alirio Uribe Müfloz case. Conflict between the
          respective jurisdictions of the military courts and ordinary courts have been a problem which the
          Special Rapporteur addressed in his mission report.
          84. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the judgement of the Constitutional Court declaring
          the use of faceless judges and prosecutors and secret witnesses in terrorism, torture, drug
          trafficking and illicit enrichment-related criminal trials, unconstitutional.
          Democratic Republic of the Congo
          Communications to the Government
          85. On 10 May 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the
          Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
          the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
          protection of the freedom of opinion and expression regarding the situation of Freddy Loseke
          Lisunbu La Yayenga. Mr. Loseke Lisunbu, editor of La Libre Afrigue , was detained
          on 31 December 1999 and taken to Kokolo military camp where, it was alleged, he was
          subjected to torture. On 3 May 2000 he was brought before a military court and accused of
          spreading false information and insulting the army, charges that can carry a sentence of 10 years'
          imprisonment.
          86. On 16 November 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special
          Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo regarding
          the trial offourjournalists by a military court ( Cour d'ordre militaire) . Emile-Aimé Kakese was
          arrested after publishing articles that allegedly called upon the opposition to rebel against the
          Government. Jean-Pierre Ekanga Mukana and Richard Nsamba Olongi were arrested after they
          arrived in court to testify on Emile-Aimé Kakese's behalf The lawyer representing
          Emile-Aimé Kakese was also jailed for complicity. The Special Rapporteurs expressed their
          grave concern over the continuing practice in the country, of trying civilians in military courts.
          Observation
          87. The Special Rapporteur expresses concern over the continued failure of the Government
          to respond to his communications.
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 24
          Egypt
          Communication to the Government
          88. On 8 May 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a follow-up letter regarding the situation of
          the Egyptian Bar Association (E/CN.4/2000/61/paras. 143-147). The Special Rapporteur
          expressed his concern that elections still had not been held for the Administrative Council of the
          Bar despite a ruling by the Court of Appeal on 13 July 1999 ordering that those elections take
          place.
          Communications from the Government
          89. On 12 October 2000, the Government sent a communication regarding a decision of the
          Egyptian Constitutional Court of June 2000. The Court found Law No. 153 of 1999, concerning
          non-governmental organizations, to be invalid on procedural grounds. The decision affirmed an
          individual's right to form an association as being an indivisible part of his/her personal freedom.
          90. On 19 October 2000, the Government sent a communication regarding a decision of the
          Egyptian Constitutional Court of 8 July 2000 concerning the constitutionality of article 24 of
          Law No. 73 (1956), which allowed the appointment of persons who were not members of
          judicial bodies to bodies monitoring elections. The court held that the provision breached
          articles 3, 62, 64 and 88 of the Egyptian Constitution as it distanced the polling process from
          judicial supervision, and thereby removed a fundamental safeguard concerning the right to vote.
          The aim of judicial supervision is to “strengthen democracy and ensure that the right to vote is
          exercised fully and in a proper and irreproachable manner in keeping with its designated purpose
          which is to express the sovereignty of the people”.
          91. In its communication of 19 October 2000, the Government also informed the Special
          Rapporteur that the elections for the Administrative Council of the Egyptian Bar Association
          would be held after the legislative elections in October 2000.
          Observations
          92. The Special Rapporteur expresses concern over the delay in holding the elections for the
          Administrative Council of the Bar Association. The Court ruling was issued on 13 July 1999
          and there appeared to be no justification for delaying the elections until after legislative elections
          in October 2000. The Government will be seen to be in breach of principle 24 of the Basic
          Principles on the Role of Lawyers.
          Gambia
          Communication from the Government
          93. On 16 February 2000, the Government responded to the Special Rapporteur's
          communication of 16 November 2000 regarding Justice Robbin-Coker (see E/CN.4/2000/61,
          paras. 150-151). The Government stated that the letter terminating the contractual appointment
          of Justice Robbin-Coker was, in accordance with the law, delivered to his office and received
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 25
          and signed for by his secretary on the day it was issued. Further, the Government stated that it
          had at no time questioned Justice Robbin-Coker with respect to any of his judicial decisions, and
          has complied with the orders made in the cases of the GAMTEL employees.
          94. As Justice Robbin-Coker was not a citizen of the Gambia he could not be employed on a
          permanent basis. His letter of appointment contained some of the governing terms and
          conditions which included the following: “the appointment is terminable either by the
          Government or by yourself giving three month's notice in writing or on the payment of three
          month's salary in lieu of notice”. By virtue of the mutual agreement to this provision, article 141
          of the Constitution cannot be applied in his case. The Government also stated that there were
          serious allegations of corruption on the part of Justice Robbin-Coker which were adequately
          substantiated to the authorities. These can be supplied if required.
          Observation
          95. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its response. He notes that judges
          appointed on contracts generally have no security of tenure; such judges cannot therefore be
          perceived to be independent.
          Guatemala
          Communications to the Government
          96. On 22 February 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication to the
          Government concerning the situation of lawyers Arturo Recinos, Mario A. Menchü Francisco,
          Luis A. Vasquez Menéndez, Luis R. Romero Rivera and Carlos N. Palencia Salazar. These
          lawyers had allegedly been receiving telephone death threats and threatening calls in connection
          with the defence of members of a kidnapping gang. The lawyers were forced to withdraw from
          the case for fear of their lives.
          97. On 1 May 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning the case of a
          former Justice of the Peace in Santa Lucia de Utatlan, Ricardo Efrain Mogollon Mendoza.
          Mr. Mogollon was allegedly removed without due process by the Supreme Court in July 1998.
          After the Special Rapporteur conducted a mission to Guatemala in 1999, he recommended that
          the Supreme Court should review this case, if legally possible. Mr. Mogollon filed a request for
          review of his case with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed. The Special Rapporteur has
          been informed that a petition concerning the dismissal of Ricardo Efrain Mogollon Mendoza has
          been filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
          98. On 2 August 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning a
          government prosecutor, Maura Estrada Mansilla de Perez. It was alleged that the prosecutor
          concerned had repeatedly failed to attend court hearings in a case involving the sexual assault
          of a 15-year-old street girl by a member of the Special Forces of the National Civil Police.
          The information received also stated that the Guatemalan Human Rights Ombudsman,
          José Arango Escobar, concluded that the human rights of the girl had been violated by the
          accused and that the prosecutor was negligent in the performance of her duties.
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 26
          99. On 26 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a follow-up communication to
          the Government noting that a response had not been received to his communications
          dated 22 February, 1 May and 2 August 2000.
          Communication from the Government
          100. On 21 July 2000, the Government sent the Special Rapporteur a copy of Government
          Resolution No. 310-2000. This decree amended the composition of the National Commission
          for Monitoring and Supporting the Strengthening of Justice, ensuring a diversity of judicial,
          executive and civil society representation. The decree also set out the principal objective of the
          Commission as being to draw up and transmit such proposals and recommendations as it may
          consider timely and appropriate for the comprehensive improvement of the system ofjustice in
          Guatemala and to monitor the implementation of the recommendations made in the report of the
          Commission on the Strengthening of Justice, together with those made by the Special Rapporteur
          on the independence of judges and lawyers.
          Observations
          101. The Special Rapporteur is awaiting the Government's response to his previous
          communications.
          102. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the Government's commitment to implementing the
          recommendations outlined in the report on his mission to Guatemala (E/CN.4/2000/6 1/Add. 1,
          para. 169).
          Indonesia
          103. On the invitation of the Attorney-General of Indonesia, the Special Rapporteur attended
          the South Jakarta District Court on 31 August 2000 to observe the opening of the trial of
          H.M. Soeharto, the former President of Indonesia. Mr. Soeharto was being tried on charges of
          corruption during his chairmanship of several charitable foundations while in office as President
          of the Republic of Indonesia.
          104. The Special Rapporteur's interest in the trial stems from the principle that leaders of
          Governments should not enjoy any form of impunity from investigation and prosecution for
          crimes alleged to have been committed by them while in office. When prosecuted they should
          be tried before an independent and impartial tribunal applying the standards for a fair trial
          recognized under international law.
          105. On 31 August 2000, at the commencement of the trial, Mr. Soeharto failed to appear.
          The court, composed of five judges, heard arguments from the counsel for Mr. Soeharto
          informing them that Mr. Soeharto was medically unfit to appear in court and to go through the
          process of the trial. To that extent the court had before it three medical reports including one
          of an examination conducted on Mr. Soeharto at 6 a.m. on 31 August 2000. No fewer
          than 31 doctors had examined Mr. Soeharto.
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 27
          106. In response to the contention of the defence counsel, the prosecutor called for a second
          independent medical examination of Mr. Soeharto. The court, after hearing further arguments,
          adjourned the hearing to 14 September 2000 to hear oral medical evidence on Mr. Soeharto's
          fitness to appear and stand trial.
          107. The Special Rapporteur met the defence counsel and the public prosecutor involved in
          the trial and had discussions with them. The Special Rapporteur was supplied with the medical
          reports by the defence counsel. In the afternoon on 31 August 2000, the Special Rapporteur met
          Mr. Soeharto at his residence in the presence of his doctors and lawyers.
          108. The following day the Special Rapporteur met President Abdurrabman at his residence.
          During this meeting the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General were present.
          109. Among the minimum guarantees of a fair trial, as provided in article 14 (1) of the
          International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are:
          (a) The accused has the right to be informed promptly and in detail in a language
          which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him;
          (b) The accused has the right to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in
          person or through legal assistance of his own choosing;
          (c) The accused has the right to examine, or to have examined, the witnesses against
          him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same
          conditions as witnesses against him.
          110. It therefore follows that what is fundamental to a fair trial, in addition to an independent
          and impartial tribunal, is that the accused should be mentally capable of following the trial
          proceedings, able to instruct his lawyers and to be able to give coherent evidence.
          111. The medical reports presented to the court, while setting out the medical history and
          medical condition of Mr. Soeharto, who was then 79 years old, gave no indication in clear terms
          that Mr. Soeharto was either physically or mentally unfit to stand trial. It was this gap in the
          medical reports which may have led the court to adjourn the proceedings to enable it to examine
          the doctors orally.
          112. The Special Rapporteur, in a short report to both the Attorney-General and defence
          counsel, drew their attention to the case of former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet and how
          the Secretary of State for Home Affairs of the Government of the United Kingdom of
          Great Britain and Northern Ireland dealt with Mr. Pinochet's lawyers' contention that he was not
          medically fit to stand trial. The Special Rapporteur advised that the procedure adopted by the
          Secretary of State in obtaining an independent medical opinion could be followed in the case of
          Mr. Soeharto by the South Jakarta District Court.
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 28
          113. On 14 September 2000, the Special Rapporteur attended court for the adjourned hearing.
          The court, after hearing oral evidence, decided to call for an independent medical examination of
          Mr. Soeharto, to determine whether he was medically unfit to stand trial. The prosecutor
          appealed that decision.
          Communication to the Government
          114. On 26 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a follow-up communication to
          the Government noting that a response had not been received to the communications
          dated 1 March 1999 and 20 July 1999 (E/CN.4/2000/61, paras. 160-162).
          Iran (Islamic Republic of)
          Communications to the Government
          115. On 19 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint communication with the Special
          Representative on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding the
          trial of Ms. Shirin Ebadi and Dr. Mohsen Rahami. Bench 16 of the Tehran Public Court,
          on 29 September 2000, convicted Ms. Ebadi and Dr. Rahami of defamation and disseminating
          false information and sentenced them to a suspended period of imprisonment of 15 months.
          They were also suspended from legal practice for five years. It was alleged that only the
          Disciplinary Court of the Lawyers Association, in accordance with article 17 of the Law on the
          Independence of the Lawyers Association, was able to suspend a lawyer from practice.
          116. The Special Rapporteurs also voiced their concern over statements attributed to
          Mullah Hadi Marvi, First Deputy to the Judiciary Chief Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, stating
          that ‘judges must obey the Supreme Leader and have no independence in judgement”.
          117. The Special Rapporteur has also taken note of the report of the Special Representative
          on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (AI55/363, paras. 32-46, 106).
          The report noted that although reform of the judicial system had been stated as an important
          objective, little progress had been made in that direction. Also, the various components of the
          right to a fair trial seem to be ignored by the judiciary. The Special Representative also
          expressed regret over the seeming inaction by the Independent Bar Association in the face of acts
          of intimidation of lawyers, or with respect to the conduct of the courts and the right to a fair trial.
          Observation
          118. The Special Rapporteur is waiting for a response from the Government.
          Israel
          Communications to the Government
          119. On 4 February 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent appeal with the Special
          Rapporteur on torture regarding Yussuf Mohammed Jum'a Kanan, who was reportedly
          arrested on 18 January 2000 because he was working in a restaurant without a legal work permit.
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 29
          Since that time he has been detained at the General Security Service Interrogation Unit of the
          Shikma Detention Centre in Ashkelon. On 20 January 2000, it was alleged that he was denied
          access to a lawyer and further that an order prohibiting access to counsel has been imposed.
          120. On 26 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a follow-up communication to the
          Government noting that a response had not been received to the communications
          dated 13 January 1999 and 4 February 2000 (E/CN.4/2000/61, paras. 167-168).
          Observation
          121. The Special Rapporteur is waiting for a response from the Government.
          Jamaica
          Communication to the Government
          122. On 5 September 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal concerning the
          harassment of a lawyer, Dahlia Allen. Ms. Allen is representing 20 inmates of St. Catherine
          Adult Correctional Centre, in a commission of inquiry into their alleged mistreatment by prison
          guards. The information received stated that Ms. Allen has been subjected to surveillance and
          her telephone line tapped. Also it was alleged that threats had been made that claim that State
          Security officers associated with St. Catherine's prison are colluding with inmates to have
          Ms. Allen killed.
          Observation
          123. The Special Rapporteur is waiting for a response from the Government.
          Kenya
          Communication to the Government
          124. On 21 September 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication regarding threats
          made against the International Federation of Women Lawyers. The information received stated
          that on 29 August 2000, five police officers had tried to force their way into the association's
          office. Also, three staff members had received anonymous threats that they would be killed
          because of their work. It was alleged that the harassment was particularly linked to their
          provision of legal assistance to an alleged rape victim in bringing a case against a minister in the
          Office of the President.
          Communications from the Government
          125. On 18 February 2000, the Government replied to the Special Rapporteur's
          communication of 5 November 1999 concerning the trial of Tony Gachoka (see
          E/CN.4/2000/61, paras. 187-188). The Government denied that Mr. Gachoka's trial was unfair
          and stated that the court exercised its jurisdiction independently, without any interference from
          the executive or any other quarter.
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 30
          126. On 26 October 2000, the Government replied to the Special Rapporteur's communication
          of2l September 2000. The Government categorically denied being involved in any alleged
          intimidation. The incidents had been reported to the police and the matter was being
          investigated. The Government further stated that if any police officers are found to be involved,
          then they were acting in their personal capacities and will be prosecuted.
          Observation
          127. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its responses. He is waiting to hear
          the outcome of the investigations in the case of the International Federation of Women Lawyers.
          Kyrgyzstan
          Communications to the Government
          128. On 28 April 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning the situation
          of Ms. Nadejda Nikolaevna Maslovets. Ms. Maslovets is the only witness to a murder allegedly
          involving members of the Lenin District Internal Affairs Administration. Since the beginning of
          the trial of these persons she has been threatened with physical injury, offered bribes, and a car
          with black windows and no registration number has frequently been outside her house with two
          or three men inside. On 11 March 2000, she was attacked by the three men. She has reported
          these incidents to the prosecution department, but as at the date of the communication no action
          had been taken.
          129. On 26 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a follow-up communication to
          the Government noting that a response had not been received to the communication
          dated 28 April 2000.
          130. The Special Rapporteur has received information on developments in this case from the
          Special Rapporteur on torture. The Office of the Public Prosecutor carried out an investigation
          into the threats, but it proved impossible to determine who was responsible. Ms. Maslovets was
          unable to identify anyone among staff members of the Lenin District Internal Affairs
          Administration as being her attacker. Ms. Maslovets also stated that she hadn't received any
          threats since 11 March 2000.
          Observation
          131. The Special Rapporteur has not heard anything further on this matter.
          Lebanon
          Communications to the Government
          132. On 9 May 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal with the Special
          Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the freedom of opinion and expression
          concerning lawyer Muhamad Mugraby. On S May 2000, it was reported in a local newspaper
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 31
          that the Prosecutor-General might prosecute Mr. Mugraby for defamation for his statements
          concerning corruption in the judiciary. It was also alleged that Mr. Mugraby might be subject to
          preventive detention. The Press Court, where Mr. Mugraby would be tried, does not have the
          power to order such arrests and furthermore under the code on the legal profession it is illegal to
          prosecute a lawyer before seeking authority from the Council of the Bar.
          133. On 27 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a follow-up communication to
          the Government noting that a response had not been received to the communications
          dated 25 June 1999 (E/CN.4/2000/61, para. 191) and 9 May 2000.
          Communication from the Government
          134. On 2 November 2000, the Government responded to the Special Rapporteur's
          communication of 27 October 2000. With respect to the communication dated 9 May 2000, the
          Government stated the Council of the Bar in Beirut had decided on 19 May 2000 that the actions
          of Mr. Mugraby did not emanate from the exercise of the functions of an advocate nor were they
          situated in that context. The case remains pending against Mr. Mugraby. With respect to the
          communication dated 25 June 1999, the Government stated that the persons responsible for the
          assassination of the judges had not been identified yet, but the investigations were continuing
          and the Government would inform the Special Rapporteur of any developments.
          Observation
          135. The Special Rapporteur will continue to monitor the two cases.
          Malaysia
          136. Former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim continues to be held in custody serving a
          total term of 15 years' imprisonment. His appeal on conviction and sentence in the first trial,
          when he was sentenced to six years' imprisonment on conviction of charges of corruption (not
          monetary, but for interfering with police investigations) is pending before the Federal Court after
          its dismissal by the Court of Appeal.
          137. The appeal on his conviction and sentence of nine years' imprisonment on sodomy
          charges is pending before the Court of Appeal. On both cases he was refused bail, pending
          appeal.
          138. Serious allegations regarding the unfairness of both trials have been made by his counsel
          and those who have observed or followed the trial both within and outside Malaysia.
          139. In another related case lawyer Zainur Zakaria, a former President of the Malaysian Bar
          and one of Anwar Ibrahim's defence lawyers, was charged with contempt and sentenced to three
          months' imprisonment. His offence was that he filed an application on behalf of Anwar Ibrahim
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 32
          to urge the court to disqualify two of the prosecutors. Zainur Zakaria was released on bail and
          his appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. He has now appealed to the Federal Court.
          The appeal will be heard on 29 January 2001.
          140. In yet another related case, on 4 January 2000, lawyer Karpal Singh, the lead lawyer in
          the second trial of Anwar Ibrahim, was charged with sedition for words he spoke in court
          on 10 September 1999 in the course of defending his client. His trial is now fixed for hearing
          on 18 May 2001. The Special Rapporteur sent a communication to the Government on this
          matter on 14 January 2000. The Government replied on 10 April 2000 stating that it could not
          substantively reply to the Special Rapporteur's concerns as the matter was before the courts and
          any comment would be pre-empting the decision of the court.
          141. In another earlier case, lawyer Tommy Thomas, a former Secretary of the Bar Council,
          was charged with contempt of court over a press statement he made in connection with a
          settlement agreement earlier recorded in the same court. The day after the press statement was
          published he retracted the statement publicly, before he was cited for contempt. He was
          sentenced to six months' imprisonment. He was released on bail. His appeal was heard by the
          Court of Appeal and judgement has not been delivered.
          142. In yet another development, the High Court granted an injunction at the behest of a
          lawyer to restrain the Malaysian Bar Council, the executive body of the 9,000-member
          Malaysian Bar, from convening an Extraordinary General Meeting to discuss improprieties in
          the Malaysian judiciary. The court held that the conduct ofjudges and the judiciary cannot be
          discussed save in parliament. The appeal from this judgement was dismissed by the Court
          of Appeal. Leave to appeal against that decision was refused by the Federal Court
          on 29 November 2000. Therefore, in Malaysia today the conduct ofjudges cannot be discussed
          by anyone, not even the legal profession, in a closed-door meeting, except in parliament.
          143. These judgements on the conduct of judges were delivered at a time of controversy
          regarding allegations of misconduct by the Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tun Eusoff Chin, who
          retired from the bench on 19 December 2000. It was alleged that he had travelled to
          New Zealand on holiday with a lawyer in 1995 and subsequently sat on appeals where the
          particular lawyer appeared and obtained favourable judgements. The Chief Justice's public
          statement that he merely met the lawyer and his family by chance in New Zealand was refuted
          when private investigation reports showed that he and the lawyer, and their respective families,
          had travelled together and returned together.
          Defamation suits against the Special Rapporteur
          144. In his last report to the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/2000/61, paras. 195-205),
          the Special Rapporteur drew the Commission's attention to the fact that the Malaysian High
          Court had dismissed his application to strike down one of the four defamation suits pending
          against him, despite the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 33
          145. The Special Rapporteur appealed from the decision of the Registrar of the High Court to
          ajudge of the High Court. The judge heard the appeal and delivered judgement on 7 July 2000.
          In his judgement the judge agreed that the Court was bound by the advisory opinion of the ICJ
          and therefore struck down the suit. However, with regard to costs the judge ordered that
          “each party ought to bear its own costs” and gave the following grounds for the order:
          (a) That the Special Rapporteur made damaging and disparaging statements about the
          plaintiffs, their lawyer and the judiciary in most unpalatable terms;
          (b) That the Special Rapporteur breached the basic law of failing to give the right to
          be heard to the plaintiffs or their lawyer or the judiciary;
          (c) That the Special Rapporteur was incapable of holding an independent view on
          matters concerning the judiciary and lawyers in Malaysia and had shown total disregard for the
          word “impartial”;
          (d) That the Commission on Human Rights should have chosen a non-citizen to
          comment on the independence of the country's judges and lawyers;
          (e) That the Special Rapporteur neither talked nor wrote to the plaintiffs or to the
          judiciary to seek their views.
          146. The judge came to these conclusions without hearing any arguments from the counsel on
          costs. Further, he went into the merits of the case, which were not at issue before the court, and
          there was no evidence whatsoever before him for him to be able to make such a finding. These
          findings and the terms in which they were expressed clearly indicated that the judge was
          prejudiced, for reasons best known to himself
          147. In a press release from Geneva, the Centre for the Independence of Judges and Lawyers
          described that part of the judgement as “more partisan than judicial”.
          148. The Secretary-General of the United Nations, in a letter dated 24 July 2000 to the
          President of the Economic and Social Council, described those findings as “grounds that the
          United Nations finds unacceptable”.
          149. After consultations with legal counsel, the Special Rapporteur decided not to appeal that
          part of the judgement.
          150. Three more suits are still pending before the courts and have not been disposed of
          151. Four international legal associations, namely the International Bar Association, the
          International Commission of Jurists, the Commonwealth Lawyers' Association and the
          Union internationale des advocats, after a joint mission to Malaysia in April 1999 issued ajoint
          report called “Justice in Jeopardy: Malaysia 2000”. The mission concluded that the concerns
          expressed regarding the independence of the judiciary over the last 13 years were well founded.
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 34
          152. A positive development was the appointment of the new Chief Justice,
          Tan Sri Mohamad Dzaiddin Abdullah, a former Vice-President of the Malaysian Bar and judge
          of the Federal Court, which was enthusiastically welcomed by all, including the Malaysian Bar
          and the media. The new Chief Justice has pledged to restore public confidence in the judiciary
          and has taken certain measures to that end.
          153. On 1 January 2001 a new Attorney-General was also appointed. Dato' Ainum
          Mohd Saaid is the first woman in Malaysia to be appointed to this high office. Her appointment
          was welcomed by all quarters.
          Mexico
          Communications to the Government
          154. On 9 May 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication to the Government
          concerning the situation of lawyer Juan de Dios Hernandez Monge. Mr. Hernandez represents a
          group of students from the National Autonomous University of Mexico who are currently in
          detention. On 3 May 2000, he was attacked by a man whilst in his car at a set of traffic lights.
          The man asked whether he was the lawyer for the above-mentioned students, then insulted him
          and cut his forehead. Previously, on 2 January 2000, Mr. Hernandez was beaten by unknown
          men in the parking lot of the National Autonomous University. It was alleged that despite the
          incident having been reported to the police, no investigation has taken place.
          155. On 5 June 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning lawyers
          Leonel Guadalupe Rivero Rodriguez, Maurilio Santiago Reyes and Maria del Pilar Marroquin.
          On 29 March 2000, Mr. Rivero Rodriguez's house was burgled in an apparent attempt to steal
          files relating to his defence of students of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
          On 12 May 2000, several rocks were thrown through the windows of his house. On 9 May 2000,
          Mr. Santiago Reyes and Ms. Marroquin were subjected to acts of intimidation: a van without
          number plates drove repeatedly past Mr. Santiago Reyes' house and that night they received
          several phone calls threatening to “go for your head”.
          156. On 26 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a follow-up communication to
          the Government noting that a response had not been received to the communication
          dated 5 June 2000.
          Communications from the Government
          157. On 26 May 2000, the Government supplied additional information concerning
          Digna Ochoa y Placido and the Miguel Agustin Pro-Juarez Human Rights Centre. The
          Government stated that the Office of the Procurator-General of the Federal District was
          conducting an investigation into the alleged threats to the Centre. On 5 November 1999, the
          Centre was placed under special surveillance by the Judicial Police of the Federal District
          and an offer was made to Ms. Ochoa to provide for her personal safety, which she accepted
          on 18 November 1999. She is currently being protected by three female Judicial Police officers.
          On 4 November 1999, an order was made to the Judicial Police to provide 24-hour protection to
          the Centre.
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 35
          158. On 16 July 2000, the Government sent a response to the communication concerning
          Juan de Dios Hernández Monge. The Government stated that the Office of the Attorney-General
          for the Federal District had initiated an inquiryjointly with the branch office of the public
          prosecutors office in Coyocán. On 1 March 2000, a proposal was made not to initiate criminal
          proceedings, as the complainant had not appeared despite having been summoned. Further, the
          National Human Rights Commission received a letter of complaint on 6 January 2000, but
          considered that the factual elements, which did not suggest that any federal authority was
          involved, did not permit it to intervene in this case. It was therefore the responsibility of the
          public prosecutor to investigate the matter.
          159. On 1 November 2000, the Government sent a response to the communication
          concerning Leonel Guadalupe Rivero RodrIguez and Maurilio Santiago Reyes and
          Milar del Pilar MarroquIn. The Government stated that the Office of the State
          Procurator-General had initiated a preliminary investigation which was currently being
          completed. Also, the Oaxaca Procurator-General reported that the lawyers concerned stated, on
          10 July 2000, that they did not wish to be seen by the psychology expert from the Procurator's
          Office, which is a requirement for the completion of a preliminary investigation concerning the
          offence of threatening behaviour. They also stated that they did not wish to provide additional
          information for the investigation.
          Observation
          160. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its responses.
          Myanmar
          161. The Special Rapporteur has taken note of the report of the Special Rapporteur on
          the Commission of Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (AI55/359,
          paras. 27-29). The report stated that “the administration of justice is greatly marked by legal and
          factual constraints that are inconsistent with judicial independence. Not only are the courts not
          independent but they are also powerless in protecting the rights of victims in violations of their
          basic rights”. The report also noted that there was a lack of information on whether the system
          of the administration ofjustice had changed or as to whether repressive laws from the former
          colonial regime were no longer being applied in a manner that violated fundamental
          human rights.
          Observation
          162. The Special Rapporteur will continue to monitor the situation.
          Nepal
          Communication to the Government
          163. On 3 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning certain
          police activities that undermine the independence of the judiciary. The allegation stated that in
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 36
          several cases the police had ignored judicial decisions requiring the release of prisoners illegally
          held in custody. In one case concerning Mr. Tara Bhusal, the police entered the court building to
          rearrest Mr. Bhusal several hours after a court decision had ordered him to be released from
          custody. In another case, Mr. Nar Bahadur Ale has been rearrested eight times in defiance of
          court orders releasing him from detention.
          Communication from the Government
          164. On 9 October 2000, the Government acknowledged receipt of the Special Rapporteur's
          communication of 3 October 2000. The Government further stated Mr. Tara Prasad Bhusal is
          not under police detention, and is currently in his village.
          Observation
          165. The Special Rapporteur is waiting for a response from the Government.
          Pakistan
          Communications to the Government
          166. On 14 March 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning lawyer
          Iqbal Raad. On 10 March 2000, four gunmen killed Mr. Raad, a defence lawyer of former
          Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and three others in Mr. Raad's Karachi office. As a result
          Mr. Sharif's other defence lawyers have decided not to appear in court because of concern that
          an attempt would be made on their lives.
          167. On 28 April 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning the situation
          of Judge Malik Qayyum. It was alleged that the military regime is considering promoting
          Judge Qayyum to the position of Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, despite his lack of
          appropriate qualifications.
          168. On 28 April 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning the
          situation of Dr. Farooq Sattar, a former Mayor of Karachi. On 26 November 2000, Dr. Sattar
          was arrested and taken to a military base in Karachi. On 7 February 2000 he was brought before
          the Public Accountability Court in Karachi, but not informed of the charges against him and
          on 23 February 2000, Dr. Sattar was transferred to Attock Fort. It is alleged that at Attock Fort
          there is no lawyer-client confidentiality as all conversations between lawyers and their clients are
          recorded.
          169. On 26 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a follow-up communication to the
          Government noting that a response had not been received to the communications
          dated 22 February 1999 (E/CN.4/2000/61, para. 219), 21 May 1999 (E/CN.4/2000/61,
          para. 221), 14 March 2000, and two communications dated 28 April2000.
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 37
          Observations
          170. The Special Rapporteur wishes to express his concern over the continued failure of the
          Government to respond to his communications. The Special Rapporteur continues to receive
          complaints over the Senator Asif Ali Zaidari case.
          Palestine
          Communication to the Government
          171. On 11 February 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning the
          situation of some judges and members of the prosecution in the West Bank who have declared a
          strike. The strike was declared as the result of a mob of people storming the Court of First
          Instance in Bethlehem on 6 February 2000. The mob locked the judges and the prosecutor inside
          the court building and demanded that a 15-year sentence imposed on Ibrahim and Nidal Obeyad
          be withdrawn. It was alleged that some members of the mob were dressed in military clothing.
          172. On 17 May 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning the
          Palestinian Bar Association. On 10 May 2000, the Acting Council of the Palestinian Bar
          Association notified 31 lawyers that they were being transferred from the list of practising
          lawyers to the list of non-practising lawyers, depriving them of the right to appear before
          Palestinian courts. Many of the lawyers removed were from human rights organizations.
          This decision was taken on the last day before the expiry of the term of the Acting Council,
          which had been appointed by President Arafat three years previously.
          173. On 19 May 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning the
          situation of lawyer Khader Shkirat who is the Director of the Palestinian Society for the
          Protection of Human Rights and the Environment (LAW). It was alleged that
          Brigadier General Tawfeeq Al Tirawi, Chief of General Intelligence in the Northern Districts,
          had asked the Deputy Head of the Bar to dismiss Mr. Shkirat. The Deputy Head rejected the
          request and advised Brigadier General Al Tirwai to lodge a formal complaint with the Bar. It
          was further alleged that in response to a statement by Mr. Shkirat on 27 April 2000 that the
          weakness of the Bar could be due to the fact that many of its members work for the security
          forces, the Deputy Head publicly threatened to kill Mr. Shkirat. On 7 May 2000, the Al Hayat
          Al Jadida newspaper published a statement by the Head of the Bar Association to the effect that
          a director of an NGO should not be permitted to be a member of the Bar.
          174. On 26 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a follow-up communication to the
          Government noting that a response had not been received to the communication
          dated 11 February 2000.
          Communications from the Government
          175. On 2 June 2000, the Government acknowledged receipt of the Special Rapporteur's
          communication of 19 May 2000.
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 38
          176. On 5 June 2000, the Government referred to its letter of 2 June 2000, and the Special
          Rapporteur's of 17 May 2000, and stated that the Palestinian Authority has nothing to do with
          the circumstances contained in those communications. The party involved is the Bar
          Association, in whose internal affairs the Palestinian Authority cannot interfere.
          Observation
          177. The Special Rapporteur is awaiting a response to his communication
          of 11 February 2000.
          Panama
          Communication to the Government
          178. On 22 August 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication regarding the
          situation of a former Justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Oscar Ceville. Mr. Ceville had been
          appointed to the Fifth Chamber of the Supreme Court for a period of 10 years. In October 1999,
          legislation was passed abolishing the Fifth Chamber, and Mr. Ceville lost his judicial office.
          In November 1999, a petition was lodged challenging the abolishment of the Fifth Chamber of
          the Supreme Court, but as at the date of the communication, it was alleged that the court had not
          acted upon the case file.
          Communications from the Government
          179. On 8 September 2000, the Government replied to the communication concerning
          Oscar Ceville. The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that the Supreme Court of
          Justice is currently dealing with or has delivered its verdict in six cases concerning the abolition
          of the Fifth Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. With respect to the petition lodged
          on 2 November 1999, initially Judge Edgardo Molina Mola was appointed reporting judge, but
          he declared himself incompetent to assume jurisdiction over the case on 11 November 2000.
          On 22 November 2000, the Plenary Court ruled this declaration illegal, but Judge Molina Mola
          took no action in this case and his jurisdiction lapsed on 31 December 1999. He was replaced by
          Judge Arnulfo Arjona who likewise declared himself incompetent to assume jurisdiction, which
          was similarly rejected by the Plenary Court on 21 January 2000.
          180. On 11 February 2000, the case was declared admissible and the court requested the
          Procurator-General to provide an opinion, which was provided on 31 March 2000. Counsel
          was also permitted to submit written argument. On 30 June 2000, the case was referred to the
          reporting judge to draft ajudgement for submission to the Plenary Court. Two other challenges
          to the constitutionality of Law No. 49 of 24 October 1999, which abolished the Fifth Chamber of
          the Supreme Court, were lodged on 18 June and 28 June 2000.
          181. On 24 October 1999, the Fifth Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled an amparo
          proceeding brought by Judges Elitza Cedeflo, Mariblanca Staff and Oscar Ceville admissible.
          The Legislative Assembly lodged an application for clarification and amendment of this decision
          on 28 October 1999. On 25 February 2000, the Plenary Court ruled this application inadmissible
          and ordered the proceedings to be referred back to the Secretariat of the Supreme Court.
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 39
          The Court further stated that the grounds of nullity contained in article 722.1 of the Judicial
          Code, referring to the transfer of jurisdiction, are fulfilled in this case “because the power to
          exercise jurisdiction over amparo and habeas corpus proceedings conferred on the Fifth Division
          was reassigned to the Plenary Court, by means of Law No. 49 of 24 October 1999”. Pursuant to
          this the case file is held by Judge Aguilera de Franceschi, after which normal proceedings will
          continue in due course.
          Observation
          182. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its response. The abolition of the
          Fifth Chamber, with its judges not reassigned to another court or given adequate compensation,
          must be seen as an indirect way of removing judges arbitrarily without due process.
          Peru
          Communications from the Government
          183. On 1 March 2000, the Government responded to the Special Rapporteur's
          communication of 28 June 1999 (E/CN.4/2000/61, paras. 235-236) concerning
          Judge Antonia Saquicuray Sanchez (see E/CN.4/2000/61, paras. 235-236). The Government
          stated that Judge Saquicuray was appointed to the District Judiciary Inspection
          Commission (ODICMA), in accordance with article 2 of Administrative Decision
          No. 197-96-SE-TP-CME-PF of 24 May 1996. This provision stipulates that Presidents of the
          High Courts of Justice, as part of their inspection functions, shall be responsible for appointing
          judges to the District Judiciary Inspection Commission, on informing the Judiciary Inspection
          Office. Judge Saquicuray assumed the new post on 14 May 1999, without administrative
          challenge and will return to the court on completion of her duties.
          Observations
          184. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its response but notes that it has not
          responded to the allegations of an improper motive in the transfer.
          Senegal
          Communication to the Government
          185. On 28 July 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint intervention with the Special
          Rapporteur on torture concerning the trial of Hissène Habré. On 30 June 2000, the Superior
          Council of the Magistracy was convened, presided over by President Wade and the Minister of
          Justice. The Council decided to transfer Judge Demba Kandji, the judge responsible for the
          indictment of Mr. Habré, from his position as Chief Investigating Judge of the Dakar Regional
          Court to become the Assistant State Prosecutor at the Dakar Court of Appeals. The Council also
          promoted Cheikh Tidiane Diakhaté, President of the Indicting Chamber, before whom a motion
          to dismiss the charges against Mr. Habré was sub judice, to the State Council. On 4 July 2000,
          all charges of torture were dismissed against Mr. Habré. Also, since 12 April 2000,
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 40
          Madické Niang, Mr. Habré's principal lawyer, had been acting as President Wade's Special
          Adviser on judicial matters. In view of the seriousness of the matter, the Special Rapporteur
          issued a press release with the Special Rapporteur on torture expressing their concerns.
          Communications from the Government
          186. On 9 November 2000, the Special Rapporteur received a reply to his communication.
          The Government stated that the Indicting Chamber had dismissed the charges against
          Hisséne Habré without any pressure from the Government, solely on the basis of legal principles
          in force in Senegal, in particular the principle of territorial jurisdiction. In this connection, the
          Government recalled that the charges against Mr. Habré related to acts committed outside
          Senegal. Further, the charges were based exclusively on international law which has no basis in
          national law. Moreover, the Government stated that the application of the Convention is not
          automatic, since article 79 of the Constitution acknowledges the superiority of treaties on
          condition of reciprocal application by other parties to the treaty, evidence of which would be
          uncertain in the present case. A cassation appeal is available against the judgement.
          187. With regard to the concerns expressed, the Government explains that Mr. Diakhaté, who
          delivered the judgement, was not sitting as a single judge, but that it was the Chamber as a whole
          that declared the Court had no jurisdiction. His promotion can thus not be seen as a reward for
          this judgement. Further, the promotion of Mr. Kandji cannot be seen as punishment for the
          lawful and careful decision of having indicted Mr. Habré. The Government indicates that both
          promotions should be seen in the light of the seniority and experience of Mr. Diakhaté and
          Mr. Kandji. With regard to the appointment of Mr. Madicke Niang as the President's Special
          Adviser, the Government denies any connection with the case against Mr. Habré.
          188. As to the independence of the judiciary in general, the Government notes that the judicial
          power is organized according to the Basic Law, which establishes the security of tenure of
          judges. All judicial appointments are made upon proposal by the Minister of Justice, after advice
          from the Superior Council of the Magistracy. This procedure was followed in the present case.
          The Government observes that no judge can refuse to be transferred to another judicial post on
          the basis of personal interest, the exigencies of service taking priority. In case a judge challenges
          an appointment, ajudicial remedy is available for abuse of power.
          Observation
          189. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its response. The timing of the
          transfer of Judge Demba Kandj i gave the appearance of executive interference.
          Slovakia
          Communications to the Government
          190. On 28 September 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal concerning the
          situation of Dr. Stefan Harabin. It was alleged that a proposal, approved by the Minister of
          Justice, had been submitted to the National Council of the Slovak Republic for the removal of
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 41
          Dr. Harabin. This was stated to be contrary to the Constitution, as none of the grounds for the
          removal of a judge from office were met in Dr. Harabin's case, and his five-year term had not
          yet expired.
          191. On 13 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a follow-up urgent appeal concerning
          Dr. Stefan Harabin. The Special Rapporteur stated his view that appointments to the position of
          Vice-President or President of a court constitute a promotion and judges in these positions
          should be subject to removal only on the grounds contained in the Constitution, otherwise their
          fixed term of appointment would be meaningless.
          192. On 1 November 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication requesting, in light
          of the Government's communication of 23 October 2000 and his continuing concerns about the
          situation, permission to conduct an in situ mission in the week commencing 20 November 2000.
          Communications from the Government
          193. On 23 October 2000, the Government responded to the Special Rapporteur's urgent
          appeals dated 28 September and 13 October 2000. According to the Slovak Constitution and Act
          No. 335/1991 on Courts and Judges, the President and Vice President of the Supreme Court shall
          be elected for a period of five years, based on the proposal of the Government, and can be
          recalled from those positions. The recall from such a position does not, however, result in loss
          of the position as judge of the respective court. The Council of Judges of the Supreme Court and
          the Council of Judges of the Slovak Republic issue opinions on proposed judicial appointments
          that have only an advisory character.
          194. The Government stated that when Dr. Harabin was elected President of the Supreme
          Court in February 1998, both the Council and the Association of Judges expressed a negative
          opinion on his appointment. The Government also cited other incidents as calling into question
          Dr. Harabin's credibility and providing a basis for removal. Dr. Harabin did not participate in
          Ministry of Justice initiatives to eliminate corruption from the justice system and expressed
          negative views on the measures adopted. In 1999, Dr. Harabin refused to fill in a statement
          concerning his personal finances, claiming the request had no legal basis. In a letter to the head
          of the unit in charge of Slovakia's application for EU membership dated 16 June 2000,
          Dr. Harabin claimed that, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, the Council of Judges of the
          Supreme Court and many other judges, the proposed amendments to the Slovak Republic
          Constitution are not consistent with the separation of powers. The Government stated that the
          Council of Judges of the Slovak Republic and the Association of Judges of the Slovak Republic
          support the proposed amendments. The Government further cites the decision of the
          Constitutional Court No. Il-US 17/00 of 15 March 2000, which declared the removal of the
          Vice-Chairman of the Supreme Court by the Government to be constitutional.
          195. On 6 November 2000, the Government acknowledged receipt of the request for a mission
          and informed the Special Rapporteur that the request had been sent to the appropriate authorities.
          The mission of the Special Rapporteur took place from 27 to 30 November 2000.
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 42
          Observations
          196. For further reference please see the report of the mission to the Slovak Republic
          (E/CN.4/200 1/65/Add.3).
          South Africa
          197. Since the conclusion of the mission to South Africa the Special Rapporteur has received
          information that the policy unit of the Ministry of Justice has produced a draft Legal Practice
          Bill. This has been described by the Minister of Justice as a “draft working document”, for
          discussion purposes only. The present draft is in fact the third draft.
          198. Controversy has arisen over the composition of the statutory council, headed by ajudge,
          that will effectively assume the power and functions of the four provincial law societies that exist
          to represent attorneys, the Law Society of South Africa, as well as the General Council of the
          Bar which represents advocates. Of concern to the lawyers is that this proposed statutory council
          will be composed of persons the majority of whom are not from the ranks of the legal profession
          and is viewed as a threat to an independent legal profession.
          199. The Government is reported to have justified such a composition on the basis of
          comparative legislation which establishes councils in the health, accounting, engineering,
          architecture, estate agency and quantity surveying professions and which have a similar
          composition.
          200. The Special Rapporteur has written directly to the Minister of Justice expressing his
          concerns and has clarified why the legal profession in a democratic society is different from the
          other professions.
          201. The Special Rapporteur will continue to monitor developments.
          Spain
          Communications to the Government
          202. On 13 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning the
          murder of the Chief Prosecutor of the Andalucia Regional Court, Mr. Luis Portero.
          On 9 October 2000, Mr. Portero was murdered outside his house in Granada, allegedly by
          the Basque separatist group Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA).
          203. On 11 November 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning
          the murder of Supreme Court Justice José Francisco Querol, also allegedly by ETA. The
          Special Rapporteur noted that although he is aware that the Government is concerned about these
          developments, it is necessary that the Government take appropriate steps to ensure that members
          of the judiciary, prosecutors and lawyers are provided with adequate security.
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 43
          Communication from the Government
          204. On 8 December 2000, the Government responded to the Special Rapporteur's
          communication of 13 October 2000. The Government stated that it provides proper protection
          to prosecutors and judges as it does to all citizens. In relation to the murder of Dr. Luis Portero,
          the State security forces had detained those thought to be responsible for the murder, who are
          waiting to be tried.
          Observation
          205. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its response.
          Sri Lanka
          Communications to the Government
          206. On 17 January 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication concerning the
          murder of lawyer Kumar Ponnambalam. Mr. Ponnambalam, a prominent lawyer who
          represented many clients in human rights cases, was shot five times on 5 January 2000. It was
          alleged that he was assassinated because of his effective defence of his clients.
          207. On 11 August 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a follow-up letter regarding the murder
          of lawyer Kumar Ponnambalam.
          208. In his report to the Commission (E/CN.4/2000/61, paras. 251 and 259) the Special
          Rapporteur referred to the controversy over the appointment of the Chief Justice, who had been
          the former Attorney-General. The Special Rapporteur also referred to two petitions before the
          Supreme Court to strike the Attorney-General off the roll of advocates for misconduct. The
          Special Rapporteur has been informed that the petitions have not been heard. Preliminary
          objections on the composition of the Supreme Court to hear the petitions have been heard but no
          judgement has been delivered.
          Communication from the Government
          209. On 18 August 2000, the Government responded to the Special Rapporteur's
          communication of 11 August 2000. The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that the
          assassination of Mr. Ponnambalam was under judicial investigation and that further details
          would be communicated once judicial investigations were completed.
          Observations
          210. The Special Rapporteur expresses concern over the delay in investigations into the
          murder of Kumar Ponnambalam and calls upon the Government to expedite and apprehend the
          perpetrators of this brutal murder.
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 44
          211. In his sixth report to the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/2000/61, para. 252) the
          Special Rapporteur referred to the urgent appeal he sent to the Government concerning the
          criminal prosecution of Dr. Jayalath Jayawardena, a member of Parliament. In an addendum to
          the same report (E/CN.4/2000/61/Add.2) the Special Rapporteur referred to the Government's
          communication in response.
          212. The Special Rapporteur is pleased to report that Dr. Jayawardena was acquitted of the
          charges in the first prosecution. The second prosecution, on similar charges, has not been
          withdrawn. That prosecution has been fixed for trial on 26 February 2001.
          United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
          213. The Special Rapporteur continues to monitor closely the investigations into the appalling
          murders of Rosemary Nelson and Patrick Finucane and the continuing harassment of defence
          lawyers in Northern Ireland.
          214. During the fifty-sixth session of the Commission on Human Rights the United Kingdom
          Government stated that it would not respond during the Commission to the concerns contained in
          the Special Rapporteur's general report (E/CN.4/2000/61, paras. 303-322); rather, it would
          respond directly to the Special Rapporteur at a later date. The Special Rapporteur regrets that as
          at the date of the writing of this report, he had not received a response.
          Murder of Patrick Finucane
          215. The investigation by Sir John Stevens, Commissioner of the Metropolian Police,
          continued during the year without reaching a final conclusion. William Stobie, who was charged
          with the murder of Patrick Finucane in June 1999, is now expected to stand trial, only for aiding
          and abetting in the murder, later in 2001. In this respect, the Special Rapporteur wishes to refer
          to the concerns raised in his report to the fifty-sixth session of the Commission on Human Rights
          (E/CN. 4/2000/61, paras. 315 and 316). No further arrests were made during the year for the
          murder, although there were reports of charges being laid for connected incidents of “possession
          of information useful to terrorists”.
          216. On 1 March 2000, the Special Rapporteur received a communication from the Stevens
          Investigation office stating that Deputy Assistant Commissioner Hugh Orde had taken over the
          day-to-day responsibility for the investigation. The Special Rapporteur met with the
          Deputy Assistant Commissioner in Geneva on 9 June 2000, when matters concerning the status
          of the investigations were discussed. The Special Rapporteur requested that the reports of the
          previous investigations carried out by Sir John Stevens be released to him.
          217. On 14 June 2000, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner indicated in a letter that the Chief
          Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) did not think it would be appropriate to
          release the Stevens reports, both I and II, to the Special Rapporteur.
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 45
          218. On 5 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur again met the Deputy Assistant
          Commissioner in Belfast where the status of the investigations were discussed. In a
          communication on 6 October 2000, Mr. Orde clarified the fact that the “Stevens III ”
          investigation is the first and only time that Sir John Stevens had been requested by the Chief
          Constable of the RUC to investigate the murder of Patrick Finucane. While the murder of
          Mr. Finucane would have featured in the previous investigations, “the clear and absolute
          responsibility” lay with the RUC until 19 April 1999.
          219. On 11 September 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a letter to Prime Minister, Tony Blair
          following the Prime Minister's meeting with the Finucane family and the representatives of
          British Irish Rights Watch and the Committee on the Administration of Justice. The Special
          Rapporteur expressed his concern over the murder of Patrick Finucane and reiterated his call for
          an independent public inquiry. The Special Rapporteur stated that “from the information and
          facts I have gathered there is reason to believe that at the material time the relevant authorities in
          Northern Ireland knew or ought to have known that Patrick Finucane's life was threatened”.
          Further, the allegations of possible collusion between military intelligence and the RUC cannot
          be dealt with fully by the current police investigation. This form of investigation can only
          investigate criminal offences and therefore will not result in recommendations to prevent such
          malpractice in the future; this can only be achieved by a public inquiry. To date the Special
          Rapporteur has not received a response from the Prime Minister.
          Murder of Rosemary Nelson
          220. The investigation into the murder of Rosemary Nelson also continued this year without
          reaching a final conclusion. The investigation has continued for two years and cost an estimated
          £3 million. The Special Rapporteur has had meetings with Mr. Cohn Port who is leading the
          investigations into the murder. Though considerable progress is said to have been made towards
          identifying the perpetrators, it remains to be seen whether sufficient evidence will be available
          for a successful prosecution. The Special Rapporteur is also concerned about possible leaks
          from the investigation that may be undermining the integrity and efficacy of the investigation.
          221. The Special Rapporteur is particularly concerned about the continuing failure of the
          Chief Constable of the RUC to respond in writing to questions asked by various NOOs regarding
          the steps taken to investigate the threats made against Rosemary Nelson before her death. The
          Special Rapporteur has been informed that the Committee on the Administration of Justice has
          lodged a confidential complaint with the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland regarding the
          alleged failure of the Chief Constable of the RUC to properly investigate the threats made
          against Rosemary Nelson prior to her murder.
          Harassment of defence lawyers
          222. On 19 July 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication regarding the safety of
          lawyer Padraigin Drinan. According to the information received, members of the RUC in
          Lurgan had threatened to charge Ms. Drinan with obstruction in the context of the professional
          advice she provided to her clients. Further, although Ms. Drinan had been accepted under the
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 46
          Key Persons Protection Scheme as a person at risk of being subjected to violence, sufficient
          security measures were not in place. At that time, during “marching season”, the implementation
          of security measures had only been partially completed and others were not going to be
          completed until the end of the year.
          223. On 15 November 2000, the Government responded to the Special Rapporteur's
          communications of 19 July and 26 October 2000. The Government stated that after initial
          difficulties in arranging an appointment to conduct a site meeting to discuss necessary security
          measures, an appointment was made on 21 April 2000. After this meeting, and after a
          determination of costs was made, the work was approved on 25 May 2000. Construction
          Services contacted Ms Drinan but were informed that she was unavailable until 20 June 2000.
          On that date Ms. Drinan was informed that some security measures would be installed before the
          contractors' July holidays, but others could not. Ms. Drinan expressed concern and was advised
          to contact the Police Division to arrange interim protection measures. Ms. Drinan denies being
          advised of the delays.
          224. On 28 June 2000, Ms. Drinan expressed concern to the Police Division that the work had
          not commenced. The work commenced on 29 June 2000. Also on 29 June 2000, Ms. Drinan
          was informed that a new front door could be installed on 5 July 2000, and was offered interim
          protection measures. Ms. Drinan refused these stating that 5 July was too late as the Drumcree
          march would have started by then.
          225. The Government also informed the Special Rapporteur that police investigations into two
          incidents involving Ms. Drinan were being supervised by the Independent Commission for
          Police Complaints. The investigations concern an incident that took place between Ms. Drinan
          and RUC officers at Lurgan Station on 1 July 2000 and a second incident on 24 July 2000 when
          Ms. Drinan's car was forced off the road by an unmarked vehicle in the Lurgan area.
          226. The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Ms. Nuala O'Loan, indicated in a letter
          dated 10 November 2000 that she was conducting a review of these matters.
          Review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland
          227. In March 2000, the Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland was
          completed and its report published. The Special Rapporteur would like to note chapter 3,
          paragraph 53 of that report which states, inter alia , “We agree with the Special Rapporteur on the
          Independence of Judges and Lawyers that government has a responsibility to provide the
          machinery for an effective and independent investigation of all threats made against lawyers and
          note the role of the Police Ombudsman if such allegations relate to the actions of police officers.
          Further, we endorse his recommendation that training seminars should be organized to enable
          police officers and members of other criminal justice agencies to appreciate the important role
          that defence lawyers play in the administration of justice and the nature of their relationship with
          their clients.”
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 47
          Observations
          228. The Special Rapporteur reiterates his earlier calls for ajudicial commission of inquiry
          into the Patrick Finucane murder. It is now nearly two years since the murder of
          Rosemary Nelson. Though some progress is said to have been made, the delay in concluding
          the investigations is a source of concern. In order to avoid any allegation of impunity being
          levelled against the Government over these murders, it is in its interest to set up a judicial
          commission of inquiry into both murders. The Government of the United Kingdom of
          Great Britain and Northern Ireland must be seen as a role model for accountability and
          transparency in the administration of justice.
          229. The Special Rapporteur urges the newly appointed Police Ombudsman to review all
          complaints by defence lawyers against RUC officers.
          United States of America
          Communications to the Government
          230. On 3 February 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication regarding the case of
          Ms. Betty Lou Beets. Ms. Beets was sentenced to death in 1985 for the murder of her husband
          after a trial in which crucial mitigating evidence was never presented to the jury, including her
          history of severe physical and sexual abuse. On appeal in the Federal Court, evidence was
          presented that showed that Ms. Beets' trial attorney was guilty of grossly unethical behaviour
          and conflict of interest which had contributed to her death sentence. The trial attorney held
          crucial information that disproved the prosecution's allegation that Ms. Beets killed her husband
          for remuneration. He refused to withdraw from the case and instead signed an agreement with
          Ms. Beets providing him with all media rights to her story as his fee for representing her at trial.
          In 1991 a federal district judge ruled that the trial attorney's behaviour breached Ms. Beets' right
          to adequate counsel; this was reversed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
          231. On 21 August 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal regarding the imminent
          execution of Alexander Edmund Williams. The information received highlighted the ineffective
          and incompetent performance of Mr. Williams' state-appointed attorney during the sentencing
          phase of his trial. The attorney failed to investigate his client's background or interview family
          members and so failed to discover the history of mental and physical abuse that Mr. Williams
          had suffered as a child. The Special Rapporteur drew attention to the fact that this was not the
          first case that had been brought to his attention where the incompetence of a state-appointed
          attorney seemed to have lead to the imposition of the death penalty. Due to the seriousness and
          urgency of the matter the Special Rapporteur issued a press release expressing his concerns.
          Communications from the Government
          232. On 25 February 2000, the Government responded to the communication concerning
          Ms. Betty Lou Beets. The Government stated that issues concerning the unethical behaviour of
          Ms. Beets' trial attorney had been argued extensively at in all levels of the proceedings, at both
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 48
          the state and federal levels. The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that
          whilst the actions of Ms. Beets' trial attorney may have been unethical, they did not amount to a
          constitutional violation. The Court further stated that Ms. Beets and two other witnesses
          presented evidence at trial, which indicated that Ms. Beets did not know about her husband's
          insurance. Therefore, her attorney's failure to withdraw was not in any way prejudicial. The
          Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals further held that there was sufficient additional evidence to
          convict her of murder for remuneration.
          233. On 29 August 2000, the Government responded to the communication concerning the
          trial of Alexander Edmund Williams. The Government stated that five courts, state and federal,
          had rejected the argument that the ineffective assistance provided by Mr. Williams' trial attorney
          resulted in the imposition of a capital sentence. The Government also informed the Special
          Rapporteur that the Georgia Supreme Court indefinitely stayed Mr. Williams' execution
          on 22 August 2000.
          Observation
          234. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its prompt response. The order of the
          Supreme Court of Georgia to stay the execution in the Williams case is most welcome. The
          Special Rapporteur continues to be concerned over the spate of convictions and death sentences
          alleged to be due to the incompetence of defence counsel.
          Yemen
          Communication to the Government
          235. On 26 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a follow-up communication to
          the Government noting that a response had not been received to the communication
          dated 11 January 1999 (E/CN.4/2000/61, para. 323).
          Communication from the Government
          236. On 20 November 2000, the Government responded to the Special Rapporteur's
          communication of 26 October 2000. The Government stated that the trial of Abdul Hassan
          al-Mehdar and his associates was carried out in accordance with Yemeni law, in public; the
          accused were given free contact with their lawyers during detention and were represented by
          lawyers at trial. In the case concerning some persons, including British citizens, who were
          allegedly involved in planning bomb attacks in Aden, the accused had the right to contact their
          lawyers and were represented in court. The court addressed the allegations of torture, declaring
          that they were unsubstantiated on the basis of testimony of a medical examiner.
          Observations
          237. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its response.
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 49
          Yugoslavia
          Communications to the Government
          238. On 3 May 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication regarding a lawyer,
          Husnija Bitic. On 17 March 2000, four masked men entered the Belgrade apartment of Mr. Bitic
          and threatened and seriously injured Mr. Bitic and his wife. It was alleged that Mr. Bitic was
          targeted because of his representation of Kosovar Albanian prisoners currently held in detention
          in Serbia.
          239. On 26 October 2000, the Special Rapporteur sent a follow-up communication to the
          Government noting that a response had not been received to the communications
          dated 2 November 1999 (E/CN.4/2000/61, para. 325) and 3 May 2000.
          240. The Special Rapporteur has taken note of the report to the General Assembly (A/55/282)
          of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights
          in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It
          was reported that federal and republican authorities continue to use the judicial and legal systems
          to legitimize political repression and criminalize opposition activity, civil society and the
          expression of dissent. In connection with mass arrests that took place earlier in the year, nine
          lawyers were being prosecuted before Serbian courts. On 12 July 2000, the Serbian parliament
          relieved 13 court officials, mostly judges, of their duties. These judges were noted for their
          independence.
          241. The report also noted that the United Nations Interim Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) had
          only been able to hire S out of the 12 judges, and 2 out of the S prosecutors required. The report
          considered that the filling of these positions should be pursued on an urgent basis and that
          UNMIK should consider the appointment of highly qualified international lawyers to fill the
          positions.
          Observation
          242. The Special Rapporteur expresses concern over the failure of the Government to respond
          to his communications.
          Zimbabwe
          243. The Special Rapporteur views with grave concern the attacks on the judiciary in
          Zimbabwe, in particular the Supreme Court and its judges, arising from recent judgements of the
          Court with respect to the Governments seizure of land owned by white farmers without the
          paying of compensation. Statements in the media attributed to high-ranking government
          officials, including ministers, about the Supreme Court, and particularly its white judges, are
          seen as threats to the independence of the judiciary.
        
          
          E/CN.4/200 1/65
          page 50
          244. The Special Rapporteur has communicated his concerns to the Government and will, as
          agreed with the Government, undertake a mission to Zimbabwe as soon as possible.
          VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
          A. Conclusions
          245. This mandate is very research intensive. Both structuring an in situ mission and
          evaluating the information gathered during and after the mission require skilled human
          resources. As will be seen from some of the country situation reports, follow-up on
          communications from the Governments has been dismal. This again is due to insufficient
          human resources at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
          246. Some complaints need urgent and prompt intervention to prevent damage rather than
          intervention after damage. The urgent intervention in Slovakia was undertaken on this premise
          and it was found to be effective. Again, for such speedy interventions and constant monitoring,
          human resources, in addition to financial resources, are imperative.
          247. The Special Rapporteur intends to undertake three missions this year, to Mexico,
          Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. These are missions that the respective Governments agreed to and
          confirmed at the fifty-sixth session of the Commission on Human Rights.
          248. Judicial accountability is becoming an issue of importance in several countries, often
          leading to tension between the Government and the judiciary. This tension between judicial
          independence and judicial accountability needs to be addressed to provide certain parameters so
          that judicial independence is not undermined. Standards may need to be formulated to guide a
          sound system for accountability. Resources permitting, the Special Rapporteur intends to
          address this issue in the next two years with the assistance of some experts.
          249. From the country situation reports it will be noted that some Governments are slow
          in their responses to communications and some do not respond at all. Reminders are also
          ignored.
          B. Recommendations
          250. With regard to the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, the Special Rapporteur
          recommends that an independent judicial inquiry to investigate the murders of Patrick Finucane
          and Rosemary Nelson be established. The Special Rapporteur once again urges the Government
          to make public the second report of John Stevens on the Patrick Finucane murder and the
          Mulvihill report on the investigations into the complaint lodged by Rosemary Nelson with
          the RUC.
        
          
          E/CN.4/2001/65
          page 51
          251. In paragraph 4 of resolution of 1994/4 1 creating the mandate, the Commission urged all
          Governments to assist the Special Rapporteur in the discharge of his mandate and to transmit to
          him all the information requested. In the spirit of this paragraph, the Special Rapporteur once
          again appeals to Governments to respond to his interventions promptly and to respond positively
          to his requests to undertake in situ missions.
          252. The Special Rapportuer calls on Governments, national judiciaries, bar associations and
          NGOs to submit to him any court judgements and any legislation affecting the independence of
          the judiciary and the legal profession for his consideration. The Special Rapporteur welcomes
          this information irrespective of whether such judgements and legislation have the effect of
          enhancing or restricting the independence ofjudges and lawyers.
        

Download Attachments:

Show More

Related Articles

Back to top button