Aadel Collection
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Mr. Abid Hussain, submitted in accordance with Commission resolution 1999/36
UNITED
NATIONS
Economic and Social
Council
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Fifty-sixth session
Item 11(c) of the provisional agenda
Distr.
GENERAL
E/CN.4/2000/63
18 January 2000
ENGLISH
Original: ENGLISHIFRENCHI
SPANISH
CIVIL ANI) POLITICAL RIGHTS INCLUDING THE QUESTION OF:
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection
of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Mr. Abid Hussain,
submitted in accordance with Commission resolution 1999/36
CONTENTS
Paragraphs
Executive summary
Introduction 1
I. TERMS OF REFERENCE 2
II. ACTIVITIES 3 - 19
III. ISSUES 20 - 58
A. Trends 20-41
B. Access to information 42 - 44
C. Criminal libel and defamation 45 - 52
D. The police and the criminal justice system 53
E. The new technologies 54 - 58
Page
4
6
6
6
9
9
15
16
19
19
E
GE.00-10259 (E)
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 2
CONTENTS ( continued)
Paragraphs Page
IV. COUNTRY SITUATIONS 59- 202 21
Angola 59- 60 21
Azerbaijan 61 - 62 21
Bahrain 63 - 64 22
Bangladesh 65 - 66 22
Belarus 67 - 73 23
Bosnia and Herzegovina 74 - 75 24
Bulgaria 76 - 77 24
Chad 78-79 25
Chile 80-81 25
China 82 - 90 26
Colombia 91 -95 27
Côte d'Ivoire 96 - 98 28
Cuba 99 - 104 29
Democratic Republic of the Congo 105- 110 30
Djibouti 111-112 32
Equatorial Guinea 113- 114 32
Iran, Islamic Republic of 115 - 120 33
Ireland 121 34
Israel 122 - 125 34
Japan 126 35
Jordan 127- 129 35
Kenya 130- 131 36
Kuwait 132- 136 36
Lebanon 137- 139 37
Malaysia 140 - 144 38
Mexico 145 - 156 39
Myanmar 157- 160 42
Nigeria 161 - 163 43
Pakistan 164- 166 44
Peru 167- 168 44
Republic of Korea 169 - 172 45
Sudan 173 45
Syrian Arab Republic 174 - 177 46
Togo 178- 181 46
Tunisia 182 47
Turkey 183 - 189 48
Turkmenistan 190 - 192 49
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 3
CONTENTS ( continued)
Paragraphs Page
IV. COUNTRY SITUATIONS ( continued )
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 193 49
Yemen 194- 196 50
Zambia 197- 198 50
Zimbabwe 199-200 51
Palestine 201 - 202 51
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 203 - 210 52
Annexes
I. International mechanisms for promoting freedom of expression 54
II. The public's right to know: Principles on Freedom of Information
Legislation 56
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 4
Executive summary
This report is the seventh report presented by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion
and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Mr. Abid Hussain, pursuant to
Commission resolution 1999/36 of 26 April 1999. The report contains the activities undertaken
by the Special Rapporteur, a discussion of pressing issues, a brief summary of urgent appeals and
communications to and from Governments as well as final conclusions and recommendations.
With regard to the country situations, the Special Rapporteur has sent 11 allegations and
56 urgent actions during the year. It is significant to note that the Special Rapporteur has
increasingly joined with other thematic and geographical mechanisms (Special Rapporteur on the
question of torture, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions,
Chairman of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Special Rapporteur on independence of
judges and lawyers, Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and
consequences, and Special Rapporteur on the right to education).
During the year under review, the Special Rapporteur has increased cooperation with
other United Nations agencies, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. He has
attended an international workshop on media law reform in Nigeria (16-18 March 1999), two
round tables organized by the Government of Canada (June 1999), a meeting with journalists and
ministers from Nepal (30-3 1 August 1999), the International Colloquium on the Freedom of
Expression and Defamation organized by Article 19 - the International Centre against
Censorship (Colombo, 15-17 September 1999). Moreover, increased cooperation with United
Nations bodies was gained during World Press Freedom Day organized by UNESCO (3 May
1999) in Colombia, a working meeting held at UNESCO headquarters in Paris (29 October
1999) as well as a meeting with the Organization of American States Special Rapporteur on
freedom of expression and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
Representative on freedom of the media (25-26 November 1999).
An essential aspect of the mandate involves country visits. From 20 to
26 September 1999, the Special Rapporteur undertook a mission to the Sudan. He also visited
Ireland from 18 to 22 October 1999 and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland from 24 to 29 October 1999. Finally, the Special Rapporteur undertook a
mission to Tunisia from 6 to 11 December 1999. The Special Rapporteur also requested the
Governments of Albania, Argentina, China, Cuba, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
Egypt, Indonesia, Peru, the Russian Federation, Sri Lanka and Viet Nam to invite him to visit
their countries, but he regrets that invitations have not so far been received.
The report also identifies “trends” on the basis of the communications received (more
than 1,500 annually from a variety of sources) that will encourage Governments to review
practices and take remedial action when required. The Special Rapporteur also directs the
attention of Governments to a number of issues of concern and urges them to review existing
legislation or adopt new legislation, for example on access to information, criminal libel and
defamation, the police and the criminal justice system, and their approach to new technologies.
The Special Rapporteur concludes the report with his recommendations. As the right to
freedom of opinion and expression is violated regularly in States with widely different political
and institutional frameworks, he urges Governments to scrutinize their domestic legal systems to
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 5
bring them in line with international standards. The Special Rapporteur also encourages
Governments to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to amend criminal laws which
may be used to infringe article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and to ensure
that press offences are no longer punishable by imprisonment. The Special Rapporteur also
invites Governments to promote a policy of free access to information with particular regard to
the Internet. The Special Rapporteur also expresses his deep concern at the continuing silencing
of women and calls upon Governments to remove all obstacles to the exercise of their full right
to freedom of opinion and expression. Finally, the Special Rapporteur recommends to
Governments, in the light of the continuing pattern of violations of the right to freedom of
opinion and expression of human rights defenders, to implement the provisions of the
Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to
Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(General Assembly resolution 53/144 of 9 December 1998, annex).
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 6
Introduction
1. The present report is the seventh report presented by Mr. Abid Hussain (India), the
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression. The mandate was established by Commission on Human Rights resolution 1993/45
of 5 March 1993. This report is submitted pursuant to resolution 1999/36, which also renewed
the mandate for three years. Section I of the present report contains the terms of reference for
the discharge of the mandate. Section II presents an account of the activities undertaken within
the framework of his mandate in the past year. Section III provides a brief discussion on a
number of issues which the Special Rapporteur considers to be important for the development of
the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Section IV contains brief summaries of urgent
appeals and communications to and from Governments, along with observations of the
Special Rapporteur. Lastly, section V contains the conclusions and recommendations of the
Special Rapporteur.
I. TERMS OF REFERENCE
2. The Special Rapporteur refers to his previous reports as regards the mandate and methods
of work adopted by him. The structure of the present report is along the same lines as the
previous report. The main body of issues includes an analysis of communications received by
the Special Rapporteur (in order to highlight trends), access to information, concerns relating to
criminal libel and defamation, the police and the criminal justice system, as well as the role of
the new information technologies.
II. ACTIVITIES
3. During the period under review, the Special Rapporteur sent 11 allegations and 56 urgent
actions. Seeking to avoid unnecessary duplication of the activities of the other thematic
special rapporteurs and country-specific rapporteurs, the Special Rapporteur has joined during
the past year with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture on 4 cases of allegations
(Azerbaijan, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zimbabwe) and on 12 cases of urgent
appeals (Belarus, 3 for China, Myanmar, 1 for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2 for the
Syrian Arab Republic, 2 for Togo, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Zambia). The Special
Rapporteur also joined with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
executions on 14 cases of urgent actions (Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2 for China, 2 for Colombia,
1 for the Islamic Republic of Iran, 7 for Mexico, 1 for Peru). In the course of the year, 11 urgent
actions were written jointly with the Chairman of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
(Bahrain, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, 2 for China, Israel, Kenya, 2 for Nigeria, Palestine, Syrian Arab
Republic), 1 case ofjoint urgent action with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of
judges and lawyers (Babrain), 2 cases ofjoint urgent action with the Special Rapporteur on
violence against women (China, Pakistan) and 1 case ofjoint urgent action with the Special
Rapporteur on the right to education (Malaysia). Moreover, the Special Rapporteur also joined
with the Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo (3 urgent actions) and the Islamic Republic of Iran (3 urgent actions).
4. The Special Rapporteur has received a large number of allegations concerning cases of
violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in 1999. As was the case in previous
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 7
years, the Special Rapporteur was only able to deal with a limited number of requests for
information from some Governments, owing to the insufficient financial and human resources to
fulfil his mandate in the manner he would deem appropriate. The matters raised in previous
reports to the Commission on Human Rights regarding the circumstances of work
(E/CN.4/1995/32, paras. 92-95; E/CN.4/1996/39, para. 6; E/CN.4/1997/31, para. 7;
E/CN.4/1998/40, para. 3 and E/CN.4/1999/64, para. 3) unfortunately remain a matter of great
concern. The mandate requires a substantially increased pool of resources. Within the current
constraints, the Special Rapporteur has engaged in an exchange of views with Governments only
with regard to a limited number of cases, which are discussed in section IV.
5. It should thus be emphasized that the countries discussed in the respective sections in no
way reflect the extent of the problem worldwide, as indeed violations of this right take place in
almost every country in spite of the emergence of an increasing number of national institutions
which are working for the promotion and protection of human rights.
6. Closer cooperation is engaged by the Special Rapporteur with treaty bodies and human
rights field operations, as well as with other specialized bodies within the United Nations system
and regional intergovernmental, and non-governmental organizations, particularly at the local
level, concerned with the right to freedom of expression. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur
noted with great satisfaction that the number of meetings and seminars he attended and had been
invited to had tripled over the past year.
7. From 16 to 18 March 1999, the Special Rapporteur attended in Abuja an international
workshop on media law reform in Nigeria organized by Media Rights Agenda (MRA), a
non-governmental organization based in Nigeria, and Article 19 - the International Centre
against Censorship, together with the National Human Rights Commission.
8. In June 1999, he was invited by the Government of Canada to Ottawa where two round
tables were organized: one governmental, with the participation of representatives of the
Ministries for Foreign Affairs and Justice as well as the Canadian International Development
Agency (CIDA), the second a gathering of Canadian NGOs.
9. On 30 and 31 August 1999, the Special Rapporteur went to Nepal where he had the
opportunity to meet with the Prime Minister, government ministers and journalists from that
country. Matters relating to freedom of speech and writing as well as the need to set up a
national commission for human rights were discussed.
10. The Special Rapporteur had also the opportunity to participate in the International
Colloquium on Freedom of Expression and Defamation organized by Article 19 in Colombo
from 15 to 17 September 1999.
11. In regard to cooperation with intergovernmental organizations, the Special Rapporteur
collaborated very closely with Mr. Alain Modoux, Assistant-Director-General and head of the
Unit for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), who made a statement during the debate
on item 11(c) of the fifty-fifth session of the Commission on Human Rights. The
Special Rapporteur was also invited by UNESCO to World Press Freedom Day on 3 May 1999
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 8
in Bogota and to a working meeting held in Paris on 29 October 1999 with a view to exchanging
information and enhancing cooperation. The Special Rapporteur thus made concrete
recommendations in his mission reports this year (see report on the mission to the Sudan,
E/CN.4/2000/63/Add. 1, the report on the mission to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, E/CN.4/2000/63/Add.3, and the report on the mission to Tunisia,
E/CN.4/2000/63/Add.4) to encourage the use of UNESCO 's expertise in the field of media
legislation and the training ofjournalists in coordination with the programme of technical
cooperation of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
12. A meeting was also organized by Article 19 in London on 25 and 26 November 1999
which brought together for the first time the Special Rapporteur, Abid Hussain; Freimut Duve,
the OSCE Representative on freedom of the media; and Santiago Canton, the OAS
Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression. During that meeting, which was designed to
promote dialogue not only between the special appointees but also with non-governmental
organizations working in the field, a joint declaration was issued, setting out the key ways in
which Governments should move to guarantee that individuals enjoy the right to freedom of
expression, opinion and information (see annex 1). The Special Rapporteur is convinced that
such exchanges of experience and increased cooperation with these mechanisms are essential to
realize the right to freedom of opinion and expression in all parts of the world. This is the reason
why he decided, together with the two other mechanisms, to meet on a more regular basis to
discuss their mandates and ways of working in areas of importance.
13. From 26 to 28 May 1999, the Special Rapporteur was invited to attend a workshop on
gender integration into the human rights system organized by the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights. As Chairman of the meeting, he found this initiative very
useful for the special mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights and took that
opportunity to recall that the gender issue is considered with specific attention in his annual and
mission reports.
14. lii this regard, he held further meetings with the Special Rapporteur on violence against
women, its causes and consequences, in order to continue to pay particular attention, as
requested by the Commission on Human Rights in resolution 1999/36, to the situation of
women and the relationship between the effective promotion and protection of the right to
freedom of opinion and expression and incidents of discrimination based on sex, creating
obstacles for women with regard to their right to seek, receive and impart information. The
Special Rapporteur wishes to reiterate his regrets that constraints of time and resources limited
the extent to which the work could be jointly undertaken with the Special Rapporteur on violence
against women. This remains an area of critical importance to him and he sincerely hopes that in
the near future more deliberate efforts can be made in this area.
15. Additionally, the Special Rapporteur attended the sixth meeting of special
rapporteurs/representatives, experts and chairpersons of working groups of the special
procedures and advisory services programme, held in Geneva from 31 May to 3 June 1999.
16. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur visited Geneva from 8 to 14 April 1999 for
consultations and to present his report to the Commission on Human Rights at its
fifty-fifth session. During this period, the Special Rapporteur held a press conference and
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 9
organized a briefing for NGOs which was very well attended. He also met with various
delegations, in particular representatives of the Government of Canada and ambassadors from
France, Malaysia, Hungary and the Islamic Republic of Iran. He discussed his intention to
undertake field visits with the Permanent Representatives of the Sudan, Sri Lanka, Tunisia,
Egypt and Peru and with representatives of Cuba and the Russian Federation.
17. Finally, the Special Rapporteur considers the carrying out of country visits to be an
essential element of the mandate. From 20 to 26 September 1999, the Special Rapporteur
undertook a mission to the Sudan. He then visited the Republic of Ireland from 18 to
22 October 1999, followed by a visit to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland from 24 to 29 October 1999. Finally, the Special Rapporteur undertook a
mission to Tunisia from 6 to 11 December 1999. For these four visits, he has submitted separate
reports to the Commission at its current session (E/CN.4/2000/63/Add.1, 2, 3 and 4).
18. During the year under review, the Special Rapporteur has sent reminders regarding his
wish to undertake a visit to Albania, Argentina, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
Egypt, Indonesia, Peru, Sri Lanka and Viet Nam to examine in situ the realization of the right to
freedom of opinion and expression. In this regard, he regrets that invitations have not so far been
received from those countries. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur has also sent additional official
requests to visit China, Cuba and the Russian Federation. On 5 July 1999, the Government of
China informed the Special Rapporteur that the request was under careful consideration.
19. The Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate that the role of non-governmental
organizations in furthering the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression cannot be overestimated. Indeed, it is those organizations which spearhead these
concerns and are forcefully advocating, monitoring and lobbying for human rights. Some of
them have gone out of their way to volunteer their time to help the Special Rapporteur in his
missions. The Special Rapporteur wishes to express his special thanks to Article 19, the
hiternational Centre Against Censorship, which continues to provide information and material
relevant to the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression to the
Special Rapporteur.
III. ISSUES
A. Trends
20. The Special Rapporteur has noted a number of characteristics common to the violations
reported to him in the framework of his mandate and believes that it would be helpful to consider
what may be called “trends”. It is his hope that the identification of these trends will encourage
Governments to review practices and take remedial action where required. It is also hoped that
this work will assist the OHCHR in developing programmes of technical assistance for interested
Governments which will accelerate the process of eliminating the causes of violations of
freedom of opinion and expression and associated rights.
21. The Special Rapporteur receives more than 1,500 communications annually from a
variety of sources: international, regional, national and local non-governmental organizations;
associations of media professionals; trade unions; members of opposition political parties;
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 10
human rights defenders and activists; concerned individuals and others. It must be stated that
resource constraints do not permit the Special Rapporteur to respond to, or act upon every one of
the communications received. These constraints also make it difficult, if not impossible, to
verify the facts presented in each and every case in order to determine what, if any, action would
be appropriate. That being said, however, it can be stated that these communications are not
confined to alleged violations of the rights to opinion, expression and access to information in
countries in which the political system and institutional arrangements are implicitly or explicitly
undemocratic. It is true, however, that the preponderance of allegations refer to situations where:
(a) the legal and institutional protections and guarantees of human rights are, to a greater or
lesser degree, circumscribed; or (b) situations of internal armed conflict or severe civil unrest
exist. Nonetheless, it is important to note that allegations also refer to incidents and instances in
which these rights are infringed or violated in both emerging democracies and countries with
long-established democratic institutions, practices and traditions.
22. While some of the communications refer to the same individual case or event or a series
of cases in the same country, the majority of them do not. From this, one can only conclude that
violations of the rights to opinion, expression, access to information, assembly and association
are rampant and may, at any given time, occur anywhere in the world.
23. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges that in a number of countries independent media,
professional or collegial associations and non-governmental organizations have been allowed to
form and function. In such cases, there may well be a need for training and guidance on, for
example, raising professional standards and important skills such as how to develop and thrive in
a self-regulating environment. It is the Special Rapporteur's strongly held view that
Governments should create and permit an enabling environment in which training and
professional development of media persons can be organized and carried out without fear of
legal, criminal or administrative sanction by the State.
24. From communications received in the past year regarding repression of, or infringement
upon freedom of opinion and expression and the exercise of associated rights, it appeared that in
several cases measures or actions were taken by the State, its agents, or an organized non-State
entity for reasons such as: (a) out of fear - for example, to cover up wrongdoings and crimes
against the people; (b) as a manifestation of an exaggerated sensitivity to criticism of either a
professional or personal nature; (c) in aid of the pursuit U by an individual, group, organization
or institution U of wealth, privilege and power by any and all means; (d) intolerance of any
individual, group or organization perceived to be obstructing such pursuit; (e) out of arrogance or
the “might is right” way of thinking in which criticism or inquiry is not tolerated.
25. With these points in mind, the Special Rapporteur directs the attention to the following
general trends in terms of violations of freedom of opinion and expression and associated rights.
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 11
1. Governments taking action sui moto
26. There are cases when Governments characterize media and others seeking to exercise
freedom of opinion and expression as, for example, “unpatriotic”, “inciting treason”,
“denigrating the Government”, “inciting nationalist xenophobia”, propagating “immoral”,
“extremist and divisive ideas”. The response of the authorities, on the basis of these and other
characterizations, have included, inter alia : a blackout on reports of civil strife in the country;
criminalization of reporting on draft evasion, including the cancellation of licences to publish
and broadcast; a ban on cultural magazines; warnings against, and suspension of publications - in
one case for having published “too many” reports of a “political nature”; a ban on all
independent media in a disputed territory; revocation ofjournalists' licences without reason;
expulsion offoreign journalists, without explanation; cancellation of a publishing licence for a
newsletter that focused on human rights violations and other issues related to human rights;
seizure without explanation of copies of a foreign-based weekly; suspension of broadcasting
rights on the basis that previous programming incited prejudice between religions; closure of a
radio station that reported on irregularities and nepotism in the public administration; banning of
newspapers and books considered, for example, “insulting to the military” or guilty of having
published “false and malicious articles”; the ban of a moderate newspaper calling for abolition of
the death penalty; expulsion of foreign journalists for having sought “to tarnish the image of the
country”. Communications also indicate that at various times, Governments have threatened to:
“resort to physical torture” against personnel of independent media that did not support it in a
conflict against an armed group or file court cases against journalists and newspapers that
publish “lies”.
2. Detention or arrest, bringing of charges, trial and sentencing
27. It can be stated that the legal actions taken against journalists and other individuals
seeking to exercise their rights to opinion, expression and information remain of epidemic
proportion. Publishers, editors, journalists and activists have been arrested, charged, tried and/or
sentenced for, inter alia : an unpublished article that was said to be a “call to social disorder”;
“disturbing public order”; “insulting the head of State”; “distribution and disclosure of false
news”; revealing State secrets by publishing classified documents that were embarrassing to the
ruling party; caricaturing the State religion; publishing “false and insulting information”;
publishing “slanderous material, disturbing public opinion and exposing military secrets”;
publishing an “alarming article” related to activities of a clique of powerful politicians who were
funding clashes between clans; regular publication of articles on police corruption,
high-handedness and cases of extortion; publishing an article about police torture of a prisoner;
refusal to reveal sources; publication of an article critical of the justice system; disclosure of
arms purchases by the Government and the statement that this action could threaten the peace
process.
28. Criminal penalties have been imposed on a number of grounds, including: libel of a
member of Parliament; libel of a private individual; responsibility for public disorder and acts of
sabotage; defamation, following publication of stories on corruption; “compromising State
security”; slander of the national police; establishment ofajournalists' union without
government permission; fraud and impersonating ajournalist; teaching of a banned religion,
constituting a crime against national security; publication of an article contrary to the press laws
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 12
and “potentially harmful to the morale of the armed forces”; contempt of court, following
comments about the judiciary and its corruption during a television broadcast; publication of
criticism of the Government.
29. Actions against activists and human rights defenders also included, inter alia : arrest for
having circulated a petition calling for constitutional change; seizure of all copies of, and
prohibition on a book on corruption involving judges and civil servants; arrest of pro-democracy
activists and dissidents; efforts to suppress discussion of the social and environmental costs of a
controversial irrigation and hydroelectric project; expulsion of student leaders from various
universities and institutions of higher learning; accusations of membership in an unauthorized
association, distribution of illegal leaflets, insulting the authorities, holding unauthorized
meetings; charge, trial and conviction for having written a book about massacres of civilians, in
violation of the anti-terror law.
3. Repressive measures in consonance with provisions in press, media and other laws
30. In a number of cases, the punitive and repressive measures taken by the authorities are
“legal” inasmuch as there are laws regulating expression, access to information, assembly and
association. It must be stated, however, that the legal character of these actions is profoundly at
odds with the standards set out in international human rights instruments, most notably the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which applies to all States, without exception, by virtue
of their being a Member of the United Nations, and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, which applies to all States that have ratified or acceded to it.
31. There are laws that penalize, inter alia : disclosure of information of importance to the
State; slander of high-level officials of the Government, the armed forces, the judiciary and the
clergy; “disturbing public order”; revealing business secrets; contempt of the police; insult to the
military. Other laws have the effect of, for example: withdrawing the right ofjournalists to
protect sources; banning free discussion of many vaguely defined topics (e.g. the national
constitution in whole or in part); banning a large number of categories of so-called “hate
speech”; banning alleged pornography; conferring on the State the power to control and/or
dissolve non-governmental organizations considered to have exceeded their mandate or breached
a broad range of boundaries; establishing a Government-imposed media council to replace
independent, self-regulating councils; preventing press coverage of proceedings in publicly
funded governing bodies; defining and restricting the role of news announcers; imposing a
temporary ban for “frequent publication” of obscene or indecent material; limiting the practice of
journalism only to those journalists who are members of one specific journalists' association;
granting to family court judges the power to sanction journalists who publish information on a
person's private life or physical disability.
4. Harm to media personnel and others
32. The excessive use of force by the police and other security forces has been consistently
addressed by the Special Rapporteurs on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and on
the question of torture. The communications received in the past year clearly point out the
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 13
dangers inherent in the profession ofjournalism and decisions by citizens to demonstrate
peacefully either in support of or in opposition to Governments and other entities such as
opposition political parties.
33. In the past year, measures taken by the police and security forces have included actions
against and causing injuries to journalists and photographers covering, for example: a strike
called by the main opposition party; a protest march organized by a labour union; the
swearing-in ceremony of the new President; the escort of otherjournalists, by police, to a
magistrate's court; a clash between ethnic communities; a public meeting; a confrontation
between municipal officers and street vendors; police treatment of protesters participating in a
demonstration by Islamic activists; a union blockade and a rally organized by the opposition.
34. Communications also referred to police violence againstjournalists in the context of, for
example: articles written on criminal issues; publication of allegations of embezzlement by
public authorities; published criticisms of human rights violations; coverage of sensitive
domestic issues; attempts to publicize police harassment.
35. Actions againstjournalists and others were also taken by various non-State actors that
resulted in, inter alia : the mob killing of one journalist; death threats against a woman sculptor
on the basis that in their culture sculpting is described as a sin; distribution of a pamphlet
accusingjournalists and intellectuals of being enemies of the peace process; kidnapping by a
rebel group; murder by militant members of a separatist movement; threats by an opposition
leader to ban reporters from covering an election campaign; an attack on and occupation of a
national radio building by armed attackers; the taking ofjournalists as hostages by rebels; a
bomb attack causing the death of a journalist who was a secularist and critic of a certain religious
movement.
36. In addition to these types of actions by individuals or groups that were identified or
publicly claimed responsibility, the communications received by the Special Rapporteur also
related to violence or threats of violence by unknown persons or groups against members of the
media and others. These cases included, for example: murder, possibly in response to published
criticism of religious extremism; threats following reports of allegations of favouritism by senior
government officials, fighting between government and guerrilla forces, police violence against
civilians; threats following publication of articles about, or investigation into political corruption
and corruption in prisons; murder of writers, journalists, poets and translators, in some cases
possibly by rogue elements of security forces; murder following broadcast of programmes on
such topics as corruption among political authorities, the police and military, and violence
committed by terrorists and narcotraffickers; threats following harsh criticism of the
Government; threats following publication of allegations of forgery and perjury; assault
following publication of articles on illicit business deals involving persons in government and
private companies.
5. Academic freedom and public demonstrations
37. While less numerous than communications related to violations against members of the
media, the Special Rapporteur would also note actions taken by Governments in relation to
academic freedom. Information was received about, for example: suppression of research on
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 14
such controversial topics as a national independence movement that was active in the past; a ban
on campuses of any independent organizations that are considered political; refusal of
permission to hold a seminar on human rights; State-supported harassment of independent
libraries that were established to provide access to materials to which there is no access in State
institutions; charges of having published a play that was considered blasphemous; charges
against and conviction of the head of a political science department, who was also a contributor
to a student magazine, for having defamed the religion of the State.
38. With regard to public demonstrations, the Special Rapporteur not only underscores the
frequency with which communications are received about the excessive use of force by police
and security forces in response to demonstrations, marches and other manifestations, but notes
such other concerns as: a requirement of prior notification; measures to prevent public
commemoration of a major event; arrest of students demonstrating peacefully and calling for
“freedom of thought and expression for all without exception”; arrest of labour leaders during a
nationwide strike by civil servants and distribution of “Wanted” posters on more than 20 others;
prosecution of workers for demonstrating in the streets and a verbal attack by a judge against a
radio station reporting on the protests.
6. Other concerns
39. While less common than other types of communications, information was received by the
Special Rapporteur on several other issues which are of concern. These included, inter alia , a
case in which action was taken against a “whistle-blower” who revealed information on
wrongdoing and non-disclosure of relevant personal information (bank holdings) by senior
officials. Other communications referred to the State monopoly on radio and television, and the
firing, apparently for political reasons, of employees of the State-owned broadcasting
corporation who were characterized as “opposition supporters”. Concern has also been
expressed about the practice in some States of releasing persons from prison or detention and
ordering them to be held under house arrest with severe restrictions on their freedom of
movement and their rights to opinion, expression and access to information.
40. It will be recalled that in previous reports, the Special Rapporteur expressed his concern
about the use and abuse of national security laws to suppress opinion, expression and
information. Again, while less common than other types of information received,
communications did refer to declarations of states of emergency, the effect of which was,
inter alia , to forbid the printing, broadcasting or communicating of information which is seen to
incite violence or to cause racial or communal disharmony; or forbid information “prejudicial” to
the State or that is likely to cause “disaffection” with the Government or “hatred or contempt”
for the administration of justice or national security.
41. The Special Rapporteur cannot help but view with dismay the content of the
communications received in the past year. Clearly, in several cases the rights to freedom of
opinion, expression and information are violated in States with widely different political systems
and institutional frameworks for governance. In a number of cases these rights do not enjoy
even the minimum protections and guarantees set out in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and associated international
human rights instruments.
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 15
B. Access to information
42. In resolution 1999/36, the Commission on Human Rights invited the Special Rapporteur
“to develop further his commentary on the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, and to expand on his observations and
recommendations arising from communications”. With this in mind, the Special Rapporteur
wishes to state again that the right to seek, receive and impart information is not merely a
corollary of freedom of opinion and expression; it is a right in and of itself As such, it is one of
the rights upon which free and democratic societies depend. It is also a right that gives meaning
to the right to participate which has been acknowledged as fundamental to, for example, the
realization of the right to development.
43. Clearly, there are a number of aspects of the right to information that require specific
consideration. The Special Rapporteur wishes to emphasize in this report, therefore, his
continuing concern about the tendency of Governments, and the institutions of Government, to
withhold from the people information that is rightly theirs in that the decisions of Governments,
and the implementation of policies by public institutions, have a direct and often immediate
impact on their lives and may not be undertaken without their informed consent. The Special
Rapporteur therefore endorses the set of principles that have been developed by the
non-governmental organization Article 19 - the International Centre against Censorship (see
annex II). These principles, entitled “The Public's Right to Know: Principles on Freedom of
Information Legislation”, are based on international and regional law and standards, evolving
State practice, and the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations.
44. On that basis, the Special Rapporteur directs the attention of Governments to a number of
areas and urges them either to review existing legislation or adopt new legislation on access to
information and ensure its conformity with these general principles. Among the considerations
of importance are:
- Public bodies have an obligation to disclose information and every member of the public
has a corresponding right to receive information; “information” includes all records held
by a public body, regardless of the form in which it is stored;
- Freedom of information implies that public bodies publish and disseminate widely
documents of significant public interest, for example, operational information about how
the public body functions and the content of any decision or policy affecting the public;
- As a minimum, the law on freedom of information should make provision for public
education and the dissemination of information regarding the right to have access to
information; the law should also provide for a number of mechanisms to address the
problem of a culture of secrecy within Government;
- A refusal to disclose information may not be based on the aim to protect Governments
from embarrassment or the exposure of wrongdoing; a complete list of the legitimate
aims which may justify non-disclosure should be provided in the law and exceptions
should be narrowly drawn so as to avoid including material which does not harm the
legitimate interest;
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 16
- All public bodies should be required to establish open, accessible internal systems for
ensuring the public's right to receive information; the law should provide for strict time
limits for the processing of requests for information and require that any refusals be
accompanied by substantive written reasons for the refusal(s);
- The cost of gaining access to information held by public bodies should not be so high as
to deter potential applicants and negate the intent of the law itself;
- The law should establish a presumption that all meetings of governing bodies are open to
the public;
- The law should require that other legislation be interpreted, as far as possible, in a
manner consistent with its provisions; the regime for exceptions provided for in the
freedom of information law should be comprehensive and other laws should not be
permitted to extend it;
- Individuals should be protected from any legal, administrative or employment-related
sanctions for releasing information on wrongdoing, viz, the commission of a criminal
offence or dishonesty, failure to comply with a legal obligation, a miscarriage of justice,
corruption or dishonesty or serious failures in the administration of a public body.
C. Criminal libel and defamation
45. It will be recalled that in his report to the 1999 session of the Commission on Human
Rights (E/CN.4/1999/64) the Special Rapporteur addressed the issue of criminal libel. It will
also be recalled that in his report to the fifty-first session, the Special Rapporteur stated that, “the
principle of proportionality must be strictly observed for the purpose of preventing the
undermining of the freedom of expression” in terms of the legal protection against “any
intentional infringement on the honour and reputation by untrue assertions” (emphasis added)
(E/CN.4/1995/32, para. 47).
46. The Special Rapporteur was both astonished and alarmed at the number of
communications received in the past year referring to accusations of libel and defamation against
members of the media - publishers, editors and journalists. A review of the many
communications received yields a list of cases relating to, for example:
- Defamation and damages awarded in connection with reports on corruption at the
presidential palace;
- A claim for damages by a former member of the intelligence services;
- Defamation following publication of an article on nepotism in the awarding of public
contracts;
- Libel of a member of Parliament (with a sentence of up to five years' imprisonment);
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 17
- Libel of a private individual (with a sentence of up to five years' imprisonment);
- Defamation arising from publication of stories on corruption;
- Damages for libel and a sentence of four months in prison;
- Libel following publication of an article on corrupt business practices;
- Accusations of repeated aggravated defamation of members of the board of a rival daily
newspaper;
- Defamation causing injury to a parliamentary member for the Government (one year
suspended sentence);
- A prison term of three years and a fine for having published libellous statements against
the wife of a member of a national assembly;
- One year's suspended sentence for having insulted the honour of a member of
Parliament;
- Provisions in law establishing prison terms of one to three years for contempt of the
President and the police;
- A sentence of one to six years for insulting the military.
47. These and other cases and incidents have had a direct and negative impact on freedom of
expression, access to information and the free exchange of ideas. The climate created by such
suits causes writers, editors and publishers to be reluctant to report on and publish matters of
public interest not only because of the large awards granted in these cases but also because of the
high costs of defending such actions.
48. Criminal defamation laws represent a potentially serious threat to freedom of expression
because of the very sanctions that often accompany conviction. It will be recalled that a number
of international bodies have condemned the threat of custodial sanctions, both specifically for
defamatory statements and more generally for the peaceful expression of views. For example,
since 1994, the Human Rights Committee has expressed concern about the possibility of
custodial sanctions for defamation in a number of countries. Similarly, the Declaration of
Sana'a, adopted on 11 January 1996 by the United Nations/UNESCO Seminar on Promoting
Independent and Pluralistic Arab Media states that “disputes involving the media and/or the
media professionals in the exercise of their profession ... should be tried under civil and not
criminal codes and procedures.”
49. The Special Rapporteur has also noted that authoritative international human rights
bodies have established a number of principles which restrict the legitimate scope of civil
defamation and insult laws. For example, in 1995, in Tolstoy Miloslavsky v.
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 18
the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights drew a link between the imposition
of excessive sanctions and a chilling effect on freedom of expression and ruled that excessive
damages for defamation violated article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
50. International jurisprudence also supports the view that Governments and public
authorities as such should not be able to bring actions in defamation or insult. The Human
Rights Committee has, for example, called for the abolition of the offence of “defamation of the
State”. While the European Court of Human Rights has not entirely ruled out defamation suits
by Governments, it appears to have limited such suits to situations which threaten public order,
implying that Governments cannot sue in defamation simply to protect their honour. A number
of national courts (e.g. in India, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States,
Zimbabwe) have also refused to allow elected and other public authorities to sue for defamation.
51. On the issue of a strict standard of truth, the Special Rapporteur notes that such a
standard may be excessively onerous; as a result, courts in a number of countries have mitigated
the strict truth requirement, at least for material relating to matters of public interest, by
recognizing a defence of non-malicious or reasonable publication. This approach is reflected in
a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights (Bladet Tromso and Stensaas v. Norway,
20 May 1999, Application No. 2 1980/93); the Court held that even though certain allegations
had been shown to be false, the applicant newspaper and editor should not be liable in
defamation because, taking into account all relevant factors, the decision to publish had been
reasonable.
52. In light of these and other concerns, the Special Rapporteur wishes to state again that it is
critical to raise public consciousness to ensure that defamation laws are not used (or abused) to
stifle open public debate of matters of general or specific interest. Once again, at minimum, it
must be understood that:
- Criminal defamation laws should be repealed in favour of civil laws as the latter are able
to provide sufficient protection for reputations;
- Sanctions for defamation should not be so large as to exert a chilling effect on freedom of
opinion and expression and the right to seek, receive and impart information; penal
sanctions, in particular imprisonment, should never be applied and damage awards should
be strictly proportionate to the actual harm caused;
- Government bodies and public authorities should not be able to bring defamation suits;
the only purpose of defamation, libel, slander and insult laws must be to protect
reputations and not to prevent criticism of Government or even to maintain public order,
for which specific incitement laws exist;
- Defamation laws should reflect the importance of open debate about matters of public
interest and the principle that public figures are required to tolerate a greater degree of
criticism than private citizens;
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 19
- To require truth in the context of publications relating to matters of public interest is
excessive; it should be sufficient if reasonable efforts have been made to ascertain the
truth;
- With regard to opinions, only patently unreasonable views may qualify as defamatory;
defendants should never be required to prove the truth of opinions or value statements;
- The onus of proof of all elements should be on those claiming to have been defamed
rather than on the defendant;
- In defamation and libel actions, a range of remedies should be available in addition to
damage awards, including apology and/or correction.
D. The police and the criminal justice system
53. In several countries, there is an overall need for overhauling the criminal justice system.
Oral evidence and witnesses continue to be the main plank on which the prosecution case rests.
The trustworthiness of witnesses has increasingly come under attack. The emphasis therefore
must be shifted to more scientific investigation to make the system truly one that promotes
justice and is not merely a weapon in the hands of the prosecution or the police. Perhaps there
should be a police complaints authority for redress of complaints. The number of complaints
against police handling of cases in the area of freedom of expression is on the increase. These
are complaints relating to high-handedness, arbitrary detention and falsely implicating persons.
There should also be a police security commission to ensure that police are protected from
political interference. There should also be a massive programme for training of the magistracy
under the aegis of high courts.
E. The new technologies
54. In his previous reports (E/CN.4/1999/64 and E/CN.4/1998//40), the Special Rapporteur
underlined the importance and role of the new technologies, in particular the Internet and
satellite dishes, in the free flow of information, ideas and opinions. It will also be recalled that
he has encouraged Governments to view the Internet and other information technologies as
means to achieve a plurality of voices and to take steps aimed at their integration into the
development process. Information received by the Special Rapporteur suggests, however, that
Governments have increasingly placed greater attention on control and regulation of these
technologies than they have on expansion of existing networks, on upgrading technical capacities
to reach under- or unserved areas, and on permitting the establishment of new information
networks and exchanges. Hence, the Special Rapporteur will briefly examine two areas of
related interest: first, the link between printed and electronic media within a controlled and
censored environment, and second, the type and degree of controls applied to new technologies.
55. The Special Rapporteur believes that there is a clear link between the printed media and
the electronic media. The Internet and satellites dishes, two main components of the
“information revolution”, can play an influential role in bringing out dissenting voices and
shaping the political and cultural debate. Indeed, the Internet is a unique communication
medium due to its global, decentralized, interactive and, not least, infrastructure-independent
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 20
nature which allows it to transcend national barriers. Similarly, satellite dishes have the potential
to create a public sphere in societies where State coercion has pushed debate into the
background. Hence, electronic media are a significant experiment in terms of bypassing
boundaries defined strictly in terms of national and territorial integrity. However, they are not a
good substitute for the printed media which remain the most accessible source of information.
Internet sites, for instance, can be welcomed as a means to support advocacy of cultural and
political rights, yet they remain inaccessible to the majority of the population owing to financial,
economic and technological constraints. Moreover, while representing a global phenomenon,
Internet users are concentrated in Western developed countries. Therefore, the new technologies
provide only a temporary solution to the legal and coercive pressure applied to the domestic
media and often they will encounter the same hostility and intimidation. However, the Special
Rapporteur believes that the Internet, as a cheap and fast mode of transmission, is an important
pool of information for the purpose of gathering information regarding legal and extralegal
proceedings to curb freedom of expression while satellite dishes are easily accessible even in the
most remote areas.
56. With regard to the type and degree of controls applied to the new technologies, a review
of the communications received in the past year, as well as information previously brought to the
Special Rapporteur's attention, illustrates the ambivalence that still characterizes much of the
discussion about the appropriate use and the avoidance of abuse of the Internet. In general, most
Governments have sought to address the problems raised by the dissemination and proliferation
of pornography, in particular child pornography, and materials produced by neo-nazi and/or
other “hate groups”. These concerns are legitimate. The Special Rapporteur believes, however,
that the dangers posed by such materials on the Internet can be adequately addressed through the
judicious application of existing international standards and national laws consistent with
international standards governing freedom of opinion and expression and the right to seek,
receive and impart information. At the same time as efforts are being made in response to
pornography and hate speech, other measures are being taken that cannot, by any reasonable
definition, be accepted as consistent with international standards. These measures have included,
in certain countries, the requirement that the information accessible through the Internet be
“trustworthy” and in line with the country's “ethical principles”, or efforts to control information
viewed as threatening to political stability and undermining the predominant culture, or some
proposals by State police to monitor all data sent over the Internet within national boundaries.
57. It will be recalled that in his report to the fifty-fourth session of the Commission on
Human Rights (E/CN.4/1998/40) the Special Rapporteur stated: “The new technologies and, in
particular, the Internet are inherently democratic, provide the public and individuals with access
to information sources and enable all to participate actively in the communication process.
Action by States to impose excessive regulations on the use of these technologies and, again,
particularly the Internet, on the grounds that control, regulation and denial of access are
necessary to preserve the moral fabric and cultural identity of societies, is paternalistic. These
regulations presume to protect people from themselves and, as such, they are inherently
incompatible with the principles of the worth and dignity of each individual. These arguments
deny the fundamental wisdom of individuals and societies and ignore the capacity and resilience
of citizens, whether on a national, State, municipal, community or even neighbourhood level,
often to take self-correcting measures” (para. 45).
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 21
58. In the time since the report to the fifty-fourth session of the Commission was prepared,
nothing has occurred that would cause the Special Rapporteur to revise his recommendation that
the new information technologies, including the Internet, be considered in light of the same
international standards as other means of communication and that no measures be taken which
would unduly restrict freedom of expression and information. On-line expression should be
guided by international standards and be guaranteed the same protection as is awarded to other
forms of expression.
IV. COUNTRY SITUATIONS
Angola
Communication sent
59. On 20 October 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal concerning the arrest
and detention of Mr. Rafael Marques, journalist of the newspaper Foiha Otto and a human rights
activist. According to the source, Mr. Marques was arrested on 16 October 1999 by the
Department of National Criminal Investigations in Luanda. He is currently detained at Viana
prison and has allegedly been refused access to his lawyer. According to the source, he was
charged on 14 October 1999 under a 1978 law, said to have been technically repealed in 1991,
with defaming President dos Santos in an article published in July.
Observations
60. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the release on bail of Rafael Marques
on 25 November 1999 and thanks the Government for its reply.
Azerbaij an
Communication sent
61. On 15 November 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint communication with the
Special Rapporteur on the question of torture concerning the following cases: Smira Mamigdze,
Ilahme Mamigdze, Zamina Alliguze and a fourth female journalist who were reportedly injured
on 16 November 1998 when the police violently dispersed a group ofjournalists demonstrating
against a suit brought against the newspaper YeniMusavat; Aydin Bagirov, Mustafa Hajibeyli
and Sahil Kerimli, all journalists, who were allegedly beaten and detained by police
on 15 August 1998; Natig Kavadli, journalist, who was reportedly beaten and detained by
police officers while covering a political rally; Haji Zamin, journalist, who was reportedly taken
on 22 August 1998 to a police station where he was verbally abused; Taleh Hamid, editor of the
newspaperMustigil, who was allegedly beaten on 1 September 1998 by police officers;
Zakir Jabbarly and Dilgam Bayramov, both correspondents for the Mozalan newspaper, who
were reportedly verbally and physically assaulted on 22 September 1997 by employees of the
passport department while researching the alleged illegal registration of citizens; Aygun
Ismaylov, journalist, who was reportedly also seized; Ilham Shaban, journalist, is said to have
been beaten by the police on 7 November 1998 during a demonstration.
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 22
Observations
62. A response from the Government is still awaited.
Bahrain
Communication sent
63. On 6 July 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent action to the Government of
Bahrain with the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the
Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers on the case of
Mr. Sheik Al-Jamri, a 62-year-old religious scholar and former member of the National
Assembly. Mr. Al-Jamri, who has been in prison without trial since January 1996, was said to be
sentenced to a long prison term for his opposition activities. He was arrested along with seven
other prominent Shia Muslim clerics, apparently in connection with a petition he circulated
calling for constitutional change.
Observations
64. The source informed the Special Rapporteur that Sheikh Abdul Amir al Jamri was
convicted on 7 July 1999 and sentenced to a 10-year prison sentence by a Bahraini security
court. However, according to additional information, he was released on 8 July 1999 and has
returned to his village promising not to engage in further political activities.
Bangladesh
Communication sent
65. On 11 November 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an allegation concerning the attack
by the police on 1 November 1999 against Sanual Huq and Anisur Rahman, press photographers
respectively of The Independent and the Daily Star newspapers, during a protest led by
opposition parties. Moreover 13 journalists were reportedly attacked by the police while
covering political demonstrations between 21 and 23 October 1999, including Amran Hossain,
Rafiqur Rabman and Khalid Haider, journalists respectively with Daily Star, Reuters Photo and
DainikDinkal. On 22 October 1999, according to the source, 10 cameramen and photographers,
who were covering riots between police and Islamic extremists, were beaten up by the police in
the streets of Dhaka. According to the information received, the journalists were: Joy of
Banglabazar, Abdur Razzak of Dainik Sangrani, Enamul Huq Kabir of Muktakantha, Subir of
DainikArthaneeti, Salimullah Salim of New Nation, Bulbul Ahmed of The Independent, Faruque
Abmed of UNB, Swapan Sarker of DainikBanglarBani, Matiur Rahman Tuku and Mamum
Talukder of Alker Kago .
Observations
66. A reply from the Government is still awaited.
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 23
Belarus
Communications sent
67. On 6 October 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent action to the Government of
Belarus concerning the disappearance of Mr. Anatoly Krasovsky, head of Krasika publishing
house, and Mr. Victor Gonchar, vice-speaker of the Thirteenth Supreme Soviet. Concern was
expressed regarding suggestions that there may have been official involvement, as
on 1 March 1999 the police arrested Mr. Gonchar on charges of holding an illegal
meeting in a private café, for which he served 10 days' imprisonment.
68. On 21 June 1999, the Special Rapporteur transmitted an allegation asking for further
details about the January 1998 amendment to article 5 of the Law on the Press and raising the
following cases: on 15 February 1999, the Press Committee had issued official warnings to six
independent newspapers, the Belorusskaya Delovaya Gazeta, Narodnaya Volya, Belorusskaya
Gazeta, Bellorrusky Rynok, Iniya and Nay /ny for having published information on alternate
presidential elections on 16 May 1999. Opposition leaders had also been warned and the
Ministry of Justice issued a warning threatening to ban 13 opposition parties and
non-governmental organizations in connection with their participation in those elections. It was
also alleged that on 12 May 1999, the Vice-Chairperson of the Mahileu region electoral
commission, Anatol Fiodaraw, was sentenced to three days' administrative arrest for failing to
appear in court and that Ales Bar d and Kazimir Lokic were also detained at a polling station. At
the end of March 1999, the former Prime Minister, Mikhail Chigir, was reportedly imprisoned
for his active role in the Belarus opposition and for his intention to stand as a presidential
candidate in the alternate presidential elections. Yuri Zakharenko, former Minister of the
Interior and a senior figure in the opposition movement, was reportedly abducted on 7 May 1999
in Minsk by individuals linked to the State Security services, presumably for being a member of
the alternate electoral commission.
69. On 10 March 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent action with the Special
Rapporteur on the question of torture concerning the case of Victor Gonchar, a 42-year-old
opposition leader who appears to have been targeted by the authorities solely because of his
peaceful opposition activities. He and 15 other members of the opposition were reportedly
detained on 25 February 1999 during a peaceful meeting in a café. All were released pending
trial but reportedly charged under the Administrative Code of Belarus with holding an
unsanctioned meeting. On 1 March, Viktor Gonchar was reportedly arrested again and later
sentenced by a Minsk court to 10 days' imprisonment under the same code for organizing an
unsanctioned meeting.
Communications received
70. In its communication of 12 October 1999, the Government includes the press release
issued by the Ministry of the Interior on the case of Mr. V. Gonchar and Mr. A. Krasovsky. The
Minsk Prosecutor's Office, in accordance with article 101 of the Criminal Code, has initiated
legal proceedings.
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 24
71. The Special Rapporteur also acknowledges the communication received on 27 April 1999
which provides further details on the above cases. It is mentioned that Mr. Gonchar was
sentenced to 10 days' detention in a special holding facility following an unauthorized meeting
in violation of article 167-1, paragraph 1, of the Administrative Offensive Code. On 1 March the
Minsk Lenin District Court sentenced him.
72. The Government of Belarus also replied in its communication of 28 September 1999 to
the concern raised in the allegation sent on 21 July 1999. It provides information on the
registration of public associations; the administrative arrest of A.F. Federov, Ales Bar d and
Kazimir Lokik; and the legitimacy of the warning served on six independent Belarusian
newspapers and the detention of former Prime Minister Chigir.
Observations
73. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its replies which shows its
willingness to cooperate. However, he remains extremely concerned about the disappearance of
Mr. Gonchar and Mr. Krasovsky.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Communication sent
74. On 25 October 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent appeal together with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding the assassination
attempt, on 22 October 1999, against Mr. Zeljko Kopanja, editor in chief of the Bosnian Serb
independent Nezavisne Nov /ne, which resulted in the loss of both his legs and serious injuries to
his abdomen. According to the information received, Mr. Kopanja's attempted assassination was
linked to articles he had published concerning war crimes committed by Serbs against Muslims,
and to his questioning the authorities' lacklustre efforts to apprehend suspected war criminals.
Observations
75. The Special Rapporteur regrets that at the time of the finalization of the report, the
Government had not transmitted any reply.
Bulgaria
Communication sent
76. On 5 October 1999, an allegation was sent to the Government of Bulgaria concerning
Alexei Lazarov, a journalist for the independent weekly Kapital ,who was reportedly attacked
on 28 June 1999 by three unidentified assailants. According to the source, the assault appears to
have been connected with an article in which Mr. Lazarov analysed the local media coverage of
the privatization of the Bulgarian Telecommunications Company and criticized a deputy,
P.M. Evgenii Bakardzhiev. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur raises the case of
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 25
Ms. Anna Zarkova, journalist of the daily Trud, who was violently attacked on 11 May 1998
when a group of assailants threw acid on her. According to the information received,
Ms. Zarkova had received numerous threats for her coverage of organized crime and political
corruption in Bulgaria.
Observations
77. No reply from the Government has been received so far.
Chad
Communication sent
78. On 3 September 1999, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur
on the question of torture, transmitted an allegation to the Government concerning
Sosthène Ngargoune, Chairman of the Union of Chadian Journalists who had allegedly been
severely beaten by members of the armed forces of the Federal Republic after meeting up with
the government forces whom he was interviewing on 25 October 1997 in the Moundou police
station. His camera and tape-recorder were reportedly confiscated. it is further alleged that he
had been arrested previously on 14 May 1998 and charged with defamation and libel in
connection with the publication of an article in his newspaper the N ‘D laniena Hebdo.
Observations
79. The Special Rapporteur regrets that no reply had been received from the Government at
the time the report was finalized.
Chile
Communication sent
80. On 17 June 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent action concerning the arrest of
Alejandra Matus, author of El Libro Negro de la Justicia, Bartolo Ortiz, General Director of
Editorial Planeta, and Carlos Orellana, an editor of the latter. Servando Jordan, the judge of the
Supreme Court of Justice, is alleged to have brought a complaint against the book on the basis of
article 6 of the Internal State Security Act which provides for penalties for persons using terms
considered to be defamatory against senior government officials, the armed forces, the judiciary
and the clergy. The book in question is allegedly the result of a detailed investigation into
corruption in the Chilean judiciary and its support for the military junta of the Pinochet
Government. According to the information received, on 14 April 1999 Rafael Huertas, the judge
of the Court of Appeal ordered the confiscation of all copies of the book and the arrest of
Alejandra Matus. On 16 June 1999 Mr. Ortiz and Mr. Orellana were allegedly arrested for
violating the above Act.
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 26
Observations
81. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the release of Bartolo Ortiz and Carlos Orelana
on 18 June 1999.
China
Communications sent
82. On 3 November 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the Government of
China concerning the arrest and detention of Mr. Jiang Qisheng, a pro-democracy activist.
According to a source, Mr. Jiang was tried on 1 November 1999 for propagating and instigating
subversion. Allegedly Mr. Jiang is charged for writing an open letter to the Chinese public
calling for the collective commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the 1989 democracy
movement.
83. On 17 August 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent actionjointly with the
Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary executions concerning Zulikar Memet, who was reportedly sentenced to
death on 25 July 1999 by the Ili Prefecture Intermediate People's Court in the Xinjian Uighur
Autonomous Region. It is alleged that he was accused of involvement in “ethnic separatist
activities” and he told the court that his confession had been extracted under torture. His brother
Hemit Memet, as well as eight other unidentified individuals, have also been sentenced to death
(see para. 85 below).
84. On 16 June 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent action, together with the
Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, concerning the detention of
Mr. Jiang Qisheng. According to the source, Mr. Qisheng, said to be critical of the Government,
gave an interview to The Boston Globe the day before his arrest on 17 May 1999. Allegedly,
Mr. Qisheng was earlier imprisoned for 17 months for his involvement in the 1989
pro-democracy movement.
85. On 14 June 1999, the Special Rapporteur transmitted a joint urgent action with the
Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
executions concerning Zulikar Memet and Saydakhmet Memet, who were reportedly detained in
Urumqi, the capital ofXinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, in 1998 and February 1999,
respectively. It was reported that they were accused of “assisting separatists/terrorists” and
arrested because they are brothers of Hemet Memet, who was previously detained
on 11 February 1999 along with Kasim Mahpir and Ilyas Zordun: all were reportedly
accused of involvement in “ethnic separatist activities”. A joint urgent action was sent
on 17 February 1999 on these three persons as well.
86. On 10 December 1998, the Special Rapporteur transmitted a joint urgent action together
with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on violence
against women concerning the cases of two Tibetan nuns, Ngawang Sandgrol and
Ngawang Choezon, detained at the Drapchi prison in Tibet. The two nuns are said to be in
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 27
extremely poor physical condition after having been subjected to harsh interrogation and ill-
treatment and placed in solitary confinement after violent suppression of demonstrations by
prisoners inside Drapchi prison on 1 and 4 May 1998.
87. On 9 December 1998, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent action with the
Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concerning the arrest and
detention of Wang Youcai, Xu Wenli and Qin Yongmin, Chinese citizens involved in the
organization of the Chinese Democratic Party. According to information received, Wang Youcai
was arrested on 30 November 1998 and is currently held in a State security detention centre in
Zhejiang province and on 1 December 1998, Xu Wenli was arrested together with Qin Yongmin
on suspicion of damaging State security.
Communications received
88. The Government of China, on 24 February 1999, provided the Special Rapporteur with
information regarding the case of Ngawang Sangdrol who was sentenced in November 1992 to
three years' imprisonment on charges of separatist activities by the Lhasa Municipal
Intermediate People's Court. In 1993, 1996 and 1998 her sentence was further extended to a
total of 15 years. The Government states that beating and ill-treatment by government guards is
inconsistent with the facts.
89. The Government of China on 2 February 1999 informed the Special Rapporteur that
Xu Wenli, Wang Youcai and Qin Yougmin, all three of them of Han nationality, had their jail
sentences and deprivation of political rights extended because they were recidivist in their
incitement to subversion of State power.
Observations
90. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of China for its replies.
Colombia
Communications sent
91. On 23 April 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent action with the Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding the death threats
received by the Colombian editor Gerardo Rivas Moreno in the form of a hand-written note
accompanied by magazine clippings. It is said that the note was signed by the paramilitary
“United Self-Defence Groups of Colombia”. These death threats could be connected with
Mr. Rivas Moreno's work as literary editor and specifically with the translation of the complete
works of Simon BolIvar. It is thought that Mr. Rivas might have been confused with one of the
members of the so-called “Bolivarianos Group”, the name given by the Colombian revolutionary
armed forces to its pro-Simon BolIvar political movement.
92. On 10 June 1999, the Special Rapporteur, together with the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, sent a communication to the Government of
Colombia in reply to its letters of 7 and 10 May 1999 requesting more details regarding the death
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 28
threats to the Colombian editor Gerardo Rivas Moreno by the paramilitary group “Autodefensa
Unificada de Colombia”. The Special Rapporteurs asked to be kept informed about the
investigation in relation to this case as well as the measures taken to protect the life and the right
to freedom of opinion and expression of Mr. Rivas Moreno.
Communications received
93. By letters dated 7 and 10 May 1999, the Government requested the Special Rapporteur to
submit additional information regarding the case of Mr. Rivas Moreno. On 29 July 1999, the
Government informed the Special Rapporteurs that it was not in a position to submit information
on the case of Mr. Rivas Moreno since the Special Rapporteurs themselves could not provide it
with additional details. Nevertheless, the Government of Colombia replied on 27 August 1999
that the Anti-Abductions Unit of the Public Prosecutor's Office in Bogota was conducting
investigations into the incident regarding the case of Mr. Rivas Moreno. According to the
Government, Mr. Rivas Moreno was recalled on 12 July 1999 to provide more information about
his complaint and the Technical Investigations Corps was asked to appoint an investigator to
seek to identify the perpetrator of the offence.
94. The Government of Colombia also sent a communication on 30 July 1999 regarding the
provisions governing compulsory military service and the recruitments of minors by insurgent
groups.
Observations
95. The Special Rapporteur wishes to thank the Government for its reply concerning
Mr. Gerardo Rivas Moreno, in particular in the light of the difficulty of gathering information on
this specific case. However, he remains very concerned about the current situation in Colombia
with regard to the abductions, death threats, and even murders ofjournalists (seven during the
period under consideration) and persons seeking to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and
expression.
Côte d'Ivoire
Communication sent
96. On 3 November 1999, a joint urgent action was transmitted by the Special Rapporteur to
the Ivorian Government with the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention concerning the detention of Raphael Lakpe and Jean Khalil Sylla, editor-in-chief and
journalist respectively of the Le Populaire daily newspaper. According to the information
received, they were arrested in April 1999 and sentenced to six months' detention for the
dissemination of false information and for activities likely to disturb law and order. They were
allegedly arrested because on 28 April 1999 their newspaper published an article entitled “One
student killed and four others seriously injured”, whereas the students in question had only been
injured by the police.
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 29
Communication received
97. On 8 November 1999 the Ivorian Government acknowledged receipt of the joint urgent
action of 3 November 1999 and informed the Special Rapporteur that Mr. Raphael Lakpe and
Mr. Jean Khalil Sylla had been sentenced for defamation but had since been released.
Observations
98. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the release of these two journalists, thanks the
Government for the information it provided but nevertheless hopes to receive more detailed
information about the sentencing of these two persons for defamation.
Cuba
Communications sent
99. On 19 March 1999, the Special Rapporteur transmitted an allegation expressing concern
at the arrest, detention, harassment, assault and beatings that took place between October 1998
and March 1999 with regard to journalists and human rights activists. Some of them were
reportedly harassed as well as detained for a short period of time, like the following:
(a) José Edel Garcia Diaz, journalist with the independent “Centro Norté del Pais” news agency
and Jesus Diaz Loyola, journalist with the “Havana Press” agency; (b) Juan Gonzalez Febles,
Adela Soto, Fabio Prieto Liorente, Ivan Garcia Quintero and Hector Gonzalez; (c) Raül Rivero,
founder and Director of the independent “Cuba Press” agency; (d) Jesus Labrador Arias of
“Cuba Press”; (e) Maria de los Angeles Gonzalez Amaro, Director of the “Union de Periodistas
y Escritores Cubanos Independientes” agency; (f) Santiago Martinez Trujillo, photographer with
the “Union de Periodistas y Escritores Cubanos Independientes” agency, Nancy Sotolongo Leon
of the same agency and Angel Polanco of the “Cooperativa de Periodistas Independientes”
agency; (g) José Antonio Fornariz Ramos, of the “Cuba Verdad” agency and Luis Lopez Prendes
of the independent “BPIC” news agency; (h) Pedro ArgUelles Moran, correspondent with
“Cuba Press”; (i) Hiran Gonzalez, correspondent with “Cuba Press”; (j) Lazaro Rodriguez
Torres, Maria del Carmen Carro Gómez and Jorge Olivera, Director of the “Havana Press”
agency; (k) Odalys Ivette Curbelo Sanchez, a “Cuba Press” correspondent; (1) José Luis
Rodriguez, a photographer with the “BPIC” agency; (m) Manuel Antonia Gonzalez, a
“Cuba Press” correspondent; (n) Oswaldo de Cespedes, a journalist with the “Cooperativa de
Periodistas Independientes” agency and Omar Rodriguez Saludes of the “Nueva Prensa” agency;
(o) Ofelia Nardo and Efrén Martinez Pulgaron of “Cuba Press”, Marvin Hernandez Monzón,
Orlando Bordon Galvez and Lazaro Gonzalez of the same agency and Jesus Zufiiga, of the
“Cooperativa de Periodistas Independientes” and Mario Viera Gonzalez, Director of the
“Cuba Verdad” agency; (p) Ulises Cabrera, Head of the independent “Pueblo Libre” news
agency; (q) Jorge Luis Arce Cabrera, correspondent with the “BPIC” agency in Cienfuegos and
Jesus Egozcue Castellanos, Director of the independent “Linea Sur Press” news agency;
(r) Ricardo Gonzalez, a “Cuba Press” journalist; (s) Juan Antonio Sanchez, a “Cuba Press”
journalist.
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 30
100. In addition, the followingjournalists have reportedly been sentenced to longer prison
terms: (a) Benardo Arévalo Padron, founder of the independent “Linea Sur Press” news agency,
in Aguadade Pasajeros, was allegedly sentenced to six years' imprisonment for insulting
President Fidel Castro and Vice-President Carlos Lage; (b) Juan Carlos Recio Martinez, a
“Cuba Press” correspondent, was allegedly sentenced to one year of community service on
13 February 1998 for acts against the security of the State; (c) Lorenzo Páez Nifthez, a
correspondent of the independent “BPIC” news agency in Artemisa, Havana, was allegedly
sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for insulting the national police. It is said that Mr. Páez
was released on 4 January 1999 but arrested once again on 1 March 1999.
101. On 26 January 1999, the Special Rapporteur transmitted ajoint urgent action with the
Chairman of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concerning the arrest and detention of
Jesus Joel DIaz Hernandez, Executive Director of the independent press agency “Cooperative
Avilena de Periodistas Independientes”. Also considered as a government critic and human
rights activist, Jesus DIaz was reportedly arrested on 18 January 1999 in Ciego de Avila province
and sentenced to four years' imprisonment for “dangerous behaviour”. According to the
information received, Jesus DIaz's trial did not conform to international standards of fairness and
his lawyer had inadequate time to prepare his defence.
Communications received
102. The Government of Cuba replied on 15 April 1999 concerning the case of Jesus Joel
DIaz Hernandez. The latter was sentenced on 20 January 1999 to four years' imprisonment for
dangerous behaviour following five warnings in accordance with article 415 of Cuba's Penal
Procedure Act. The Government of Cuba denies that the arrest and detention of Mr. Hernandez
is linked to his human rights interests and expresses its willingness to cooperate with the
mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights.
103. On 15 July 1999, the Government of Cuba sent a reply denying the request for further
information on the allegation dated 19 March 1999 because the sources were unreliable. The
Government of Cuba also questioned whether the objectivity that should characterize the work of
the thematic mechanisms was being observed. The same communication also provided
additional data on the Law for Protection of the National Independence and Economy of Cuba.
Observations
104. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Cuba for its reply.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Communications sent
105. On 7 October 1999 the Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government ajoint urgent
action with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on
the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo concerning
Feu d'Or Bonsange, music editor, and Kala Bongamba, printer, both employees of the L ‘Alarnie
newspaper. They were allegedly arrested on 27 September 1999 and detained in the private
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 31
residence of a senior military officer before being transferred on 2 October to the building known
as the “GLM” which, according to the information received, is an unofficial place of detention.
Persons working for L ‘Alarnie have allegedly been harassed by the authorities since 1997. The
Special Rapporteurs also drew the Government's attention to the case of Clovis Kadda,
publication director of the same newspaper, who was allegedly arrested on 22 September 1999
and interrogated in the military district of Kinshasa about one of the members of his family who,
it was said, had participated in the rebellion. According to the information received, he was
tortured and released the following day.
106. On 4 October 1999, the Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government, jointly with
the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, a series of allegations concerning the following
persons: Freddy Loseke Lisumbu-La-Yayenga, editor of LaLibreAfrique newspaper, arrested
on 22 December 1998, who allegedly received 150 lashes and was then interrogated about the
publication of an article in his newspaper on that day; Christophe Bintu and Bienvenu Kasole,
both of them human rights defenders, who were allegedly arrested on 12 January 1999 and
released from the Kokolo camp on 20 January 1999 after being beaten and insulted in connection
with their work as human rights activists; Jean-Baptiste Makoko, treasurer of the Groupe Lotus,
a human rights NGO in Kisangani, who was allegedly arrested and beaten up on
10 December 1997 by three soldiers for having photographed dead soldiers in Kisangani
hospital; Albert Bilbert Bosangi Yema, editor-in-chief of the L ‘Arnie and L ‘Essor Africain
newspapers, who was allegedly arrested on 7 February 1998, probably because of an article
published in L ‘Arnie criticizing the arrest of the Chairman of the “Forces novatrices pour l'union
et la solidarité” political movement and who, according to the information received, is suffering
from diabetes and rheumatism and whose health has deteriorated since his detention;
Désiré Rugemanizi, Chief of Kabare, who was allegedly arrested in January 1998 for criticizing
human rights violations in the region and tortured before being released in February 1998;
Floribert Chebeya Bahizire, Chairman of the NGO “La Voix des sans-voix”, who was allegedly
beaten up at his home by armed men in uniform in March 1998; Oswald Hakorimana, a human
rights defender in the Kivu du Nord region, who was allegedly beaten severely in March 1998 by
soldiers who accused him of collecting information concerning massacres of civilians.
107. On 4 February 1998, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent action to the Government
concerning the situation of Molse Musangana, Clement Kongo, Ngambata, Theodore Ngangu
and Emmanuel Katshunga, publication director, deputy editorial director and journalist
respectively. All were arrested on 3 February 1999 when elements of the National Intelligence
Agency (ANR) allegedly surrounded the premises of the Le Potent/el newspaper. They were
reportedly accused of having published decree-laws concerning political parties and regulations
concerning demonstrations and public meetings. André Ipakala, editor of the La Référence Plus
newspaper, was allegedly arrested on 4 February 1999, also by elements of the ANR, and taken
to an unknown destination.
108. On 3 February 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent action to the Government
together with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo concerning the case of Michel Museme Diawe, editor-in-chief of
Radio-Television Congolaise, who had allegedly been evicted from his home on
26 January 1999. According to the information received, he was harassed because of his
professional activities.
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 32
109. On 25 January 1999, the Special Rapporteur transmitted ajoint urgent action to the
Government with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo concerning the questioning of Kinyongo Saleh on 2 January 1999 about
an article that was published in the La Vision newspaper. It is said that he was released the same
evening. The cases of Thierry Kyalumba, publication director of La Vision, questioned by the
same services, and of François Kadima Malungu, former special security adviser to
President Kabila, were also transmitted.
Observations
110. The Special Rapporteur regrets that no reply has yet been received from the Democratic
Republic of the Congo.
Djibouti
Communication sent
111. On 5 October 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the Government of
Djibouti concerning the arrest and detention ofjournalists Moussa Ahmed Idriss, Daher Abmed
Farah and Ali Meidal Wais. According to the information received Moussa Abmed Idriss, editor
of the monthly Le Tenips, was arrested on 23 September 1999 in a police raid following the
publication of an article stating that a military helicopter was destroyed as a result of guerrilla
action. This was reportedly denied by the authorities who claimed it to be an accident.
Ali Medidal Wais, senior editor ofLe Tenips, was arrested on 2 September 1999 and sentenced
to eight months in jail for “dissemination of false new stories” and “damaging the armed forces'
morale in an effort to harm national defence”. Daher Abmed, editor of the weekly
Le Renouveau, was also sentenced to one year in prison for the same reason.
Observations
112. The Special Rapporteur has been informed that Moussa Idriss, Ali Medal Waiss and
Daher Abmed Farah were released on 8 December 1999. However, the two newspapers, which
were suspended for six months, have still not resumed publishing.
Equatorial Guinea
Communication sent
113. On 15 November 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an allegation to the Government of
Equatorial Guinea concerning the refusal of government bodies to process applications that
would have authorized the appearance of the following periodicals: El Tienipo (application of
11 July 1996), La Opinion (application of 22 April 1998), and La Hola del Periodista
(application of 6 March 1998). The Special Rapporteur was also informed that José Olo Obono,
well-known criminal lawyer and secretary-general of one of the parties awaiting recognition, has
been sentenced to five months in prison and a fine for “insulting the Government”. It was
alleged that Mr. Obono levelled strong criticism at the authorities during an interview he gave to
the Spanish press in connection with the death of his former client, Martin Puye Topete.
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 33
According to the source, another serious incident occurred on 1 November 1998 when Alberto
Mbe, Asunción Nsang Elo, Maria Luisa Abuy Eko and Benjamin Mba, members of the
Convergencia para la Democracia Social party, were detained because they attempted to bring
into Equatorial Guinea from Gabon 60 copies of a book published in Spain under the title
Equatorial Guinea at the Crossroads . The Special Rapporteur also expressed concern over the
absence of the regular publication of laws, decrees and governmental acts which jeopardizes the
right of citizens to access information.
Observations
114. The Special Rapporteur is aware that, given the timing of this allegation, the
Government's reply will appear in next year [ Is report.
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Communications sent
115. On 13 July 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent appeal with the Special
Representative on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning
student demonstrators who were attacked on 8 July 1999 by members of the armed forces and
the student vigilante group, Ansar-e Hezbollah, while they were gathering outside the university
hostels on Tehran UniversityDs Amirabad campus to demonstrate against the closure of the daily
newspaper Salani. Concern was expressed over the alleged deaths of four students, Na'imi,
Sobrabian, Yavari and Zakeri, as well as over the arrest of and injury to students during this
demonstration. On 6 July, student activists Mohamad Masud Salamati, Sayed Javad Emami and
Parviz Safaria were reportedly detained after a demonstration outside the United Nations office
in Tehran demanding the release of two journalists, Heshmatollah Tabarzadi and Hossein
Kashani, who were arrested in mid-June.
116. On 12 July 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent action, with the Special
Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Representative, concerning the cases of
Heshmatollah Tabarzadi and Hossein Kashani, journalists of the weekly publication
Hovizat-U-Khich, which has since reportedly been banned. The two journalists were allegedly
arrested on 16 and 19 June 1999 for publishing information “contrary to the public order and the
public interest” and “issuing an anti-establishment communiqué”. On 6 July 1999, a number of
students were reportedly protesting the detention of the above-mentioned individuals at the
United Nations office in Tebran and were themselves arrested. Furthermore, it has been reported
that the Government suspended the publication of a leading moderate newspaper, Salani, the
same day the Majilis passed a new law which in principle restricts freedom of the press.
Salanills editor, Morad Raisi Veissi, was reportedly detained on 7 July 1999.
117. On 15 December 1998, the Special Rapporteur transmitted a joint urgent appeal with the
Special Representative and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
executions to the Government of Iran. They expressed concern about the disturbing news of
what is described as a “pattern of murders and disappearances” of prominent Iranian writers and
government critics. Majid Sharif, Mohammad Mokhtari and Mohammad Jafar Pooynade, all
said to be writers, were allegedly found dead in suspicious circumstances after having
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 34
disappeared on 23 November, 3 and 9 December 1998 respectively. It is noted that these deaths
followed the reported killings on 22 November 1998 of Dariush Forouhar and his wife, Parvaneh
Forouhar, both prominent critics of the Government. Concern was expressed about the safety
and physical integrity of Pirouz Davani, intellectual, critic and editor, who was reported missing
since 25 August 1998, as well as that of all Iranian political and intellectual dissidents.
Communication received
118. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran replies to the Special Rapporteur in a
communication dated 12 January 1999. It addressed the arrest of several staff of the Ministry of
hiformation on charges of complicity in the killings of five Iranian citizens. The Government
expressed its trust in the transparency and effectiveness of national mechanisms.
119. hi its communication of 12 April 1999, the Government in reference to an allegation
of 30 October 1998, stated that the publishing of Rah-e-no and Tavana had been suspended
because of technical problems and a lack of funds.
Observations
120. The Special Rapporteur wishes to thank the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran
for its replies and for having kept him informed on the recent developments regarding the
situation of the media in the Islamic Republic. The Special Rapporteur was informed by the
source that Hossein Kashani, director of the newsletters Hoveyet-e-Khish, was released on bail in
July 1999. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur learned that Heshmatollah Tabarzadi was released
on bail on 5 November 1999.
Ireland
121. From 18 to 22 October 1999, the Special Rapporteur undertook a visit to Ireland, on
which he has reported separately to the Commission at its present session.
(E/CN.4/2000/63/Add.2).
Israel
Communication sent
122. On 22 September 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent action with the
Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concerning the arrest and
detention of Ms. Cosette Elias Ibrahim, ajournalist and student in the Faculty of Journalism in
the Lebanese University of Beirut. According to the source, Ms. Elias Ibrahim was apprehended
by Israeli soldiers, interrogated and then transferred to the detention centre at Al-Kiam. Two
other individuals, Degaulle Boutros Bou Taleb and Samir George Khyame, also affiliated with
the Lebanese media, were also allegedly detained and transferred to al-Khiam. According to the
reports, Ms. Elias Ibrahim has been accused by the Government of Israel of writing reports about
the occupied zone in southern Lebanon as well as of submitting information to the Lebanese
armed forces about the movements of the Israeli army.
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 35
Communications received
123. The Government of Israel replied to the Special Rapporteur on 28 September 1999.
Regarding the detention of Ms. Cosette Elias Ibrahim, Mr. Degaulle Boutros Bou Taleb and
Mr. Samir George Khyame, the Government suggested that any requests for further information
should be addressed directly to General Lahad, who is responsible for the El-Khiam detention
centre. The Government further reported that Lebanese prisoners fall into two categories: those
who have been apprehended in the course of terrorist attacks against the Israeli Defence Forces
are held in Israeli detention centres, while those who have been apprehended in the course of
attacks against the South Lebanon Army are held in El-Khiam detention centre.
124. The Special Rapporteur also acknowledges the communication sent on 14 July 1999 by
the Government to draw his attention to the arbitrary arrest of Mr. Maher Dasuki in a town under
the administration of the Palestinian Authority.
Observations
125. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Israel for its prompt reply.
Japan
Communication received
126. The Government of Japan responded on 8 October 1999 to ajoint allegation sent with the
Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography on
13 July 1998 expressing concern over the extensive proliferation of Web pages, bulletin boards
and news-servers disseminating images of child pornography over the Internet (see
E/CN.4/1999/64, para. 82). The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that on
26 May 1999, a Law for Punishing Acts related to Child Prostitution and Child Pornography and
for Protecting Children was enacted. It was due to enter into force on 1 November 1999. The
Law provides that those who display child pornography on the Internet face imprisonment of up
to three years. Measures to regulate the pornography industry operating through the Internet
were introduced by an amendment to the Law on Control and Improvement of Amusement
Business in October 1998. Moreover, the communication stated that when police investigators
detect child pornography on the Internet, they ask the Internet providers to delete the material
from the network. A trade organization of Internet providers has developed guidelines to curb
illegal and harmful information, including child pornography, on the Internet. Under the
guidelines providers can take measures such as warning, deleting the material and suspending
the services to those that put illegal and harmful material on Web pages.
Jordan
Communications sent
127. On 25 October 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal concerning the
expulsion of Mr. Abdullah Hassanat (chief editor of the Jordan Times), Mr. Sultan Hattab
(columnist at Al RaTh), and Mr. Jihad al-Monati (journalist at Al Dustour) from the Jordan Press
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 36
Association (JPA). According to the source the expulsion was in response to a visit which the
journalists made to Israel, at the invitation of the Haifa University Centre for Arab-Jewish
Studies, in September 1999. As reported, membership in JPA is necessary to exercise the
profession ofjournalism in Jordan.
128. On 11 August 1999, the Special Rapporteur transmitted an urgent action concerning
Senan Shaqdeh, a senior editorial adviser for the evening daily newspaper Al-Masaya and a
member of the Jordanian JournalistsEl Association. On 25 July 1999, he was reportedly arrested
for publishing an article inAl-Masaya which, according to the authorities, was damaging to the
GovernmentEls relations with a foreign Power.
Observations
129. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the release of Mr. Shaqdeh on 10 August 1999.
Kenya
Communication sent
130. On 23 September 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent action with the
Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concerning the detention
and conviction of Mr. Tony Gachoka, publisher of the Post on Sunday, who was detained in
connection with articles in his newspaper about alleged corruption in the judiciary. He was
convicted of contempt of court, sentenced to six months' imprisonment and fined K Sh 1 million.
The Special Rapporteur has been informed that three of the judges named in the newspaper
articles for which Mr. Gachoka was being tried sat injudgement on his case.
Observations
131. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the release of Mr. Gachoka on 3 November 1999.
Kuwait
Communications sent
132. On 11 October 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent action to the Government of
Kuwait concerning the arrest and detention of Mr. Abmad Baghdadi, head of the Political
Science Department at Kuwait University and a regular contributor to the daily newspaper
Al-slyassa. Mr. Baghdadi was convicted on 4 October 1999 on charges of defaming Islam and
the prophet Muhammad for an article he wrote in 1996 in the Kuwait University student
magazine Al-Shoula. According to the information received, Mr. Baghdadi has been sentenced
to one month in jail and is currently detained at Talha prison.
133. On 21 July 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent action concerning the continued
detention ofjournalists Fawwaz Muhammad al Awadhi Bseiso and Ibtisam Berto Sulaiman
al-Dakhil who, together with three colleagues from the newspaper al-Nidaa, were sentenced to
death in June 1991 for having collaborated with occupying Iraqi forces. It has been reported
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 37
that 10 days later, the sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. However, the three
colleagues of Mr. Bseiso and Mr. al-Dakhil, who were convicted of the same charges and subject
to the same sentence, were released from jail on 25 February 1999 whereas the whereabouts of
Mr. Bseiso and Mr. al-Dakhil remain unknown as well as their place of detention.
Communications received
134. The Government informed the Special Rapporteur, in its communication
dated 19 November 1999, that Mr. Baghdadi was convicted to six months' imprisonment for
defaming the Prophet Muhammad. The charges against him were brought under the Kuwait
Public Code and not under the laws governing the media. As a result of an appeal
on 4 October 1999, Mr. Baghdadi had his sentence reduced to one month. Following his hunger
strike, he was taken after one day to the hospital and granted permission to receive visits from
family members and the media. It is further noted that the court hearing his case respected all
national and international standards and that Mr. Baghdadi was represented by three lawyers.
On 18 October 1999, the Prince of Kuwait granted him a pardon, so that Mr. Baghdadi spent
only 13 days in prison. The Government further stated that the Kuwaiti Constitution endorses
fully the right to freedom of opinion and expression (art. 36) which is limited only by the
necessity of public order.
135. The Government sent a communication on 30 July 1999 informing the Special
Rapporteur that the Ministry of Information decided to ban the Al-Jazeera satellite and its
correspondent from exercising their activities on charges of defaming the Amir. However, after
the station's administration made an official apology and the presenter was dismissed, the
Ministry lifted the ban and allowed the opening of a permanent office.
Observations
136. A response from the Government is still awaited.
Lebanon
Communication sent
137. On 4 November 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the Government of
Lebanon concerning the case of Marcel Khalifa, a well-known singer. According to the source,
Mr. Khalifa was put on trial on 3 November 1999 for “insulting religious values” by including a
two-line verse from a chapter of the Koran in his song “I am Yousef, o father” recorded in 1995.
Allegedly, under article 473 of LebanonEls Penal Code blasphemy is punishable by one month to
one year in prison, while article 474 of the Penal Code punishes “insulting publicly a religion”
with imprisonment ranging from six months to three years.
Communication received
138. The Government informed the Special Rapporteur, in its communication
dated 29 November 1999 with regard to the case of Mr. Marcel Khalifa, that the Lebanese
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 38
Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The Government further
affirmed that Mr. Khalifa will get a fair trial and that he is still living in full freedom and giving
his concerts according to schedule.
Observations
139. The Special Rapporteur wishes to thank the Government for its prompt reply.
Malaysia
Communications sent
140. On 14 September 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent action concerning the
imprisonment of Murray Hiebert, a Canadian citizen and bureau chief of the weekly
Far Eastern Economic Review in Kuala Lumpur. According to the information, Murray Hiebert
was jailed on 11 September 1999 for six weeks after the Appeal Court upheld a 1997 conviction
for “contempt of court”. Mr. Hiebert was first sentenced to three months in jail in
September 1997 for an article entitled, “See you in court”, which appeared on 23 January 1997
about a suit brought by Chandra Sri Ram, the wife of Appeal Court Judge Gopal Sri Ram,
against the International School of Kuala Lumpur. Upon his conviction and pending the appeal
of the original sentence, the court reportedly seized Mr. Hiebert's passport and he has therefore
been unable to leave Malaysia since that time.
141. On 18 June 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint allegation with the Special
Rapporteur on the right to education concerning the dismissal of Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,
Professor and Director for Civilizational Dialogue of the University of Malaysia. Owing to the
apparent absence of an academic rationale for Professor MuzzafarEls dismissal, it is alleged that
the dismissal is a politically motivated reprisal for his support for the opposition leader Ibrahim
Anwar and the reform movement.
Communications received
142. In its communication of 4 October 1999, the Government of Malaysia replied that in the
case of Mr. Murray Hiebert, the Malaysian judiciary had arrived independently at its judgement
solely on the basis of the relevant laws.
143. The Government of Malaysia on 11 August 1999 informed the Special Rapporteur that
Dr. Chandra Muzzaffar allegedly was dismissed from his position at the university not for
political reasons but because his contract had ended.
Observations
144. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Malaysia for its prompt replies and
welcomes the release of Mr. Hiebert on 11 October 1999.
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 39
Mexico
Communications sent
145. The Special Rapporteur, jointly with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or
arbitrary executions, sent three urgent actions in connection with the death threats received by
persons working for the “Miguel AgustIn Pro-Juárez” Human Rights Centre NGO
on 6 September, 16 September and 1 November. Digna Ochoa Placido said that she had been
assaulted, questioned and harassed by a group of individuals who entered her home and
questioned her until the morning of 29 October and, before leaving, allegedly tied her to a butane
gas container.
146. On 6 October 1999, the Special Rapporteur also requested information concerning
allegations of the violation of the human rights of the following persons:
(a) On 16 December 1998, the body of Philip True, a United States citizen and
correspondent for the San Antonio Express News, was found in the Sierra Madre mountains.
According to the information received, Mr. True had gone to Huicholes in order to write an
article about the indigenous population of the region;
(b) During the same week, Armando Meléndez Sanchez, a journalist, was killed by
three men who shot him in the presence of his wife;
(c) Luis Mario Garcia Rodriguez, a reporter for the La Tarde newspaper, was killed
on 12 February 1998 near a police station in Mexico City. According to the source,
Mr. Rodriguez had written several articles about corruption in the Government Procurator's
Department and the Federal Judicial Police;
(d) Hector Felix Miranda, author of a column in which public and private corruption
was regularly criticized, was killed in 1998;
(e) Jesus Blancornelas, editor of the Zeta weekly in Tijuana, was taken to hospital
on 27 November 1997 following an attempt on his life. According to the source, there are
indications that drug traffickers were behind the affair since Mr. Blancornelas often published
articles about the Tijuana cartel;
(f) Gabriel Gaza, a crime reporter with the El Diario newspaper in Nuevo Laredo,
was beaten up in the street on 7 October 1997 by about 12 police officers, including
Inspector Juan Antonio Treviflo. It was reported that the police subsequently apologized for
what had happened, explaining that it was an error since they had confused Mr. Gaza with a
criminal;
(g) The photographer Raül Urbina was assaulted by security officers when he was
covering a demonstration in Mexico City on 3 September 1997;
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 40
(h) Daniel Lizarraga, of the La Refornia newspaper, was abducted
on 5 September 1997 by two men who are thought to have been members of the Federal Judicial
Police. According to the information received, Mr. Lizarraga was investigating an alleged
connection between officials of the Government Procurator's Office and cocaine traffickers;
(i) Fatima Monterroso, of the “Detrás de la Noticia” programme, and
Daniel Pensamiento, of the La Refornia y El Norte newspaper, correspondents in Chiapas, were
assaulted on 26 August 1997;
(j) Rafael Jiménez y Leobardo Espinoza, reporters for El Debate, as well as
Georgina Gill of the Televisa television company and Manuel Salas and Moisés Juarez, of
Noroeste, were assaulted and threatened in Culiacan on 31 July 1997. It is alleged that these
attacks were the work of the State Judicial Police of Sinaloa;
(k) Nidia MarIn, of the Excelsior newspaper, Miguel Perez of the La Refornia
newspaper and Juan Garcia, a photographer with the Excelsior were, according to the
information received, assaulted by State guards on 4 June 1997 when they were covering an
inauguration ceremony;
(1) Salvador Chavez, a correspondent for the Televisa television company, was
arrested on 12 April 1997. According to the information received, he was detained for two hours
and beaten by the police when covering a police operation in Guadalajara in the State of Jalisco;
(m) CuauhtCmoc Ornelas Campos, editor of the Alcance review, has officially been
declared as having disappeared since 4 October 1995. According to the information received, he
condemned the activities of drug traffickers in the region of the State of Coahuila and their
connection with the authorities.
147. On 16 July 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent action with the Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions concerning the death threats
received on various occasions by Jesus Barraza Zavala, director of the Pulso weekly and the
aggression against his bodyguard by alleged official agents. On 9 April 1999, Pulso published
two articles connecting Albino Quintero Meraz, an ex-governor, and the Federal Judicial Police
with drugs trafficking and calling for an investigation. As a result, on 4 May 1999,
Mr. Quintero's emissary allegedly threatened Mr. Barraza with death, stating that his body
would be found floating in a river if he did not cease publishing his accusations. According to
the information received, the emissary offered Mr. Barraza the sum of $30,000 in exchange for
his silence.
148. We have been informed that Benjamin Flores Gonzalez, the former director of Pulso, was
killed by drugs traffickers on 15 July 1997 and that the police has so far not arrested the authors
of this crime.
149. On 26 April, both Special Rapporteurs sent an urgent action to the Government referring
to the threats received by the staff of the La Guillotina review. It is alleged that on 8 April 1999
a man attacked Carina Ochoa, a journalist with this review.
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 41
150. On 15 February, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent action together with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions informing the Government
of Mexico about the attack and the death threats received by Enrique Gutiérrez, a correspondent
for the El Sur local newspaper while he was covering the elections of 7 February in Acapulco,
State of Guerrero. The incident took place in La Glorieta de Puerto Marques, when the journalist
was gathering information on alleged irregularities in the electoral process committed by election
officers from Polling Station 308 and staff working for the municipal government, who were
members of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI).
Communications received
151. The Special Rapporteur received a communication dated 13 February 1998 in which the
Government of Mexico clarified the legal position in respect of some of the cases on which
information had been requested. In its communication the Government provided information
about the case of Rene Solorio, Ernesto Madrid and Gerardo Segura, as well as the cases of
Daniel Lizárraga, David Vicenteno, Abdel Jesus Bueno Leon, Benjamin Flores Gonzalez and
Victor Hernández Martines. According to the information received, these cases are still under
investigation and some have reached the trial stage. The Special Rapporteur will ask to be kept
informed about the progress made in these proceedings.
152. The Mexican Government, in a communication dated 10 August 1999, provided the
Special Rapporteur with information about the case of Jesus Barraza, stating that proceedings
had been instituted and that the Federal Government had requested the Government Procurator
of the State of Sonora to take measures to protect the journalist. It also stated that the
Government Procurator was authorized to do everything in his power to prevent any direct or
indirect action being taken against Mr. Barraza and to guarantee his integrity. The Government
also transmitted additional information about the case of Jesus Barraza, indicating that,
since 31 June 1999, elements of the municipal police in San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora, had
been assigned to protect Mr. Barraza. Similarly, the deputy investigator of the Government
Procurator's Department (ordinary jurisdiction) based in that town had ordered elements of the
judicial police to carry out regular checks at various hours of the day and night, including contact
with the staff of the Pulso weekly and Mr. Barraza's home.
153. The Mexican Government also sent a report dated 22 September 1999 indicating that the
National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) had transmitted the file concerning the Human
Rights Centre “Miguel Agustin Pro-Juárez” to the inspectorate responsible for coordinating the
programme of assistance forjournalists and human rights defenders, in accordance with
article 40 of the CNDH Law which states that the Inspector-General may request the competent
authorities to take preventive measures to avoid an irreparable outcome when such acts are
reported. It added that preventive measures had been taken and that preliminary investigations
had been launched.
154. In a letter dated 1 December 1999, the Special Rapporteur received a reply to the
allegations submitted on a number of cases, providing information on each one. The progress
made in the investigations varies from case to case. The report indicated that those responsible
for the killing of the journalists Phillip True and Benjamin Flores Gonzáles had been identified
and sentenced. However, it also stated, in respect of the killing of the journalist Luis Garcia
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 42
Rodriguez and in the cases of the assault and battery of the journalists David Vicenteflo and
Salvador Chavez Calderon, that CNDH had ended its investigations since it had “found no
evidence of the participation by any authority or public official”. Similarly, it indicated that
CNDH had closed the cases of Rene Solorio, Gerardo Segura and Ernesto Madrid because they
had requested that the investigations should be discontinued. The case of the aggression
committed against the journalist Raül Urbina was also closed since the Public Security
Secretariat of the Federal District had taken steps to determine who was responsible, so that it is
unknown whether all the guilty parties have been identified and sentenced.
155. The information also indicated that, in the cases of the killing of the journalists
Hector Felix Miranda and Abdel Bueno Leon, as well as the attempt against the life of
Jesus Blancornerlas, investigations had not yet been completed or that CNDH's
recommendations had not been complied with fully.
Observations
156. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Mexican Government for the information received.
However, he notes with concern that most of the journalists attacked were those who spoke out
about a connection between drugs traffickers and officials and condemned the abuse of power by
State agents.
Myanmar
Communication sent
157. On 15 November 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an allegation concerning restrictions
on freedom of opinion and expression imposed by the Government which officially censors
domestic public media. The Special Rapporteur also requested further information regarding the
following individual cases. Saung Win Latt, a famous short story writer, has been detained since
early 1997 and is serving a seven-year jail term for “violating the press” by making ajoke about
the junta during a literary talk. U Hla Pc, a member of the Central Executive Committee of the
opposition National League for Democracy (NLD), and U Zeya, chairman of the Myaungmya
township NLD Organizing Committee, were among others allegedly harassed on
26 January 1997 by the police. According to the information received , numerous NLD MPs,
among them U Aung Tin from Shadaw and U Boe Thin from Loikaw, were forced to resign on
13 January 1997. U Moe Thu, a writer and journalist who worked closely with Aung San
Suu Kyi, has reportedly been detained since May 1996. Allegedly, U Win Tin, former editor of
Hanthawaddy, had his sentence extended on 28 March 1996 to five years since he reportedly
sent letters describing prison conditions at Insein to the former Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in Myanmar, Professor Yozo Yokota. U Myo Mynt Nyen and
U Scm Hlaing were arrested in September 1990 and sentenced to seven years in jail for
publishing anti-Government propaganda. Allegedly, in March 1996 they were sentenced to
another seven years for sending letters to the Special Rapporteur regarding the harsh conditions
in prison.
158. On 28 July 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent action with the Special
Rapporteur on the question of torture to the Government of Myanmar concerning the cases of
Thaint Wunna Kin, Ma Khin Leh, U Aye Swe, Daw Tin Tin, Kyaw Kyaw Oo, U Zaw Myint,
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 43
Daw Tint Tint, Ko Zaw Zaw Latt, U Ba Chit, U Ye Tint, U Win Myint, Dr. Shwe Bo,
Ma Thida Htway, Ko Lwin Moe Myint, Ko Myint Oo, Ko Ah Thay Lay, Ko Hia Win and two
unnamed female physicians who were reportedly arrested between 19 and 23 July 1999 in Pegu,
central Myanmar. Most of these individuals were allegedly arrested owing to their
involvement in a march commemorating the fifty-second anniversary of the assassination of
General Aung San. Military intelligence reportedly looked for Kyaw Wunna, one of the activists
who was organizing the march, and, not finding him, arrested his 3-year-old daughter and his
wife. Six other members of Kyaw Wunna's family were also allegedly arrested on 23 July 1999.
The remaining 11 people, who were reportedly distributing pamphlets, were arrested between 19
and 24 July 1999.
Communication received
159. The Government of Myanmar informed the Special Rapporteur on 11 August 1999 that
allegations that some individuals, including a 3-year-old, have been arrested and detained in
Bago are found to be untrue. However, some people have been investigated in connection with
the discovery of pamphlets printed by the armed terrorist group, the All Burma Students'
Democratic Front.
Observations
160. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for the reply received on 11 August 1999
and wishes to inform the Government that given the timing of the last communication, sent on
15 November 1999, the Government's reply will be included in next year's report.
Nigeria
Communications sent
161. On 25 October 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent action together with the
Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concerning the arrest and
detention of Mr. Jerry Needam, a journalist of the newspaper Ogoni Star, and a human rights
activist, in connection with the attempt of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People,
(MOSOP), to express public concern over police conduct which would constitute an abuse of
human rights.
162. On 5 May 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent action together with the
Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concerning the arrest on
25 April 1999 of Mr. Lanre Arogundade, Chairman of the Council of the Lagos Branch of the
Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ). According to the source, Mr. Arogundade was first
arrested and detained in February 1999 at a time when he had been receiving death threats as a
result of his NUJ activities. It is alleged that he was arrested on the basis of petitions filed
against him by a faction of the Union, in connection with his alleged involvement in the murder
of former NUJ treasurer Bolade Fasasi. It is further reported that his detention coincides with
planned activities for the celebration of World Press Freedom Day in Nigeria.
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 44
Observations
163. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the release on bail of Mr. Needam
on 2 November 1999 but regrets that no reply has been received from the Government on
the case.
Pakistan
Communications sent
164. On 24 May 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent action with the Special
Rapporteur on violence against women concerning a press statement issued on 14 May 1999 by
the Social Welfare Minister of Punjab, Mr. Pir Bin Yamin Rizvi, in which he accused the Human
Rights Commission of Pakistan, the women's organization Shirkat Gah and the Ajoka theatre
group of spreading vulgarity and obscenity in the name of human rights and of anti- State
activity. The allegation of anti-State activities reportedly emanates from the participation of a
Shirkat Gah representative in a British Council seminar on violence against women held in
England.
165. On 12 May 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent action concerning
Mr. Najam Sethi, founder and editor of the English-language weekly newspaper Friday Times,
who was arrested on 8 May 1999 by the Pakistan Intelligence Bureau, in cooperation with the
Punjab police. The reasons for Mr. Sethi's arrest are assumed to be related to declarations he
made in the BBC television documentary “Correspondant” concerning the alleged high level of
corruption in the Government of Pakistan.
Observations
166. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the release of Mr. Sethi but still awaits a reply from
the Government of Pakistan on the cases in question.
Peru
Communications sent
167. On 11 October 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent action with the Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions concerning death threats to
Juan Sausa Seclen, correspondent for the daily La Repüblica. According to information
received, the anonymous caller threatened Mr. Seclen, who is now in hiding, that if he did not
stop criticizing the National Intelligence Service he and his family would disappear. Allegedly,
Mr. Seclen had published an article regarding the current activities of Hugo Coral Goychocea, a
former member of a paramilitary group and now a bodyguard of Walter Pietro Maitre, mayor of
the city of Jaem. Moreover, according to the source, the 28 September edition of La Repüblica
was seized in order to prevent the information from being made public.
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 45
Observations
168. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Peru for the communication
dated 16 June 1999 in which a list of people benefiting from an amnesty law was provided.
However, replies to the communications sent are still awaited.
Republic of Korea
Communication sent
169. On 2 July 1999, the Special Rapporteur transmitted an urgent action to the Government
concerning Suh Jun Sik, a prominent human rights activist, coordinator of the Sarangbang Centre
for Human Rights based in Seoul. According to the information received, Suh Jun Sik, a
former political prisoner who had already been imprisoned for 17 years, was arrested on
4 November 1997 by the Seoul Administration Security Division for having shown the film
“Red Hunt” during the 1997 Seoul Human Rights Film Festival, which was sponsored and
organized by the Sarangbang Centre.
Communication received
170. The Government replied on 8 January 1999 to a communication sent by the Special
Rapporteur on 22 July 1999 (see E/CN.4/1999/64, para. 98). According to the Government,
Ham Yun Shik was sentenced on 2 July 1999 to one year's imprisonment by the Seoul District
Court. A complaint against Ham Yun Shik was lodged by the National Congress for New
Politics for defaming the then presidential candidate Kim Dae Jung. In the same
communication, it is stated that Song Chung Mu was sentenced to two years' imprisonment on
23 September 1998 for having libelled Kim Dae Jung during electoral campaigns. The
Government also explained how its legislation sets reasonable limits on the exercise of free
speech to ensure just and fair elections.
171. On 16 July 1999, the Government sent a reply regarding the case of Mr. Suh Jun Sik
whose trial was not yet concluded owing to the presentation of further evidence.
Observations
172. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its prompt reply.
Sudan
173. From 20 to 26 September 1999, the Special Rapporteur undertook a visit to Sudan,
on which he has reported separately to the Commission at its present session
(E/CN.4/2000/63/Add. 1).
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 46
Syrian Arab Republic
Communications sent
174. On 26 April 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent action together with the
Special Rapporteur on the question of torture concerning Nizar Nayouf editor-in-chief of the
monthly journal Sawt al-Deniocratiyya and Secretary-General of the Committee for the
Defence of Democratic Freedoms in Syria, who was reportedly arrested in January 1992. On
17 March 1992, a military court sentenced him to 10 years of forced labour for being a member
of an unauthorized organization and for disseminating false information. For over a year,
Mr. Nayouf has reportedly been suffering from Hodgkin's disease. Prison authorities have
allegedly refused to give him medical treatment unless he pledges to refrain from political
activity and signs a statement acknowledging that he made false declarations concerning the
situation of human rights in Syria. It has also been brought to the Special Rapporteur's attention
that he is being held in a solitary cell measuring 2.5 by 3 metres in the military prison of Mezze
in Damascus, and has not seen the sun for seven years.
175. On 26 April 1999, the Special Rapporteur transmitted a joint urgent action with the
Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working
Group on Arbitrary Detention concerning the case of Farj Bayraqdar, a Syrianjournalist and poet
who was reportedly arrested in March 1987 and held incommunicado for nearly seven years
before he was brought before a State Security Court in 1993. Allegedly accused of belonging to
the unauthorized “Hizb Al-Amal Al-Shuyu'i” (Party of Communist Action), he was sentenced to
15 years of imprisonment on 17 October 1993. Currently held in Seydanaya prison,
Mr. Bayraqdar is reportedly being denied medical treatment for serious injuries he sustained as
a result of alleged torture.
Communications received
176. On 7 June 1999 the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic informed the Special
Rapporteur that Mr. Nizar Nayyouf had been arrested for participating with other Syrian citizens
in establishing a group that carried out activities against State security. On the same date, the
Government reported that Mr. Faraj ibn Ahmad Bayraqdar had been arrested on 31 March 1987
because of terrorist activities for which he received a 15-year prison sentence.
Observations
177. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic for its
replies. However, he is still concerned for the health of Mr. Nayyouf given the repeated reports
that he should receive adequate medical treatment.
Togo
Communications sent
178. On 11 May 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent action with the Special
Rapporteur on the question of torture concerning Tengue Nestor and Gayibor François, executive
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 47
members of the Togolese Association for the Defence and Promotion of Human Rights
(ATDPDH), both of whom were arrested on 3 May 1999 by the police at Lomé. It is alleged that
Sant'Anna Brice, considered to have worked closely with this organization, was also arrested.
According to the sources, all three are accused of “damage to the credit and safety of the State,
dissemination of false information, forgery and use of forgery” for having transmitted to
international human rights organizations erroneous information on human rights violations
committed by the Togolese Government.
179. On 25 May 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint urgent action with the Special
Rapporteur on the question of torture concerning Nadjombe Antoine Koffi, a member of the
NGO Amnesty International who had allegedly been arrested on 14 May 1999 at Lomé a few
days following Amnesty International's publication of a report on human rights violations in
Togo during the 1998 elections. As in the case of the three persons mentioned in the urgent
appeal of 11 May 1999, fears were expressed that Nadjombe Antoine Koffi might be tortured.
Communications received
180. The Togolese Government transmitted a reply to the Special Rapporteur on 27 July 1999
informing him that an investigation launched into the activities of ATDPDH had revealed
that some of its members, including Tengue Apedo Mensa, Sant'Anna Brice and
Gayobor Koko Koété intended to reveal to Amnesty International a number of serious incidents,
attributing them to the forces of law and order. On 7 May 1999, after a long period in police
custody ordered by the Government Procurator, they were referred to the Government
Procurator's Office of Lomé. They were charged with complicity in damage to a person's
honour, the dissemination of false information and incitation to rebellion. After being charged, a
detention warrant was issued on 7 and 14 May 1999. The accused were released on
18 June 1999 at the order of the Government Procurator and proceedings are under way. Lastly,
the Government assured the Rapporteurs that Togo, in accordance with its international
undertakings, had made significant progress in ensuring respect for human rights, particularly in
the legal field, giving as an example the fact that the National Human Rights Commission had
closely followed developments in this case.
Observations
181. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its reply.
Tunisia
182. From 6 to 10 December 1999, the Special Rapporteur undertook a visit toTunisia,
on which he has reported separately to the Commission at its present session
(E/CN.4/2000/63/Add.4)
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 48
Turkey
Communications sent
183. On 7 October 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent to the Government allegations
concerning the following cases: Yalcin Kucuk, a journalist of Hepileri, who has been jailed
since 29 October 1998 and is currently detained at Gezbe prison; Nadire Mater, a reporter for
Inter Press Service, who was charged under article 159 of the Penal Code “for insulting and
belittling the military” in her book Mehnied ‘s Book: Soldiers who have fought in the south-east
speak out and who, if convicted, faces a prison sentence of one to six years; Nuredin Sirin, an
editorialist of Selani who was sentenced on 18 December 1998 for an article he published on
15 July 1997; the Kurdish “MED-TV” satellite channel, which had its broadcasting licence
withdrawn on 23 April 1999. The Special Rapporteur, however, welcomed the enactment of the
Amnesty Law which brought the release of2l journalists.
184. On 1 June 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent action concerning
Muzzafer Ilhan Erdost, a prominent writer, journalist and publisher who has been sentenced to
one year in prison and a fine of 100 million lira on charges relating to his book Three Sivas.
Mr. Erdost also undertook independent human rights studies and participated in the
establishment of the Turkish Human Rights Association (IHD). It was reported that he was first
imprisoned from 1971 to 1974 because of his writings and in 1980 he was arrested for the second
time, together with his brother, after the military coup d'etat of 12 September.
185. On 5 January 1999, the Special Rapporteur transmitted an urgent action concerning
Mr. Akin Birdal, Chairman of IHD and Vice-Chairman of the Human Rights Foundation of
Turkey, who was sentenced on 16 December 1998 to a one-year term of imprisonment for a
speech he made on 1 September 1995. In his speech, he allegedly called on the Turkish
authorities to negotiate a peaceful end to the conflict in the south-east. According to the source,
Mr. Birdal could be arrested at any moment to serve a previous one-year sentence which was
confirmed on 27 October 1998. Moreover, three branches of IHD based in Bursa, Mardin and
Balikesir were closed down on 13 November, 16 and 17 December 1998 respectively because
they had on the premises prohibited human rights publications. It is further reported that the
Director of the Balikesir branch of IHD, Dr. Bekir Ceylan, was dismissed from his government
post allegedly because he was an executive member of IHD.
Communications received
186. The Government of Turkey transmitted an explanatory note on 30 September 1999
regarding the 21 journalists amnestied under Law 4454.
187. In its communication dated 25 May 1999, the Government informed the Special
Rapporteur about the temporary closure of the IHD branches in Balikesir, Mardin and Bursa.
According to the Government, the Balikesir branch continues its activities, while the Mardin
branch was closed for a period of three months from 16 December 1998. The branch office in
Bursa was closed for a period of three months and then its activities were banned after the
Government established that the office was functioning in contravention of the Law on
Associations. The Government also informed the Special Rapporteur that Mr. Bekir Ceylan,
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 49
Director of the Balikesir branch office, was dismissed from his government post in the State
Hospital as a result of his participation in the preparation of a false document. With regard to the
case of Mr. Akin Birdal, it stated that his one-year sentence for “inciting the public to hatred and
discrimination based on race, religion or ethnic origin” was confirmed in October 1998 and was
implemented on 3 June 1999.
188. The Government in its communication dated 30 June 1999 provided information
pertaining to the case of Mr. Muzaffer Ilhan Erdost who on 20 July 1999 was sentenced to one
year's imprisonment on the charge of spreading separatist propaganda against the integrity of the
State and to a fine of 100 million lira. According to the Government, the case had been taken to
the Court of Appeals.
Observations
189. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Turkey for its replies and his
willingness to cooperate with the mandate.
Turkmenistan
Communication sent
190. On 19 February 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an allegation requesting further details
about the legal basis of the charges against and conviction of Mr. Vyacheslav Mamedov, an
activist of the Russian community of Turkmenistan. According to the information received,
Mr. Mamedov was arrested on 21 January 1999 for “slander”, after a series of prior actions
against him beginning on 8 December 1998, on the basis of an interview he had given on the
Russian radio station “Mayak” on 18 December 1998 in which he had described his community
work. According to the sources, Mr. Mamedov was freed a few days after his arrest, but the
charges against him are still pending.
Communication received
191. The Government of Turkmenistan replied on 9 April 1999 concerning the case of
Mr. Mamedov, who was granted a pardon by the President of Turkmenistan.
Observations
192. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government for its reply.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
193. From 24 to 28 October 1999, the Special Rapporteur undertook a visit to the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, on which he has reported separately to
the Commission at its present session (E/CN.4/2000/63/Add.3).
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 50
Yemen
Communication sent
194. On 19 May 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent action concerning Abdel Latif
Kutubi Omar, Hisham Basharah'il and Ali-Haitham al-Gharib. According to the source, Abdel
Latif Kutubi Omar, editor in chief of the opposition weekly Al-Haq, was arrested on
2 March 1999 in his Sanaa office by five armed plainclothes agents and was taken to the
Criminal Investigation Department for interrogation. It has been reported that his arrest is linked
to an article published inAl-Haq on 28 February 1999 in which he mentioned an agreement
between the United States and the Yemeni authorities regarding military facilities offered to the
United States on the island of Socotra. Mr. Omar was released on 6 March after three days in
custody and was allegedly informed that he would be prosecuted and should appear in court on
19 May. Hisham Basharah'il, editor in chief of the newspaper Al-Ayyani, and Ali-Haitham
al-Gharib, a writer for the paper, were reportedly arrested on 2 and 4 March 1999 respectively
and charged with instigating “national feuds”, “the spirit of separatism”, and harming “national
unity”. The charge allegedly stems from an article published on 27 February 1999 which
criticized factionalism in Yemeni society and the structure of local government.
Communication received
195. On 8 August 1999 the Yemeni Government transmitted, through the Supreme National
Human Rights Commission, a reply to the Special Rapporteur giving further details about the
charges against the persons in question. It stated that the publication of the article by
Hisham Basharah'il and Ali-Haitham al-Gharib was likely to exacerbate confessionalism and
regionalism, create divisions in Yemeni society and propagate ideas likely to cause a breach of
State security. According to the Government's communication, Hisham Basharah'il published a
summary of the proceedings of a trial on 2 March 1999 despite the fact that such action had been
prohibited by the court which had considered that the press might influence court procedure. On
the subject of Mr. Abdel LatifKutubi Omar, it stated that he had been referred to the competent
court in connection with a number of affairs, the last of which involved the publication of an
article entitled “Yemen provides the United States and Socotra with military facilities”. That
article was considered likely to exacerbate confessionalism and tribalism and create divisions in
Yemeni society.
Observations
196. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Yemeni Government for its reply and hopes that he
will be kept informed of developments in these three cases.
Zambia
Communication sent
197. On 12 March 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent action with the Special
Rapporteur on the question of torture concerning Amos Malupenga, Goodson Machona,
Brighton Phiri, Joe Kaunda, Kelvin Shimo and Lubasi Katundu, all journalists with the
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 51
independent Post newspaper, who were reportedly arrested on 9 and 10 March 1999. All the
journalists are believed to have been arrested in connection with an article on the low military
capabilities and unprepared state of the Zambian army in the face of a possible threat from
Angola.
Observations
198. A response from the Government is still awaited.
Zimbabwe
Communication sent
199. On 6 October 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent a joint allegation with the Special
Rapporteur on the question of torture regarding the cases of Mark Chavudunka, editor of the
independent Sunday newspaper The Standard, and Ray Choto, chief reporter for the same
newspaper. Mark Chavudunka was arrested on 12 January 1999 by the military police in Harare
and allegedly detained incommunicado for six days. According to the source he was accused of
having published an article on 10 January 1999 with regard to the arrest of 23 military officers
for plotting a coup in December 1998. Ray Choto was reportedly arrested on 19 January 1999
by the police. Both journalists have reportedly sustained serious injuries as a result of torture
during their detention at the military police station. Despite the fact that both journalists were
released on bail on 21 January 1999, they are still facing charges under the Law and Order
Maintenance Act for “publishing false reports”.
Observations
200. The Special Rapporteur regrets that no reply has yet been received from the Government
on the case in question.
Palestine
Communication sent
201. On 12 October 1999, the Special Rapporteur sent ajoint urgent action with the
Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concerning the detention of
Mr. Maer al-Dessouki, ajournalist with the independent Al'Quds educational television station.
According to the source, Mr. al-Dessouki was arrested on 15 September 1999 by Palestinian
Security Services agents and was reportedly accused of “possessing material inciting against the
Palestinian National Authority”. According to reports, his arrest was related to his having hosted
a programme on 12 September 1999 in which Palestinians whose family members had not been
included in the previous week's prisoner release by Israel criticized the Palestinian Authority.
Observations
202. The Special Rapporteur regrets that no reply has been provided by the Palestinian
Authority and hopes to receive one soon.
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 52
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
203. While the Special Rapporteur notes with satisfaction a growing tide in favour of human
rights and that almost all Governments seem to be upholding the sanctity of the principles of
freedom of opinion and expression, he at the same time finds innumerable cases of great
violations of human rights.
204. The Special Rapporteur cannot help but view with dismay the contents of the
communications received in the past year. It is clear from them that the rights to freedom of
opinion, expression and information are violated, almost as a matter of routine, in States with
widely different political systems and institutional frameworks for governance. There are
countries where these rights do not enjoy even the minimum protections and guarantees set out
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and associated international human rights instruments. In this regard, the Special
Rapporteur encourages all States that have not ratified the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to do
so. Furthermore, he again urges all Governments to scrutinize their domestic legal systems with a
view to bringing them into line with international standards governing the right to freedom of
opinion and expression. Particularly with regard to the issue of national security, the Special
Rapporteur urges all Governments to review not only laws specifically intended to protect
national security but also ordinary criminal laws which may be used to infringe the rights to
freedom of opinion and expression and to information. The criminal justice and the police
systems also need to be overhauled to ensure greater justice and fairness from the police. The
Governments may also consider the feasibility of setting up national human rights commissions
and positions of ombudsman where these institutions do not exist.
205. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur strongly urges all Governments to ensure that press
offences are no longer punishable by terms of imprisonment, except in cases involving racist or
discriminatory comments or calls to violence. In the case of offences such as “libelling”,
“insulting” or “defaming” the head of State and publishing or broadcasting “false” or “alarmist”
information, prison terms are both reprehensible and out of proportion to the harm suffered by
the victim. In all such cases, imprisonment as punishment for the peaceful expression of an
opinion constitutes a serious violation of human rights.
206. As regards information, particularly information held by Governments, the Special
Rapporteur strongly encourages States to take all necessary steps to ensure the full realization of
the right to access to information. The Special Rapporteur proposes to undertake a comparative
study of the different approaches taken in the various regions and countries in this regard. He
also commends to the Commission on Human Rights the Principles on Freedom of Information
Legislation that were developed by Article 19 (see annex II); he further requests the Commission
to endorse these principles in the resolution it will adopt at its fifty-sixth session.
207. As regards the impact of new information technology on the right to freedom of opinion
and expression, the Special Rapporteur considers it of pre-eminent importance that they be
considered in the light of the same international standards as other means of communication and
that no measures be taken which would unduly restrict freedom of expression and information; in
case of doubt, the decision should be in favour of free expression and the free flow of
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 53
information. With regard to the Internet, the Special Rapporteur wishes to reiterate that on-line
expression should be guided by international standards and be guaranteed the same protection as
is awarded to other forms of expression.
208. In this context, he also recommends that all reasonable steps be taken to promote access
to the Internet. For instance, Governments should promote an economic and regulatory
environment which encourages the extension of telecommunication lines to rural and other
previously under-serviced areas. Wherever possible, government information should be made
available through the Internet.
209. Concerning the link between the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the
rights of women, the Special Rapporteur expresses his great concern at the continuing silencing
of women by various devices. Discriminatory rules and conventions continue to bolster
entrenched patriarchal attitudes. In stark manifestation of male chauvinism, women are
harassed. But it is at the same time encouraging to note that a spirit of change is building up with
women's movements appearing even in highly conservative and religious societies. Education
continues to improve. Women's participation in the workforce has increased. Women's actions
to improve their political influence are gathering momentum. Efforts are being made to win
adequate representation in Government at the national and local levels. Claims are being made
to senior government posts. The Special Rapporteur urges Governments to take all necessary
steps to remove formal and cultural obstacles to the exercise by women of their right to freedom
of expression, including the right to receive information, and ultimately to give effect to all their
rights. In light of the importance of freedom of expression and its relationship to the struggle
against violence against women, the Special Rapporteur is of the view that a special effort should
be made to gather and analyse more information along the lines described in the present report.
The Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate his hope to be able to prepare a report jointly with
the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, to be submitted to the Commission on
Human Rights next year. In this regard, he invites submissions by Governments,
intergovernmental organizations and specialized agencies, as well as non-governmental bodies.
210. In regard to the continuing pattern of violations of the right to freedom of opinion and
expression of human rights defenders, the Special Rapporteur recommends to Governments to
take steps to implement the provisions of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of
Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 54
Annex I
INTERNATIONAL MECHANISMS FOR PROMOTING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, the
Representative on freedom of the media of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression of the Organization of
American States (OAS) met for the first time in London on 26 November 1999 under the
auspices of Article 19:
- We recall that freedom of expression is a fundamental international human right
and a basic component of a civil society based on democratic principles;
- Independent and pluralistic media are essential to a free and open society and
accountable government. Respect for freedom of the media in the States
members of our organizations, although very different from country to country,
leaves much to be desired;
- Certain Governments have continued to exert and allow impermissible pressure
on the media in their respective countries. The levels of harassment might be
different but the general aim is the same: to suppress pluralism and open debate
on issues of concern to citizens;
- Freedom of expression is not only a fundamental human right in and of itself, but
it has ramifications for economic development as well. The media has a
“corrective” function by bringing to the public's attention corruption and
inequitable practices. The absence of free media can lead to economic stagnation
and improper practices by both Governments and businesses;
- Implicit in freedom of expression is the public's right to open access to
information and to know what Governments are doing on their behalf, without
which truth would languish and people's participation in Government would
remain fragmented;
- The media should refrain from any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred
that constitutes incitement to violence or to any other similar action;
hi many countries laws are in place, such as criminal defamation laws, which
unduly restrict the right to freedom of expression. We urge States to review these
laws with a view to bringing them into line with their international obligations;
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 55
- We affirm that States must ensure an effective, serious and impartial judicial
process, based on the rule of law, in order to combat impunity of perpetrators of
attacks against freedom of expression.
Abid Hussain Freimut Duve
United Nations Special Rapporteur on OSCE Representative
freedom of opinion and expression on freedom of the media
Santiago Canton
OAS Special Rapporteur on
freedom of expression
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 56
Annex II
THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW: PRINCIPLES ON
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LEGISLATION
June 1999
Principle 1. Maximum disclosure
Freedom of information legislation should be guided
by the principle of maximum disclosure
The principle of maximum disclosure establishes a presumption that all information held
by public bodies should be subject to disclosure and that this presumption may be overcome only
in very limited circumstances (see principle 4). This principle encapsulates the basic rationale
underlying the very concept of freedom of information and ideally it should be provided for in
the Constitution to make it clear that access to official information is a basic right. The
overriding goal of legislation should be to implement maximum disclosure in practice.
Public bodies have an obligation to disclose information and every member of the public
has a corresponding right to receive information. Everyone present in the territory of the country
should benefit from this right. The exercise of this right should not require individuals to
demonstrate a specific interest in the information. Where a public authority seeks to deny access
to information, it should bear the onus ofjustifying the refusal at each stage of the proceedings.
In other words, the public authority must show that the information which it wishes to withhold
comes within the scope of the limited regime of exceptions, as detailed below.
Definitions
Both “information” and “public bodies” should be defined broadly.
Information includes all records held by a public body, regardless of the form in which
the information is stored (document, tape, electronic recording and so on), its source (whether it
was produced by the public body or some other body) and the date of production. The
legislation should also apply to records which have been classified, subjecting them to the same
test as all other records.
For purposes of disclosure of information, the definition of public body should focus on
the type of service provided rather than on formal designations. To this end, it should include all
branches and levels of Government, including local government, elected bodies, bodies which
operate under a statutory mandate, nationalized industries and public corporations,
non-departmental bodies or “quangos” (quasi non-governmental organizations), judicial bodies
and private bodies which carry out public functions (such as maintaining roads or operating rail
lines). Private bodies themselves should also be included if they hold information whose
disclosure is likely to diminish the risk of harm to key public interests, such as the environment
and health. Intergovernmental organizations should also be subject to freedom of information
regimes based on the principles set down in this document.
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 57
Destruction of records
To protect the integrity and availability of records, the law should provide that
obstruction of access to, or the wilful destruction of records is a criminal offence. The law
should also establish minimum standards regarding the maintenance and preservation of records
by public bodies. Such bodies should be required to allocate sufficient resources and attention to
ensuring that public record-keeping is adequate. In addition, to prevent any attempt to doctor or
otherwise alter records, the obligation to disclose should apply to records themselves and not just
the information they contain.
Principle 2. Obligation to publish
Public bodies should be under an obligation to publish key information
Freedom of information implies not only that public bodies accede to requests for
information but also that they publish and disseminate widely documents of significant public
interest, subject only to reasonable limits based on resources and capacity. Which information
should be published will depend on the public body concerned. The law should establish both a
general obligation to publish and key categories of information that must be published.
Public bodies should, as a minimum, be under an obligation to publish the following
categories of information:
- Operational information about how the public body functions, including costs,
objectives, audited accounts, standards, achievements and so on, particularly
where the body provides direct services to the public;
- Information on any requests, complaints or other direct actions which members of
the public may take in relation to the public body;
- Guidance on processes by which members of the public may provide input into
major policy or legislative proposals;
- The types of information which the body holds and the form in which this
information is held; and
- The content of any decision or policy affecting the public, along with reasons for
the decision and background material of importance in framing the decision.
Principle 3. Promotion of open government
Public bodies must actively promote open government
Informing the public of their rights and promoting a culture of openness within
Government are essential if the goals of freedom of information legislation are to be realized.
Indeed, experience in various countries shows that a recalcitrant civil service can undermine
even the most progressive legislation. Promotional activities are, therefore, an essential
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 58
component of a freedom of information regime. This is an area where the particular activities
will vary from country to country, depending on factors such as the way the civil service is
organized, key constraints to the free disclosure of information, literacy levels and the degree of
awareness of the general public. The law should require that adequate resources and attention
are devoted to the question of promoting the goals of the legislation.
Public education
As a minimum, the law should make provision for public education and the
dissemination of information regarding the right to access information, the scope of information
which is available and the manner in which such rights may be exercised. In countries where
newspaper distribution or literacy levels are low, the broadcast media are a particularly important
vehicle for such dissemination and education. Creative alternatives, such as town meetings or
mobile film units, should be explored. Ideally, such activities should be undertaken both by
individual public bodies and a specially designated and adequately funded official body - either
the one which reviews requests for information, or another body established specifically for this
purpose.
Tackling the culture of official secrecy
The law should provide for a number of mechanisms to address the problem of a culture
of secrecy within Government. These should include a requirement that public bodies provide
freedom of information training for their employees. Such training should address the
importance and scope of freedom of information, procedural mechanisms for accessing
information, how to maintain and access records efficiently, the scope of whistle-blower
protection, and what sort of information a body is required to publish.
The official body responsible for public education should also play a role in promoting
openness within Government. Initiatives might include incentives for public bodies that perform
well, campaigns to address secrecy problems and communications campaigns encouraging
bodies that are improving and criticizing those which remain excessively secret. Another
possibility is the production of an annual report to Parliament and/or parliamentary bodies on
remaining problems and achievements, which might also include measures taken to improve
public access to information, any remaining constraints to the free flow of information which
have been identified and measures to be taken in the year ahead.
Public bodies should be encouraged to adopt internal codes on access and openness.
Principle 4. Limited scope of exceptions
Exceptions should be clearly and narrowly drawn and
subject to strict “harm” and “public interest” tests
All individual requests for information from public bodies should be met unless the
public body can show that the information falls within the scope of the limited regime of
exceptions. A refusal to disclose information is not justified unless the public authority can
show that the information meets a strict three-part test.
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 59
The three-part test :
- The information must relate to a legitimate aim listed in the law;
- Disclosure must threaten to cause substantial harm to that aim; and
- The harm to the aim must be greater than the public interest in having the
information.
No public bodies should be completely excluded from the ambit of the law, even if the
majority of their functions fall within the zone of exceptions. This applies to all branches of
Government (that is, the executive, legislative and judicial branches) as well as to all functions of
Government (including, for example, functions of security and defence bodies). Non-disclosure
of information must be justified on a case-by-case basis.
Restrictions whose aim is to protect Governments from embarrassment or the exposure of
wrongdoing can never be justified.
Legitimate aims justifying exceptions
A complete list of the legitimate aims which may justify non-disclosure should be
provided in the law. This list should include only interests which constitute legitimate grounds
for refusing to disclose documents and should be limited to matters such as law enforcement,
privacy, national security, commercial and other confidentiality, public or individual safety, and
the effectiveness and integrity of Government decision-making processes.
Exceptions should be narrowly drawn so as to avoid including material which does not
harm the legitimate interest. They should be based on the content, rather than the type of the
document. To meet this standard exceptions should, where relevant, be time-limited. For
example, the justification for classifying information on the basis of national security may well
disappear after a specific national security threat subsides.
Refusals must meet a substantial harm test
It is not sufficient that information simply fall within the scope of a legitimate aim listed
in the law. The public body must also show that the disclosure of the information would cause
substantial harm to that legitimate aim. In some cases, disclosure may benefit as well as harm
the aim. For example, the exposure of corruption in the military may at first sight appear to
weaken national defence but actually, over time, help to eliminate corruption and strengthen the
armed forces. For non-disclosure to be legitimate in such cases, the net effect of disclosure must
be to cause substantial harm to the aim.
Overriding public interest
Even if it can be shown that disclosure of the information would cause substantial harm
to a legitimate aim, the information should still be disclosed if the benefits of disclosure
outweigh the harm. For example, certain information may be private in nature but at the same
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 60
time expose high-level corruption within Government. In such cases, the harm to the legitimate
aim must be weighed against the public interest in having the information made public. Where
the latter is greater, the law should provide for disclosure of the information.
Principle 5. Processes to facilitate access
Requests for information should be processed rapidly and fairly
and an independent review of any refusals should be available
A process for deciding upon requests for information should be specified at three
different levels: within the public body; appeals to an independent administrative body; and
appeals to the courts. Where necessary, provision should be made to ensure full access to
information for certain groups, for example those who cannot read or write, those who do not
speak the language of the record, or those who suffer from disabilities such as blindness.
All public bodies should be required to establish open, accessible internal systems for
ensuring the public's right to receive information. Generally, bodies should designate an
individual who is responsible for processing such requests and for ensuring compliance with the
law.
Public bodies should also be required to assist applicants whose requests relate to
published information, or are unclear, excessively broad or otherwise in need of reformulation.
On the other hand, public bodies should be able to refuse frivolous or vexatious requests. Public
bodies should not have to provide individuals with information that is contained in a publication,
but in such cases the body should direct the applicant to the published source.
The law should provide for strict time limits for the processing of requests and require
that any refusals be accompanied by substantive written reasons.
Appeals
Wherever practical, provision should be made for an internal appeal to a designated
higher authority within a public authority who can review the original decision.
In all cases, the law should provide for an individual right of appeal to an independent
administrative body from a refusal by a public body to disclose information. This may be either
an existing body, such as an Ombudsman or Human Rights Commission, or one specially
established for this purpose. In either case, the body must meet certain standards and have
certain powers. Its independence should be guaranteed, both formally and through the process
by which the head and/or board is/are appointed.
Appointments should be made by representative bodies, such as an all-party
parliamentary committee, and the process should be open and allow for public input, for example
regarding nominations. Individuals appointed to such a body should be required to meet strict
standards of professionalism, independence and competence, and be subject to strict
conflict-of-interest rules.
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 61
The procedure by which the administrative body processes appeals against requests for
information which have been refused should be designed to operate rapidly and cost as little as is
reasonably possible. This ensures that all members of the public can access this procedure and
that excessive delays do not undermine the whole purpose of requesting information in the first
place.
The administrative body should be granted full powers to investigate any appeal,
including the ability to compel witnesses and, importantly, to require the public body to provide
it with any information or record for its consideration, in camera where necessary and justified.
Upon the conclusion of an investigation, the administrative body should have the power
to dismiss the appeal, to require the public body to disclose the information, to adjust any
charges levied by the public body, to fine public bodies for obstructive behaviour where
warranted and/or to impose costs on public bodies in relation to the appeal.
The administrative body should also have the power to refer to the courts cases which
disclose evidence of criminal obstruction of access to or wilful destruction of records.
Both the applicant and the public body should be able to appeal to the courts against
decisions of the administrative body. Such appeals should include full power to review the case
on its merits and not be limited to the question of whether the administrative body has acted
reasonably. This will ensure that due attention is given to resolving difficult questions and that a
consistent approach to freedom of expression issues is promoted.
Principle 6. Costs
Individuals should not be deterred from making
requests for information by excessive costs
The cost of gaining access to information held by public bodies should not be so high as
to deter potential applicants, given that the whole rationale behind freedom of information laws
is to promote open access to information. It is well established that the long-term benefits of
openness far exceed the costs. In any case, experience in a number of countries suggests that
access costs are not an effective means of offsetting the costs of a freedom of information
regime.
Differing systems have been employed around the world to ensure that costs do not act as
a deterrent to requests for information. In some jurisdictions, a two-tier system has been used,
involving flat fees for each request, along with graduated fees depending on the actual cost of
retrieving and providing the information. The latter should be waived or significantly reduced
for requests for personal information or for requests in the public interest (which should be
presumed where the purpose of the request is connected with publication). In some jurisdictions,
higher fees are levied on commercial requests as a means of subsidizing public interest requests.
E/CN.4/2000/63
page 62
Principle 7. Open meetings
Meetings of public bodies should be open to the public
Freedom of information includes the public's right to know what the Government is
doing on its behalf and to participate in decision-making processes. Freedom of information
legislation should therefore establish a presumption that all meetings of governing bodies are
open to the public.
“Governing” in this context refers primarily to the exercise of decision-making powers,
so bodies which merely proffer advice would not be covered. Political committees - meetings of
members of the same political party - are not considered to be governing bodies.
On the other hand, meetings of elected bodies and their committees, planning and zoning
boards, boards of public and educational authorities and public industrial development agencies
would be included.
A “meeting” in this context refers primarily to a formal meeting, namely the official
convening of a public body for the purpose of conducting public business. Factors that indicate
that a meeting is formal are the requirement of a quorum and the applicability of formal
procedural rules.
Notice of meetings is necessary if the public is to have a real opportunity to participate
and the law should require that adequate notice of meetings is given sufficiently in advance to
allow for attendance.
Meetings may be closed, but only in accordance with established procedures and where
adequate reasons for closure exist. Any decision to close a meeting should itself be open to the
public. The grounds for closure are broader than the list of exceptions to the rule of disclosure
but are not unlimited. Reasons for closure might, in appropriate circumstances, include public
health and safety, law enforcement or investigation, employee or personnel matters, privacy,
commercial matters and national security.
Principle 8. Disclosure takes precedence
Laws which are inconsistent with the principle of maximum
disclosure should be amended or repealed
The law on freedom of information should require that other legislation be interpreted, as
far as possible, in a manner consistent with its provisions. Where this is not possible, other
legislation dealing with publicly held information should be subject to the principles underlying
the freedom of information legislation.
The regime of exceptions provided for in the freedom of information law should be
comprehensive and other laws should not be permitted to extend it. In particular, secrecy laws
should not make it illegal for officials to divulge information which they are required to disclose
under the freedom of information law.
E/CN. 4/2000/63
page 63
Over the longer term, a commitment should be made to bring all laws relating to
information into line with the principles underpinning the freedom of information law.
In addition, officials should be protected from sanctions where they have, reasonably and
in good faith, disclosed information pursuant to a freedom of information request, even if it
subsequently transpires that the information is not subject to disclosure. Otherwise, the culture
of secrecy which envelopes many governing bodies will be maintained as officials may be
excessively cautious about requests for information, to avoid any personal risk.
Principle 9. Protection for whistle-blowers
Individuals who release information on wrongdoing -
whistle-blowers - must be protected
Individuals should be protected from any legal, administrative or employment-related
sanctions for releasing information on wrongdoing.
“Wrongdoing” in this context includes the commission of a criminal offence, failure to
comply with a legal obligation, a miscarriage of justice, corruption or dishonesty, or serious
maladministration regarding a public body. It also includes a serious threat to health, safety or
the environment, whether linked to individual wrongdoing or not. Whistle-blowers should
benefit from protection as long as they acted in good faith and in the reasonable belief that the
information was substantially true and disclosed evidence of wrongdoing. Such protection
should apply even where disclosure would otherwise be in breach of a legal or employment
requirement.
In some countries, protection for whistle-blowers is conditional upon a requirement to
release the information to certain individuals or oversight bodies. While this is generally
appropriate, protection should also be available, where the public interest demands, in the
context of disclosure to other individuals or even to the media.
The “public interest” in this context would include situations where the benefits of
disclosure outweigh the harm, or where an alternative means of releasing the information is
necessary to protect a key interest. This would apply, for example, in situations where
whistle-blowers need protection from retaliation, where the problem is unlikely to be resolved
through formal mechanisms, where there is an exceptionally serious reason for releasing the
information, such as an imminent threat to public health or safety, or where there is a risk that
evidence of wrongdoing will otherwise be concealed or destroyed.
