Aadel Collection

Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

          
          UNITED
          NATIONS
          E
          Economic and Social Distr.
          GENERAL
          Council
          E / CN. 4 /1996/4 0
          15 December 1995
          ENGLISH
          Original: ENGLISH/FRENCH/
          COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
          Fifty-second session
          Item 8 of the provisional agenda
          QUESTION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS SUBJECTED
          TO ANY FORM OF DETENTION OR IMPRISONMENT
          Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
          CONTENTS
          Introduction
          I. ACTIVITIES OF THE WORKING GROUP
          A. Communications with Governments
          B. Urgent appeals
          C. Field missions
          D. Cooperation with the Commission on
          Human Rights
          E. Cooperation with other United Nations
          bodies
          F. Cooperation with non-governmental
          organi zations
          Paragraphs Page
          1- 5 3
          6 - 71 4
          8 - 15 4
          16 - 19 5
          20 - 42 6
          43 - 69 10
          70 14
          71 15
          GE.95-14844 (E)
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1996/40
          page 2
          CONTENTS ( continued )
          Paragraphs
          Page
          I. Revised methods of work.
          II. Statistics
          31
          II.
          DECISIONS ADOPTED BY THE WORKING GROUP AND
          FOLLOW-UP THERETO
          72 - 81
          15
          A. General information regarding the decisions
          adopted by the Working Group
          B. Governments' reactions to decisions . . .
          .
          III.
          OBSERVATIONS OF THE WORKING GROUP
          IV.
          CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
          A. General conclusions
          B. Recommendations
          124
          30
          72
          75
          82
          106
          106
          - 74
          - 81
          - 105
          - 124
          - 123
          15
          20
          21
          26
          26
          Jthnexes
          35
        
          
          E/cN. 4/1996/40
          page 3
          Introduction
          1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established by the
          Commission on Human Rights at its forty-seventh session, in 1991, by
          resolution 1991/42. The Working Group's initial three-year mandate was
          extended by the Commission in 1994 for a further three years. Under the terms
          of resolution 1991/42 the Commission decided to create a working group
          composed of five independent experts, with the task of investigating cases of
          detention imposed arbitrarily or otherwise inconsistently with the relevant
          international standards set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
          or in the relevant legal instruments adopted by the States concerned. The
          Working Group consists of the following five independent experts:
          Mr. L. Joinet (France) - Chairman-Rapporteur; Mr. R. Garretôn (Chile) -
          Vice-Chairman; Mr. L. Kama (Senegal) ; Mr. K. Sibal (India) and Mr. P. Uhl
          (Slovakia) . The Group has so far submitted four reports to the Commission,
          covering the period 1992-1995 (docs. E/cN.4/1992/20, E/CN.4/1993/24,
          E/CN.4/1994/27 and E/cN.4/1995/31 and Add.1-4, respectively).
          2. At its fifty-first session, the Commission on Human Rights adopted
          resolution 1995/59, entitled “Question of arbitrary detention”, in which it
          requested the Working Group to submit a report to the Commission, at its
          fifty-second session, and to make any suggestions and recommendations which
          would enable it to discharge its task in the best possible way, in cooperation
          with Governments, and to continue its consultations to that end within the
          framework of its terms of reference.
          3. In conformity with paragraph 18 of resolution 1995/59, the Working Group
          hereby presents its fifth report to the Commission.
          4. Chapter I of the report describes the activities of the Working Group
          since the submission of its fourth report to the Commission, including data on
          the number of communications and cases transmitted by the Working Group to
          Governments during 1995 and the number of replies received, data on urgent
          appeals sent and the replies received thereto, contacts made by the Working
          Group with certain Governments with a view to carrying out field missions, and
          contacts made by the Working Group with other United Nations bodies, other
          human rights mechanisms and non-governmental organizations. Chapter II
          describes the general framework in which the Working Group adopted decisions
          on individual cases submitted to it, a table containing data on the decisions
          adopted by the Working Group during 1995 and the reactions of some Governments
          to decisions adopted concerning them. Chapter III contains the Working
          Group's observations regarding some criticisms made of it at the most recent
          session of the Commission on Human Rights, while Chapter IV contains the
          Working Group's general conclusions and recommendations.
          5. The present report also contains two annexes: annex I, which, taking
          account of experience acquired, describes the revised methods of work of the
          Working Group, and annex II, which contains statistical data regarding the
          number of cases dealt with by the Working Group during the period covered by
          the present report and the breakdown of the types of decisions adopted by the
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1996/40
          page 4
          Working Group. The decisions adopted by the Working Group at its
          November 1994 session and its May 1995 session, as well as 13 of the decisions
          which it adopted at its September 1995 session, are contained in document
          E/CN. 4/1996/40/Add. 1.
          I. ACTIVITIES OF THE WORKING GROUP
          6. The present report, at the time of drafting, describes activities in the
          period from January to December 1995. During that period the Working Group
          held its twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth sessions.
          7. The Working Group wishes to point out that, in a spirit of cooperation
          with the Secretariat, which is facing budgetary difficulties, it agreed that
          two days (29 and 30 May) initially assigned to its May 1995 session should be
          transferred to the meeting of the special rapporteurs and chairpersons of
          working groups of the Commission.
          A. Communications with Governments
          8. During the period under consideration, the Working Group
          transmitted 37 communications containing 829 new cases of alleged arbitrary
          detention (17 women and 812 men) concerning the following countries (the
          number of individuals concerned is given in parentheses) : Azerbaijan (2)
          Bahrain (534), Canada (1), China (63), Colombia (9), Cuba (4), Democratic
          People's Republic of Korea (2) , Egypt (12) , Ethiopia (1) , Indonesia (13) , Iran
          (Islamic Republic of) (2), Israel (6), Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1)
          Maldives (2), Morocco (5), Nepal (1), Nigeria (26), Pakistan (6), Peru (10),
          Republic of Korea (3), Saudi Arabia (10), Sudan (19), Tunisia (4),
          Turkey (11) , Viet Nam (2) and Zaire (6) , as well as the Palestinian
          Authority (6)
          9. In addition to these communications, the Working Group transmitted a
          communication to the Government of Rwanda concerning the massive detentions
          reported in that country.
          10. Out of the 28 Governments concerned, 14 provided the Working Group with
          information regarding all or some of the cases transmitted to them. They were
          the Governments of the following countries: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Canada,
          Colombia, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Ethiopia, Indonesia,
          Nepal, Peru, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Viet Nam.
          11. The Governments of Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Israel, the
          Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Maldives, Pakistan, Rwanda, Turkey and Zaire, and the
          Palestinian Authority, did not provide the Working Group with any reply
          concerning the cases submitted to them during the period February-July 1995.
          With regard to the other Governments (cf. para. 7 above) , the 90-day deadline
          laid down in the Working Group's methods of work had not yet expired at the
          time the present report was finalized.
          12. In respect of communications transmitted prior to the period
          January-December 1995, the Working Group received replies from the Governments
          of Mexico, Peru and Sri Lanka.
        
          
          E/cN. 4/1996/40
          page 5
          13. A description of the cases transmitted and the contents of the
          Governments' replies are contained in the relevant decisions adopted by the
          Working Group (see E/cN.4/1996/40/Add.1).
          14. As regards the sources which reported alleged cases of arbitrary
          detention to the Working Group, it may be noted that of the 829 individual
          cases sent by the Working Group to Governments during the period under
          consideration, 11 were based on information submitted by family members or
          relatives of the detained persons, 694 were based on information submitted by
          local or regional non-governmental organizations and 124 were based on
          information provided by international non-governmental organizations in
          consultative status with the Economic and Social Council.
          15. In one case, that of Rwanda, the Working Group had recourse to its power
          to take up cases on its own initiative, as it was authorized to do by the
          Commission on Human Rights in resolution 1993/36 (para. 4), by requesting the
          Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Rwanda to provide it
          with information on the question of detention in that country (see para. 9
          above and para. 119 below)
          B. Urgent appeals
          16. During the period under consideration the Working Group
          transmitted 62 urgent appeals to 38 Governments (the number of persons
          concerned by these appeals is given between parentheses) . Five appeals were
          addressed to the Government of China (10) ; four appeals were transmitted to
          the Governments of Myanmar (19) and Nigeria (16) ; three appeals were
          transmitted to the Governments of Bahrain (4) , Bangladesh (15) , Turkey (7)
          and Viet Nam (4); two appeals were sent to the Governments of Bhutan (2),
          Cuba (8) , Ethiopia (4) Pakistan (2) , the Syrian Arab Republic (3) and
          Tunisia (2) , and one appeal was sent to the Governments of Albania (1)
          Azerbaijan (2), Colombia (4), Costa Rica (7), Croatia (1), Ecuador (1),
          Guatemala (1) , Honduras (many cases of minors detained with adults)
          India (1), Kazakstan (1), Kenya (6), Kuwait (34), Lao People's Democratic
          Republic (1), Maldives (3), Morocco (8), Nepal (11), Panama (12), Peru (1),
          Republic of Korea (1) , Russian Federation (1) , Rwanda (1) , Sudan (3)
          Thailand (1) , United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1) and
          Venezuela (7)
          17. In addition to the communications mentioned above, the Working Group
          addressed urgent appeals jointly with other thematic and/or country special
          rapporteurs to the following Governments: Israel (concerning the situation of
          260 persons detained in southern Lebanon) , Turkey (concerning the situation of
          civilians in the north of Iraq) and Sudan (concerning demonstrations which
          were reportedly followed by numerous arrests)
          18. In conformity with paragraph 11 (a) of its revised methods of work
          (see annex I), the Working Group, without in any way prejudging the final
          assessment of whether the detention was arbitrary or not, drew the attention
          of each of the Governments concerned to the specific case as reported and
          appealed to it to take the necessary measures to ensure that the detained
          persons' rights to life and to physical integrity were respected. In some
          cases, in view of the critical state of health in which the detained persons
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1996/40
          page 6
          were reported to be, or in view of other particular circumstances, such as the
          failure to execute a court order for the release of a detained person, the
          Working Group also appealed to the Government concerned to consider releasing
          the persons without delay.
          19. The following Governments provided the Working Group with information on
          the situation of some or all of the persons concerned: Bahrain, Bhutan,
          China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Kazakstan,
          Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Sudan,
          Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Kingdom and Viet Nam. The Governments of
          Israel and Turkey replied to the urgent appeals that the Working Group had
          addressed to them jointly with other Special Rapporteurs. In some of the
          cases, the Working Group was informed, either by the Government or by the
          source, that the persons concerned had been released from detention. Such
          releases were reported in Bahrain, Bhutan, China, Ecuador, Guatemala, India,
          Peru, Sudan, Thailand, Tunisia and Turkey. The Working Group wishes to thank
          those Governments which heeded its appeal to provide it with information on
          the situation of the persons concerned, and in particular the Governments
          which released such persons.
          C. Field missions
          20. Colombia . On 28 February, during the proceedings of the fifty-first
          session of the Commission, the Ambassador of Colombia sent a letter to the
          head of the Special Procedures Branch of the Centre for Human Rights, in which
          he invited various special rapporteurs and working groups of the Commission to
          undertake missions to Colombia.
          21. In this connection, the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs sent out
          invitations on 18 April, among others to the Chairman of the Working Group on
          Arbitrary Detention, expressing his readiness to receive him in May. However,
          owing to the proximity of the date, as well as to the fact that the
          arrangement had not been previously agreed with the Working Group - which had
          not met since the fifty-first session of the Commission and had therefore not
          been informed of the Government's commitment - the mission could not be
          carried out.
          22. During the annual meeting of special rapporteurs and chairpersons of
          working groups of the special procedures, held in Geneva on 29 and 30 May, the
          participants (Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers,
          Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and other cruel, inhuman or
          degrading treatment or punishment, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
          summary or arbitrary executions, Representative of the Secretary-General on
          internally displaced persons, Chairman of the Working Group on Arbitrary
          Detention, and Chairman of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary
          Disappearances) agreed, as a matter of priority, to request the Government to
          provide detailed information on the measures taken to implement the
          recommendations made as a result of previous visits, in particular the
          recommendation made jointly in 1994 by the Special Rapporteur on the question
          of torture and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
          executions (E/CN.4/1995/111) - and the Representative of the Secretary-General
          on internally displaced persons - and on the difficulties that the present
          Government may have encountered in following up those recommendations. Once
        
          
          E/cN. 4/1996/40
          page 7
          the contents of the Government's reply had been analysed, the Special
          Rapporteurs would decide on the possibility of undertaking a visit jointly or
          separately. This decision was communicated to the Government on 31 May by the
          Centre for Human Rights in a note verbale.
          23. At the time the present report was being drafted, the Working Group had
          not received the information requested, so that the visit proposed by the
          Government of Colombia has not yet taken place.
          24. Indonesia . The Working Group put forward three reasons for requesting
          the Government of Indonesia to extend an invitation to it.
          25. The first reason, of a more general nature, is that the resolutions of
          the Commission on Human Rights relating to the question of arbitrary detention
          (resolutions 1993/36; 1994/32 and 1995/59) , as well as those relating to human
          rights and thematic procedures (resolutions 1993/47; 1994/53 and 1995/87),
          urged Governments to invite those responsible for the special procedures of
          the Commission.
          26. Secondly - and this specifically concerns Indonesia - in the statements
          made by the Chairmen of the forty-eighth, fiftieth and fifty-first sessions of
          the Commission, as well as in Commission resolution 1993/97, which all relate
          to the situation of human rights in East Timor, the Government was urged to
          invite special rapporteurs and working groups so that they could discharge
          their mandates.
          27. Thirdly, the Working Group submitting this report decided in its Interim
          Decision No. 34/1994 concerning Xanana Gusmao that it could not adopt a
          definitive decision without a prior visit to Indonesia and East Timor, of
          which it duly informed the Government.
          28. Accordingly, the Working Group once again contacted the Government of
          Indonesia on 8 June 1995, requesting it to extend an invitation which it
          considered necessary for the discharge of its mandate.
          29. The Government, in a letter dated 1 September 1995, reaffirmed its
          undertaking to cooperate with the special rapporteurs and working groups,
          adding that “in this connection, the Government of Indonesia has decided to
          invite Mr. José Ayala-Lasso, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
          Rights, to visit Indonesia, including the province of East Timor, within the
          framework of the implementation of the consensus Chairman's Statement of the
          [ fifty-first] session of the CDH”.
          30. The Working Group transmitted this reply to the High Commissioner and
          requested him, in the course of the visit that he would be making to the
          country at the Government's invitation, to stress the need for an invitation
          to be extended to the Working Group, as requested. At the time of drafting
          this report, no such invitation had been received.
          31. Cuba . In its report for 1994, the Working Group stated that, as a rule,
          thematic special rapporteurs and working groups should not make visits to
          countries for which a special mechanism has been designated, “other than at
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1996/40
          page 8
          the request, or at any rate with the consent”, of the Special Rapporteur for
          that country (E/CN.4/1995/31, para. 22 (a)). Consequently, the Working Group
          had not planned to visit Cuba, despite the request made by the Commission in
          resolution 1994/71, paragraph 8.
          32. On 28 February 1995 the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human
          rights in Cuba, Mr. C.J. Groth, faced with that Government's lack of
          cooperation, requested the Working Group to ask for an invitation to that
          country. A similar request was also made to the Special Rapporteur on the
          independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of
          opinion and expression.
          33. After the annual meeting of special rapporteurs and chairpersons of
          working groups, the three above-mentioned special rapporteurs separately
          conferred with the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and, since he had
          already discussed with the various Cuban authorities the advisability of
          cooperation by the Government with the United Nations organs, bodies and
          mechanisms acting in the field of human rights (Report of the United Nations
          High Commissioner for Human Rights, E/CN.4/1995/98, para. 25), requested him
          to intervene so that missions could be undertaken to the country. The High
          Commissioner sent a note to this effect to the Government of Cuba on
          12 June 1995.
          34. By the time this report was drafted, no invitation had been sent to the
          Working Group.
          35. Peru . Several non-governmental organizations contacted the Working Group
          with the request that it undertake a mission to that country. The Working
          Group received this request with interest, particularly in view of the fact
          that many of the cases of alleged arbitrary detention submitted to it have had
          to be left pending for want of more complete information. In many of the
          cases the lack of information stems from the complexity of the laws, which are
          constantly being amended and which often do not seem to be in conformity with
          international standards relating to due process of law. In this connection,
          the Vice-Chairman of the Working Group held discussions with the Permanent
          Representative of Peru in Geneva, and on 13 November 1995 the Chairman of the
          Working Group formally requested an invitation to the country. No reply has
          been received to date.
          36. Bhutan and Viet Nam . Following the missions undertaken by the Working
          Group to Bhutan and Viet Nam in October 1994 (see E/CN.4/1995/31, para. 15 and
          E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.3 and Add.4), the Working Group informed the
          two Governments concerned of its wish to carry out a follow-up visit, in
          connection with the implementation of the recommendations made by the Working
          Group and with a view to visiting certain places of detention which it had
          been unable to visit in the course of its first visit.
          37. In the case of Bhutan, the Bhutanese authorities invited the Working
          Group to return six months after the first visit, but the Working Group
          decided, for reasons connected with its timetable of work, to undertake the
          follow-up visit to Bhutan in the spring of 1996.
        
          
          E/cN. 4/1996/40
          page 9
          38. As for a follow-up visit to Viet Nam, the Chairman of the Working Group
          had several contacts on this subject with the Vietnamese authorities and
          reiterated the Working Group's request for such a visit in a letter dated
          22 September 1995. The Vietnamese authorities replied in a letter dated
          23 November 1995 that “the Vietnamese Government is in principle favourable to
          the idea of another visit by the Working Group to Viet Nam”, but that owing to
          several important events planned for 1996 in Viet Nam, that visit might have
          to take place at a later date.
          39. Nepal . In connection with the follow-up visit to Bhutan, the
          Working Group contacted the Nepalese authorities with a view to going to Nepal
          in order to visit the Bhutanese refugee camps in the east of the country and,
          on the same occasion, to undertake a visit within the country under the terms
          of its mandate. The initial response to this request was positive, subject to
          a formal invitation being sent to the Working Group by the Nepalese
          Government.
          40. United States of America (Guantanamo Naval Base) . Following an approach
          by the Working Group to the authorities of the United States of America, the
          Government of that country invited the Working Group to visit the Guantanamo
          Naval Base in order to investigate the legal status of the Cuban asylum
          seekers who were there (see E/cN.4/1995/31, para. 17) . The Working Group
          decided to go there in October 1995 and, on the same occasion, to contact
          officials in Washington in order to discuss matters concerning immigration and
          asylum seekers. However, on account of the financial crisis affecting the
          United Nations and the temporary freeze on missions, the Working Group was
          unable, to its great regret, to carry out the visit at the time planned.
          Meanwhile, the source which had brought the situation in Guantanamo to the
          attention of the Working Group informed the Group that all the asylum
          seekers - both Haitians and Cubans - at the Guantanamo Naval Base were to be
          allowed to settle in the United States by the end of January 1996. In the
          light of this information, the source suggested that the Working Group should
          maintain the principle of undertaking a visit, pending such a positive
          outcome.
          41. China . As regards the request made by the Working Group to the Chinese
          authorities for an invitation to visit that country (see E/CN.4/1995/31,
          para. 18), the Chairman of the Working Group took up the matter again in a
          letter dated 22 September 1995. Following contacts that took place in Geneva
          in November 1995 between the Chairman of the Working Group and a senior
          official for the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of China, the Chinese
          authorities indicated their intention to invite the Group to visit China
          in 1996.
          42. Russian Federation . With regard to the request made by the Working Group
          to the Government of the Russian Federation to facilitate a visit to labour
          camps situated in the Russian Far East, operated by the Democratic People's
          Republic of Korea (see E/CN.4/1995/31, para. 16), no reply has yet been
          received.
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1996/40
          page 10
          D. Cooperation with the Commission on Human Rights
          43. The Working Group attaches particular importance to all resolutions of
          the Commission on Human Rights, as will be apparent from its reports
          E/CN.4/1995/31, E/cN.4/1994/27 and E/CN.4/1993/24. The following resolutions
          of the Commission were the object of the Working Group's particular attention.
          44. Resolution 1995/59 concerning the question of arbitrary detention and
          resolution 1995/87 concerning human rights and thematic procedures . These
          resolutions deal with several subjects that are covered in other chapters of
          this report, such as visits to countries, follow-up missions, cooperation with
          non-governmental organizations and data broken down according to sex. In this
          part, the Working Group wishes to mention several aspects connected with
          resolution 1995/59 on the question of arbitrary detention and its own mandate.
          1. Coordination with thematic or country special rapporteurs and
          working groups
          45. In its fourth report (E/CN.4/1995/31), the Working Group made various
          proposals to the Commission:
          (a) That visits to countries already handled by the Commission through
          its thematic mechanisms should be carried out only at the request, or at any
          rate with the consent, of the respective country special rapporteur;
          (b) That machinery be established in the Centre for Human Rights for
          coordinating requests for visits under all special procedures. It was
          recommended that coordination should include the missions of the High
          Commissioner;
          (c) That a system be established for visits to follow up
          recommendations made in the reports of missions carried out under special
          procedures.
          46. The Commission took note, in resolution 1995/59, paragraph 5, of the
          importance that the Working Group attached to coordination with other
          mechanisms of the Commission and to the strengthening of the role of the
          Centre for Human Rights in such coordination, and encouraged it to avoid
          unnecessary duplication. Thus, it is the understanding of the Working Group
          that its proposals have been accepted by the Commission, principally with
          regard to follow-up visits, which are of special interest to the Commission
          (resolution 1995/87, para. 2)
          47. The Working Group, on learning of cases of alleged arbitrary detention,
          considered it advisable to bring the facts to the attention of the Special
          Rapporteur on the question of torture (15 cases) and the Special Rapporteur on
          freedom of opinion and expression (41 cases)
        
          
          E/cN. 4/1996/40
          page 11
          48. Similarly, the Working Group received reports from several country
          special rapporteurs of cases of arbitrary detention that had occurred in the
          countries for which they were responsible.
          49. In a desire to coordinate its activities more effectively with those of
          other mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights, during its fourteenth
          session the Working Group held two working meetings with the Special
          Rapporteur on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors and
          assessors and the independence of lawyers, Mr. P. Cumaraswamy, and with the
          Special Rapporteur on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance
          and of discrimination based on religion or belief, Mr. A. Amor, in order to
          discuss questions of common interest.
          2. Timely replies from Governments
          50. The Group regrets the delay with which Governments often submit their
          replies to it. As already noted, only 25 per cent of Governments reply within
          the 90-day deadline. Far more serious is the fact that the replies are in
          many cases patently incomplete, and merely assert that there are no arbitrary
          detentions in the country in question because they are prohibited by the
          Constitution. This situation places the Group before a difficult choice:
          either it takes no decision, thereby failing to perform the mandate it has
          received from the Commission, or it takes a decision on the basis of the
          available information. The Commission will appreciate that the first choice
          is unacceptable, while the second could lead to errors. Faced with this
          dilemma, the Group has not hesitated to discharge its mandate. It is only
          when a detention is declared arbitrary that a Government reacts by providing
          the information it failed to submit when requested, and asks for the decision
          to be reconsidered.
          51. In the circumstances, the Working Group has decided to change its methods
          of work in order to remedy any errors which might have been made. It has
          accepted to reconsider decisions under certain conditions, inter alia , if the
          Government or source invokes facts of which it was not aware when the case was
          considered by the Group (see annex I, para. 14.2).
          3. Follow-up to recommendations
          52. For three years the Working Group has concerned itself with the follow-up
          to its decisions, in response to the concerns of the Commission and out of its
          own interest in rendering its action more effective, and has even put forward
          a proposal to Governments. In last year's report it addressed this issue at
          length (E/CN.4/1995/31, paras. 32 to 37 and 56 (c) ) . However, since in his
          statement to the Commission and in his report (E/CN.4/1995/98, paras. 19, 48,
          49 and 127-129) the High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that the
          follow-up to the recommendations of thematic procedures is an essential part
          of his mandate, the Group hopes that it will be possible to establish an
          effective procedure to this effect at the next meeting of special rapporteurs
          and chairpersons of working groups.
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1996/40
          page 12
          4. Prevention
          53. A number of recommendations made by the Group in its previous reports
          focused on preventing arbitrary detentions. In this respect, particular
          importance has been attached to the need for a correct description of
          punishable conduct, for domestic law to be in conformity with international
          instruments and for moderation in the use of states of constitutional
          emergency. In conformity with the Commission's mandate, the Group will pursue
          its efforts in these areas.
          5. Annual meetings of special rapporteurs and chairpersons of working
          groups
          54. The Group attaches great importance to these meetings, although it must
          place on record that it was only possible to hold the meeting in 1995 to the
          detriment of the Group's activities, on account of the lack of conference
          services and the fact that it was held at the same time as the Group's twelfth
          session. On behalf of the Working Group the Chairman proposed that the agenda
          for those meetings should include, in addition to essential questions of
          coordination, an analysis of substantive problems, such as the impact of
          terrorist groups on the enjoyment of human rights. The meeting should also
          address the problem of follow-up to recommendations, and to the “urgent
          appeals” by the various mechanisms.
          55. It is also appropriate in this chapter to emphasize that the meetings
          enabled the Working Group effectively to coordinate with the Special
          Rapporteurs who had been invited to visit Colombia (see paras. 20 to 23) and
          with those with whom the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights
          in Cuba had conferred (paras. 31 to 34)
          56. Resolution 1995/40 concerning the right to freedom of opinion and
          expression . In this resolution, as in resolution 1994/59, the Commission
          expresses its concern at the extensive occurrence of detention resulting from
          the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Detentions of
          persons who exercise that right were one of the most typical and commonest
          types of detention which the Group found to be arbitrary under category II of
          its methods of work. The Group attaches special importance to this
          resolution, and continues to cooperate with the relevant thematic Rapporteur,
          to whom it sent 12 decisions in the course of the year (relating to
          112 persons) , which also came within his mandate.
          57. Resolution 1995/79 concerning the rights of the child and
          resolution 1995/41 concerning human rights in the administration of
          justice, in particular of children and juveniles in detention . This topic is
          very closely related to the Group's mandate, and category III of arbitrary
          detentions consists of violations of due process of law, frequently
          attributable to shortcomings in the administration of justice. The Group only
          dealt occasionally with detentions of juveniles (decisions 13/1995 and 17/1995
          concerning Peru and 20/1995 concerning Pakistan)
        
          
          E/cN. 4/1996/40
          page 13
          58. Resolution 1995/43 concerning human rights and terrorism . The Working
          Group endorses the condemnation contained in paragraph 1 of the Commission's
          resolution and joins in the call for Governments to take all necessary and
          effective measures to prevent, combat and eliminate terrorism, in accordance,
          as the resolution states, “with international standards of human rights”. In
          any event, the Group wishes to reiterate the position expressed in its third
          and fourth reports, namely that deprivation of liberty by terrorist groups
          lies outside its mandate, and that special legislation adopted to combat
          terrorism is frequently employed to prevent the exercise of legitimate rights.
          59. Resolution 1995/53 concerning advisory services and the Voluntary Fund
          for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights . A number of topics
          that may come within advisory services to Governments are connected with
          individual freedom: they include the whole sphere of the administration of
          justice, the prison system, rules of criminal procedure and substantive
          legislation (strict classification of offences, rules relating to minors,
          alternative penalties to deprivation of liberty, etc.), anti-terrorist
          legislation, provisions relating to states of emergency and many others. In
          addition, the Group's experience has led it to the conclusion that technical
          assistance should primarily benefit law enforcement officials, essentially the
          police and prison staff.
          60. In any event, the Group emphasizes the view expressed in its 1994 report
          regarding the need to strengthen coordination between thematic and country
          mandates and the advisory services of the Centre for Human Rights, and with
          other services providing assistance in this field, whether through bilateral
          cooperation or outside the United Nations system.
          61. Resolution 1995/57 concerning internally displaced persons and
          resolution 1995/88 concerning human rights and mass exoduses . The Group has
          received no communications relating to arbitrary detentions of displaced
          persons. However, it has been informed, by the reports of country special
          rapporteurs, that human rights violations result in displacements of persons.
          This has occurred, for example, in Rwanda (see E/CN.4/1996/7).
          62. The Working Group has been particularly concerned about asylum seekers in
          foreign countries who are deprived of their liberty while their application is
          being processed, as in the case of Vietnamese exiles in Hong Kong and Haitian
          and Cuban refugees at the United States Naval base in Guantanamo.
          63. In considering this question, the Group during its thirteenth session
          received representatives of a New York law office and of the Lawyers Committee
          for Human Rights and during its fourteenth session held a working meeting with
          representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
          (see, para. 70)
          64. Resolution 1995/65 concerning human rights violations on the Papua New
          Guinea island of Bougainville . No cases of detention in this territory have
          been submitted to the Group.
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1996/40
          page 14
          65. Resolution 1995/66 concerning the situation of human rights in Cuba .
          Information on this topic contained in paragraphs 31 to 34 of this report
          concerning field missions and the decisions adopted by the Group in 1995
          relating to Cuba.
          66. Resolution 1995/75 concerning cooperation with representatives of
          United Nations human rights bodies . In connection with its finding that
          certain persons had been arbitrarily detained, the Working Group is studying
          the situation of lawyers who submitted the cases in question to the Group and
          who have allegedly been threatened in their respective countries.
          67. Resolution 1995/80 concerning comprehensive implementation of and
          follow-up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action . In discharging
          its duties, the Working Group has constantly borne in mind the Vienna
          Declaration and Programme of Action. The Declaration recognizes that
          arbitrary detentions constitute manifest and systematic violations of human
          rights. The Group's concern to take full account of the Vienna Declaration
          and Programme of Action is manifest in those paragraphs of this report devoted
          to the coordination of the activities of the various thematic and country
          mechanisms, as well as in its recommendations and conclusions.
          68. Resolution 1995/85 concerning the elimination of violence against women .
          This resolution requests thematic special rapporteurs to cooperate with and
          assist the Special Rapporteur on violence against women. Although detentions
          of women have been reported to the Working Group, it is not aware of cases in
          which a person was deprived of liberty on account of being a woman. In any
          event, the Group is prepared to provide any cooperation and assistance
          requested by the Commission.
          69. Resolution 1995/86 concerning the question of integrating the human
          rights of women into the human rights mechanism of the United Nations . For
          two years now, the Working Group has been presenting its statistics separately
          for men and women, a practice it has maintained in this report. The Group
          hopes that the agenda for the next meeting of special rapporteurs and
          chairpersons of working groups on improving cooperation and the exchange of
          information will address the issue of the human rights of women.
          E. Cooperation with other United Nations bodies
          70. As a number of cases of deprivation of liberty affecting asylum seekers
          in several regions of the world have been brought to its attention, at its
          fourteenth session in November 1995 the Group invited representatives of the
          Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to a
          working meeting on the problem. At the meeting legal advisers described the
          rules and principles applicable in the light of tJNHCR's statutes and
          experience, to administrative detention of asylum seekers; regional officials
          of UNHCR described the situations faced by asylum seekers in the various parts
          of the world. The Working Group wishes to thank the representatives of UNHCR
          for their diligence and cooperativeness.
        
          
          E/cN. 4/1996/40
          page 15
          F. Cooperation with non-governmental organizations
          71. During the past year, the Working Group has maintained its contacts with
          non-governmental organizations, which are one of the main sources of
          information available to it, in order to improve its working methods and make
          them more effective. At its fourteenth session the Group organized a working
          meeting with Amnesty International, at the latter's request, to discuss
          questions relating to the Group's methods of work.
          II. DECISIONS ADOPTED BY THE WORKING GROUP AND THE FOLLOW-UP THERETO
          A. General information regarding the decisions
          adopted by the Working Group
          72. During the three sessions held in 1995 (its twelfth, thirteenth and
          fourteenth sessions) , the Working Group adopted 49 decisions concerning
          847 persons in 22 countries as well as in the territory controlled by the
          Palestinian Authority. Some details of the decisions adopted in 1995 appear
          in the following table and the complete text of decisions 1/1995 to 34/1995
          may be found in addendum 1 to this report. Decisions 35/1995 to 49/1995 will
          be reproduced in the next compilation of the Group's decisions, to be
          published at a later date.
          Decisions adopted during 1995 by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
          Decision
          No.
          Country
          Government's
          reply
          Person(s)
          concerned
          Decision
          1/1995 Republic of No Lee Jang-hyong Arbitrary,
          Korea and Kim Sun-myung Category III
          Ahn Jae-Ku and 8 Arbitrary,
          others* Category II
          2/1995 Democratic Yes Shin Sook Ja and Not detained -
          People's 2 daughters cases filed
          Republic of
          Korea
          3/1995 Uzbekistan No Salavat Umurzakov Arbitrary,
          and 10 others* Category II
          4/1995 Iraq Yes Mohammad Ahmad Not Arbitrary
          El-Khalili
          5/1995 Bangladesh No Toab Khan and Arbitrary,
          Borhan Ahmed Category II
          6/1995 Algeria No Ali Barka and 14 Arbitrary,
          others* Category III
          7/1995 Turkey Yes Gunay Aslan, Arbitrary,
          Haluk Gerger and Category II
          Sedat Aslantas
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1996/40
          page 16
          Decision
          No.
          Country
          Government's
          reply
          Person(s)
          concerned
          Decision
          8/1995 Cuba yes Joel Mesa Morales Released -
          case filed
          9/1995 Guatemala yes Arturo Federico Released -
          Mendez Ortiz and cases filed
          Alfonso Morales
          Jimenez
          10/1995 Peru No Cesar Flores Arbitrary,
          Gonzalez Category II
          11/1995 Cuba No Francisco Arbitrary,
          Chaviano Category II
          Gonzalez
          12/1995 Peru Yes Melquiades Released -
          Calderon case filed
          Ventocilla and
          Fresia Calderon Pending for
          further
          information
          13/1995 Peru Yes Alfredo Pablo Arbitrary,
          Carillo Antayhua Category III
          14/1995 Peru No Teodosia Cahuaya Released -
          Flores case filed
          15/1995 Colombia Yes Gerardo Bermudez Arbitrary,
          Sanchez Category III
          16/1995 Peru Yes Julio Cesar Allca Pending for
          Hito further
          information
          17/1995 Peru Yes Abad Aguilar Arbitrary,
          Rivas and Category III
          Edilberto Rivas
          Roj as
          18/1995 Indonesia Yes Jannes Hutahaen Arbitrary,
          and 3 others* Category II
          19/1995 Saudi Arabia No Fouad Dehlawi and Arbitrary,
          4 others* Category III
          20/1995 Pakistan Yes Manzoor Masih and Released -
          2 others* cases filed
        
          
          E/cN. 4/1996/40
          page 17
          Decision
          No.
          Country
          Government's
          reply
          Person(s)
          concerned
          Decision
          21/1995 Ecuador No Carmen Celina Arbitrary,
          Bolanos and 10 Category III
          others
          22/1995 Peru No J.A. Castiglione Pending for
          Mendoza further
          information
          23/1995 Peru No Maria Elena Pending for
          Foronda Faro and further
          Oscar Diaz information
          Ba rbo z a
          24/1995 Peru No A. Gargurevich Pending for
          Oliva further
          information
          25/1995 Peru No A.E. Irrazabal Pending for
          Cruzado further
          information
          26/1995 Peru No J.C. Lapa Campos Pending for
          further
          information
          27/1995 Peru No R. Mon Zavaleta Pending for
          and W. Cruz Mon further
          information
          28/1995 Palestinian No Attiya Abu Mansur Released -
          Authority and 4 others* cases filed
          29/1995 Democratic Yes Kang Jung Sok and Pending for
          People's Ko Sang Mun further
          Republic of information
          Korea
          30/1995 Libyan Arab No Rashid el-Orfia Arbitrary,
          Jamahiriya Category II
          31/1995 Zaire No Kalunga Akili Arbitrary,
          Mali, Magara Deus Category III
          and Nasser Hassan
          32/1995 Zaire No J.M. de Oliveira Pending for
          Yumba di Tchibuka further
          information
          Adalbert Arbitrary,
          Nkutuyisila and 3 Category III
          others *
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1996/40
          page 18
          Decision
          No.
          Country
          Government's
          reply
          Person(s)
          concerned
          Decision
          33/1995 Turkey No Leyla Zana and S Pending for
          others* further
          information
          Fikret Baskaya Arbitrary,
          Category II
          34/1995 Turkey No Selahettin Simsek Arbitrary,
          Category III
          35/1995 Bahrain Yes 532 persons* Arbitrary,
          Category III
          (513 persons)
          Released -
          cases filed
          (19 persons)
          36/1995 Maldives No Mohammed Nasheed Arbitrary,
          and Mohammed Category II
          Shafeek
          37/1995 Democratic (same case as in Not detained
          People's decision 29/1995) cases filed
          Republic of
          Korea
          38/1995 Bahrain Yes Sheik Abdoul Amir Released -
          al-Jamri and cases filed
          Malika Singais
          39/1995 Ethiopia Yes Daniel Kifle Released -
          case filed
          40/1995 Turkey (same case as in Arbitrary,
          decision 33/1995) Category III
          41/1995 Colombia Yes Oscar Eliecer Not Arbitrary
          Pefla Navarro and
          2 others*
          42/1995 Peru No Luis Rob Huaman Released -
          Morales and cases filed
          Julian Oscar
          1-luaman Morales
          Pablo A. Huaman Pending for
          Morales and further
          Mayela A. Huaman information
          Morales
        
          
          E/cN. 4/1996/40
          page 19
          Decision
          No.
          Country
          Government's
          reply
          Person(s)
          concerned
          Decision
          43/1995 Peru Yes Alfredo Raymundo Arbitrary,
          Chaves and 4 Category III
          others *
          Meves Mallqui Released -
          Rodriguez case filed
          44/1995 Peru No Maria Elena Released -
          Foronda Faro and cases filed
          Oscar Diaz
          Barbosa
          45/1995 Egypt No Hassan Gharbawi Arbitrary,
          Shehata Farag and Category I
          S others*
          Mohammed Sayid Arbitrary,
          L'eed Hassanien Category III
          and 4 others*
          46/1995 China Yes 79 persons* Arbitrary,
          Category II
          (64 persons)
          Released -
          cases filed
          (11 persons)
          Not detained
          cases filed
          (4 persons)
          47/1995 China No James Dong Peng Insufficient
          information -
          case filed
          48/1995 Saudi Arabia Yes Sheik Salman bin Arbitrary,
          Fahd al-Awda and Category II
          7 others*
          49/1995 Republic of Yes Kim Sam-sok, Ki Arbitrary,
          Korea Seh—Moon and Lee Category II
          Kyung - ryol
          * The complete list of the persons concerned is available for
          consultation at the secretariat of the Working Group.
          73. As in the past, the decisions were adopted by the Working Group
          unanimously, with one exception (the case of Teodosia Cahuaya Flores, under
          decision 14/1995 (Peru) )
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1996/40
          page 20
          74. In accordance with its revised methods of work (annex I, paras. 2
          and 14.1 (c)), the Working Group transmitted its decisions to the Governments
          concerned, drawing their attention to resolution 1995/59, by which, among
          other things, the Commission invited “Governments concerned to take note of
          the Working Group's decisions and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps
          and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken”. Three weeks
          later, it also transmitted them to the source.
          B. Governments' reactions to decisions
          75. During the period under consideration, the Working Group received
          information from a number of Governments pursuant to the transmittal of
          decisions adopted by the Working Group with regard to cases reported to have
          occurred in their countries. The following Governments provided the Working
          Group with such information (the decision to which the information refers is
          given in parentheses) : Azerbaijan (31/1993), China (43/1993, 44/1993,
          53/1993, 63/1993, 65/1993 and 66/1993) , Colombia (26/1994 and 15/1995),
          Cuba (46/1994, 47/1994 and 11/1995) , Ecuador (21/1995) , Ethiopia (55/1993)
          Indonesia (18/1995), Myanmar (13/1994), Republic of Korea (29/1994, 30/1994
          and 1/1995), Democratic People's Republic of Korea (29/1995), Peru (41/1994,
          42/1994, 43/1994, 44/1994, 45/1994, 17/1995 and 22/1995) and Turkey (38/1994
          and 34/1995) , as well as the Palestinian Authority (28/1995)
          76. In some of the cases the Governments informed the Working Group that
          the person or persons concerned by the decision had been released. This was
          the case of Azerbaijan (with regard to Vilik Ilitch Oganessov and
          Artavaz Aramovitch Mirzoyan, decision 31/1993); Indonesia (Muchtar Pakpahan,
          decision 18/1995); China (Qi Dafeng, Zu Guoqiang and Mao Wenke,
          decision 44/1993; Wang Juntao and Chen Ziming, decision 63/1993; Yulu Dawa
          Tsering, decision 65/1993; Liu Guandong, Wang Yijun, Wei Jingyi,
          Zhang Youshen, Zhang Dapeng, Zhou Lunyou, Su Zhimin, Yang Libo, Xu Guoxing,
          Liu Qinglin, Zhang Weiming, Ngawang Chosum, Ngawang Pema, Lobsang Choedon,
          Phuntsong Tenzin, Pasang Dolma, Dawa Lhanzum and Hu Hai, decision 66/1993);
          and Myanmar (Dr. Aung Khin Sint and Tin Moe, decision 13/1994) . The Chinese
          Government further informed the Working Group that, according to its
          investigations, Zang Jianjun and Zhao Chingjian (decision 44/1993) had not
          apparently been detained or subjected to any other form of punishment. The
          Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea informed the Working
          Group that the two persons concerned by decision 29/1995 had never been
          detained during their stay in that country.
          77. As the Working Group has already noted in previous reports to the
          Commission, it considers that the release of persons whose detention it
          declared to be arbitrary should be seen as a positive response to its
          recommendations, particularly with regard to the norms and principles
          contained in the relevant international instruments. The Working Group again
          wishes to express its thanks to the above-mentioned Governments and, in
          accordance with the Commission's wish, to encourage the other Governments
          concerned to take similar measures.
        
          
          E/cN. 4/1996/40
          page 21
          78. Certain Governments (including the Chinese Government, regarding
          decisions 53/1994, 63/1993 and 65/1993; the Cuban Government, regarding
          decisions 46/1994, 47/1994 and 11/1995; and the Indonesian Government,
          concerning decision 18/1995) rejected the conclusions of the Working Group by
          which it declared the detention of the persons concerned to be arbitrary. The
          Indonesian Government stated that it could not “take the necessary steps to
          remedy the situation” in accordance with the Working Group's recommendation,
          as that would violate the national Constitution and be tantamount to
          interference with the principle of the independence of the judiciary, given
          that the persons concerned had been tried by an independent tribunal. Other
          Governments provided additional information on the cases which concerned them,
          explaining why they considered that the detentions in question were not
          arbitrary.
          79. The Governments of the Republic of Korea and of Peru, which had not
          responded to the communications of the Working Group within the 90-day period
          (decisions 29/1994 and 1/1995 for the Republic of Korea, and 17/1995 and
          22/1995 for Peru) , provided the Working Group with detailed replies after they
          had been advised of the Working Group's decisions.
          80. As several Governments or non-governmental organizations had requested
          that the Working Group be allowed to revise the decisions adopted (including
          the Governments of the Republic of Korea, on decision 1/1995, and of Colombia,
          regarding decision 15/1995, on which the Government provided the Working Group
          with additional information of which the Working Group had not been aware when
          it adopted its decision) , in a spirit of cooperation, the Working Group
          decided at its fourteenth session to make the requested changes in its methods
          of work, but laying down conditions for accepting requests for revision, so as
          to consider the information before it at its fifteenth session.
          81. Details of this procedure are set out in paragraph 14.2 (c) of the
          methods of work (see annex I)
          III. OBSERVATIONS OF THE WORKING GROUP
          82. At the fifty-first session, a number of delegations of Governments
          (Australia, Austria, Bhutan, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Nepal, Peru,
          Republic of Korea and Switzerland) , non-governmental organizations (Amnesty
          International, Aridean Commission of Jurists, International Federation of
          Associations of Relatives of Disappeared Detainees (FEDEFAN) , International
          Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), Human Rights Watch, International League
          for Human Rights, Robert Kennedy Memorial, Third World Movement against the
          Exploitation of Women) and observers (International Committee of the Red Cross
          (ICRC)) referred to the Working Group's mandate and to its report. The large
          majority approved the Working Group's work. However, two delegations - China
          and Cuba - questioned general aspects of the Working Group's work and of its
          report, as well as decisions declaring some detentions to be arbitrary, and
          stated that the Working Group had been guilty of “irregularities” and
          “excesses” (Cuba) and that its work was “harmful” (China) , adding that the
          Working Group “had invented pretexts” for declaring detentions arbitrary.
        
          
          /CN. 4/1996/40
          page 22
          General criticisms
          83. The general aspects queried by the delegations of China and Cuba were:
          (a) That the Working Group questioned internal legislation, which was
          outside its terms of reference;
          (b) That the Working Group gave opinions on detentions after sentences
          had been handed down in accordance with internal law; and
          (c) That the Working Group acted selectively.
          84. With regard to criticisms (a) and (b), the Working Group's mandate was
          defined in resolution 1991/42, which created it for the purpose of
          “investigating cases of detention imposed arbitrarily or otherwise
          inconsistently with the relevant international standards set forth in the
          Universal Declaration of Human Rights or in the relevant international legal
          instruments accepted by the States concerned”
          85. It is worth pointing out that this mandate is unique, in the sense that
          it is the only mechanism established by the Commission which has been
          specifically assigned the task of “investigating cases” (resolution 1991/42)
          whereas all the other mechanisms are mandated to “report” on human rights
          violations related to given situations, themes or countries.
          86. The specific nature of its mandate obliged the Working Group, at its
          first session, to reflect on its “mandate and legal framework” (Chap. I of its
          first report, E/CN.4/1992/20) . Its deliberations are reflected in part in
          paragraph 10 of that report:
          “The legal framework within which the Working Group will have to
          carry out its mandate is made up primarily of international standards and
          legal instruments, but in certain instances of domestic legislation as
          well. The Working Group will thus have to look into domestic legislation
          in investigating individual cases, where it will have to determine
          whether internal law has been respected and, in the affirmative, whether
          this internal law conforms to international standards. It may thus have
          to consider, in certain cases, whether the alleged practice of arbitrary
          detention is not made possible as a result of laws which may be in
          contradiction with international standards.”
          87. It should also be noted that the “principles applicable for the
          consideration of cases submitted to the Working Group” (annex I of the first
          report) refer specifically to “post-trial situations”.
          88. The Commission on Human Rights, “noting the comments made during its
          forty-eighth session”, expressed “its satisfaction to the Working Group on
          Arbitrary Detention at the diligence with which it has devised its methods of
          work”, took note of the Working Group's report and thanked the experts “for
          the rigour with which they have discharged their task” (resolution 1992/28,
          adopted without a vote)
        
          
          E/cN. 4/1996/40
          page 23
          89. Although resolution 1991/42 refers to the Universal Declaration of Human
          Rights and international legal instruments - with which internal legislation
          must be brought into line - as parameters for determining whether a detention
          is arbitrary or not, the Government of Cuba criticized various aspects of the
          Working Group's work, which in essence meant that it was dissociating itself
          from the consensus by which resolutions 1991/42 and 1992/28 had been adopted.
          In a letter dated 24 December 1991, it asked the Working Group a number of
          questions which were analysed by the Working Group in its “deliberations”
          Nos. 02 and 03, adopted at its third and fourth sessions and described in its
          second report (E/CN.4/1993/24)
          90. The main conclusions of those deliberations were:
          In the performance of its task, the Working Group takes into
          consideration not only the national standard but also the international
          standard, ensuring, where necessary, that the national standard conforms
          to the relevant international standard” (deliberation 02, para. 14)
          “The Working Group notes that neither the provisions of
          resolution 1991/42, which established its terms of reference, nor the
          discussion which led up to its adoption, as reflected in the summary
          records (E/CN.4/1991/SR.25-33) , justify the view that such communications
          (transmitting reports of arbitrary detention) should be declared
          inadmissible on the grounds that there has been a conviction
          (deliberation 03,A)
          91. In taking note of this report, in its resolution 1993/36 the Commission
          expressed its appreciation to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for the
          way in which it carried out its task, took note “with satisfaction of the
          Working Group's report and thanked the Experts for the rigour with which they
          had performed their task, in the light of the very specific nature of their
          mandate of investigating cases, and took note of the ‘deliberations' adopted
          by the Working Group on issues of a general nature with a view to achieving
          better prevention and to facilitating the consideration of future cases, as
          well as helping to further strengthen the impartiality of its work. This
          resolution was also adopted without a vote. In following years, the
          Commission, in each of its resolutions concerning the Working Group, took note
          of the Working Group's ‘deliberations'”.
          92. From the above, it is clear that the Commission has endorsed the Working
          Group's criteria regarding the two aspects covered by these comments, namely:
          (a) That the Working Group may consider cases of arbitrary detention,
          whether pre-trial, in-trial or post-trial; and
          (b) That the Working Group must consider the internal legislation of a
          country and its consistency with the standards of international instruments in
          deciding whether a detention is arbitrary or not.
          93. With regard to criticism (c) (para. 83), alleging that the Working Group
          works selectively, to the detriment of the developing countries, and does not
          consider arbitrary detention in Europe or the United States, in the five years
          since its creation the Working Group has been guided by the Commission's
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1996/40
          page 24
          resolutions, all of which subsequent to the Working Group's creation have
          stressed two key concepts: (a) that the Working Group should continue to seek
          and gather information from Governments and intergovernmental and
          non-governmental organizations, as well as from the individuals concerned
          (para. 3 of resolutions 1992/28, 1993/36, 1994/32 and 1995/59) ; and (b) that
          the Working Group should act with objectivity and independence (para. 4 of
          resolutions 1992/28, 1994/32 and 1995/59; para. S of resolution 1993/36)
          94. According to paragraph 4 of resolution 1993/36, the Working Group may
          act on its own initiative. In fact, at all the meetings it has held with
          non-governmental organizations, it has encouraged them to submit
          communications concerning all areas of the world. In practice, however,
          none has been received.
          95. If the Governments of China and Cuba feel that the Working Group has
          acted selectively, the way is open for them to fill in the gaps, as those
          called on first to provide information to the Working Group are Governments,
          in accordance with all the resolutions concerning the Working Group's mandate.
          96. The Working Group is more concerned than anyone about this situation and
          has already referred to it in its second report (E/cN.4/1993/24, para. 28)
          Moreover, following a statement by the representative of Cuba at the
          fifty-first session of the Commission, alleging that the Working Group had not
          said anything about cases of Cuban citizens detained in the United States, the
          Chairman of the Working Group, in letters dated 3 March and 20 September 1995,
          asked the Ambassador of Cuba to the United Nations Office at Geneva to provide
          a list of persons in that situation. At the date of this report, no reply has
          been received.
          97. Once again, and in conformity with Commission on Human Rights
          resolution 1991/42, the Working Group urges Governments, intergovernmental and
          non-governmental organizations to provide it with reliable information on
          detentions in any region of the world.
          98. The Government of Cuba's fourth criticism of the Working Group is that it
          has assumed a coordinating role with other mechanisms of the Commission. The
          Working Group cannot hide its surprise at being reproached for making
          suggestions in an area accorded the utmost importance by the World Conference
          on Human Rights. Furthermore, in its resolution 1994/53 on human rights and
          thematic procedures, the Commission on Human Rights, among other things,
          encouraged the special rapporteurs and working groups to “make recommendations
          for the avoidance of human rights violations”. Its resolution 1993/36
          welcomed “the importance that the Working Group attaches to coordination with
          other mechanisms of the Commission as well as with treaty-monitoring bodies”
          and invited it “to take a position in its next report on the issue of the
          admissibility of cases submitted to the Working Group when they are under
          consideration by other bodies” . This criticism is as unexpected as it is
          surprising, given that the last part was added precisely on the proposal of
          the Cuban Government at the forty-ninth session of the Commission. In
          paragraphs 64-70 of its report (E/CN.4/1994/27), the Working Group did as the
          Commission asked.
        
          
          E/cN. 4/1996/40
          page 25
          99. In the following report, which is the target of the criticism, the
          Working Group, encouraged by the Commission's support, and in the spirit of
          the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, made other coordination
          proposals which it deemed necessary for cases where more than one body might
          be interested in visiting the same country or when a special rapporteur had
          been appointed for that country. The intention was not to transform it into a
          “working group on arbitrary recommendations” or to have its recommendations
          become “holy writ”, as has been suggested.
          Specific criticisms concerning decisions
          100. The Government of China criticizes the Working Group's decisions
          concerning that country on grounds which the Working Group finds difficult to
          understand.
          101. The Government of China maintains that the detentions referred to in
          decisions 43/1993 and 44/1993 were declared arbitrary “simply because the
          Government did not reply within 90 days”. Although it is true that the
          Government failed to reply to the Working Group's request, the detentions were
          declared arbitrary not for that reason, but because the individuals in
          question had been arrested “without a warrant and for their work in the
          autonomous workers' movement in Tianjin” (decision 43/1993) ; and because “the
          five persons detained were arrested without a warrant and continue to be in
          detention without charge and without bringing them to trial”; furthermore, in
          only one case is the place of detention known, and none of the detainees has
          access to their families or to a lawyer (decision 44/1993) . In both cases,
          the detention is arbitrary under categories II and III.
          102. The Working Group has already had the occasion to counter these
          criticisms in its 1994 report (E/cN.4/1994/27, para. 55 (b) ) . In any event,
          the Government had been given the opportunity to contest the facts related by
          the source.
          103. Decision 53/1993 is criticized on the grounds that the Government reply
          was allegedly not taken into account and that the reason for finding the
          detention arbitrary was that it was “based solely on the grounds that [ the
          individual in question] .. . listened to the Voice of America”. The truth is
          that the Government reply suffered from a “complete absence of details in
          respect of [ the] . . . trial”. The grounds for the detention were not only
          those indicated by the Government, but also that the person concerned had
          distributed leaflets, met with student leaders and called for student strikes,
          all of which represent the legitimate exercise of the rights recognized in
          international human rights instruments, but which are punishable under Chinese
          law. Consequently, the Working Group considered the detention arbitrary and
          as falling within category II of its methods of work.
          104. Decision 63/1993 is criticized by China on the grounds that the Working
          Group declared the detention arbitrary without reason; in reality, the
          decision was based on the following: Wang Juntao and Chan Zhimin were held
          incommunicado for four months and were convicted of actions that constitute
          the exercise of political rights; as the Chinese Government informed the
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1996/40
          page 26
          Working Group, “they cobbled together an anti-government coalition of illegal
          organization and engaged in a series of anti-government activities in
          Beijing”.
          105. The Cuban Government, for its part, criticizes decision 47/1994 - without
          referring to it specifically - and suggests that “the Working Group appears to
          condone and sanction crimes of this kind” (international drug trafficking and
          endangering national security and the security of neighbouring countries) . It
          also states that the trial was held openly and with full guarantees. In fact,
          the Working Group considered the detention arbitrary because the accused was
          tried by a special court, as recognized in the Government report, constituted
          under a wartime procedure (although the country was not at war) , and the trial
          proceedings, which involved a large number of persons accused of very serious
          offences, were of a summary nature.
          IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
          A. General conclusions
          1. On the causes of arbitrary detentions
          106. In its previous reports, the Working Group noted that, in its experience,
          the main causes of arbitrary detentions were the exercise of the powers
          pertaining to states of emergency, the lack of proportionality between the
          alleged emergency and decisions of the authorities, the vague description of
          the acts to be punished and the existence of special or emergency courts.
          107. The Working Group also noted that one of the most serious causes of
          arbitrary detention is the existence of special courts, military or otherwise,
          regardless of what they are called. Even if such courts are not in themselves
          prohibited by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the
          Working Group has none the less found by experience that virtually none of
          them respects the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in the
          Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the said Covenant.
          108. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that in many countries
          courts do not enjoy the necessary independence. The reports of special
          rapporteurs on the human rights situations in specific countries submitted at
          the fifty-first session corroborate this by pointing out that, in the
          countries in question, courts are not independent, act partially and do not
          apply the rules of due process of law, all of which is translated into
          impunity for violations of human rights and arbitrary detentions.
          109. Other causes of arbitrary detentions have been mentioned by other special
          rapporteurs:
          (a) The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Rwanda
          mentions as a reason for arbitrary detentions not only the slanderous
          accusations motivated by the situation prevailing in that country, but also
          the illegal practice of prosecutors issuing blank warrants (E/CN.4/1996/7,
          para. 68) . Equally alarming is the fact that most of the 42,000 detainees are
        
          
          E/cN. 4/1996/40
          page 27
          being held without charges or indictment, due to a defective, if not
          non-existent, judicial machinery. For example, out of 708 judges, only
          210 remain, of whom only 55 are trained jurists (ibid., paras. 91 ffj;
          (b) The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Zaire
          attributes the practice of arbitrary detentions in that country to the anarchy
          in the powers of the security services, which are all authorized de lure or
          de facto to carry out arrests (E/cN.4/1995/67, para. 184);
          (c) The Special Rapporteur on the independence and impartiality of the
          judiciary also refers to this question in his report (E/CN.4/1995/39,
          paras. 38 ff.).
          110. Arbitrary detentions could be reduced if the “effective remedy” referred
          to in article 8 of the Universal Declaration and article 9, paragraph 4, of
          the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were a reality in all
          countries, both in law and in fact. Unfortunately, many legal systems make no
          provision for it and, in many other cases, attorneys - in addition to being
          frequently persecuted in many countries - do not avail themselves of such
          remedy, or if they do, the courts do not show the proper zeal.
          111. As the Commission on Human Rights is aware, whenever the Working Group
          decides that a detention is arbitrary, it requests Governments “to take the
          necessary steps to remedy the situation in order to bring it into conformity
          with the provisions and principles incorporated in the Universal Declaration
          of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
          Rights”.
          112. While some Governments take the suggested steps, for instance by
          releasing the persons concerned, they all too often fail to take the
          recommended follow-up action.
          113. In order to draw the Commission's attention to the harmful effects this
          can have, the Working Group would like to submit the list of persons who,
          although they have been in detention for many years, in fact over six
          (according to information available to the Working Group on 1 December 1995,
          and in the absence of any report by the Government concerned or by the source
          concerning their release or any other change in their status) , continue to be
          deprived of their liberty, despite the fact that the Working Group has
          declared their detention arbitrary under categories I and II of the Principles
          applicable to the consideration of cases submitted to the Working Group.
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1996/40
          page 28
          Country
          Decision No.
          Name
          Detained since
          Libyan Arab
          Jamahiriya
          3/1992
          24/1993
          Al-Ajili Muhammad al-Azhari
          Ali Muhammad al-Akrami
          Ali Muhammad al-Qajiji
          Salih Omar al-Qasbi
          Muhammad al-Sadiq al-Tarhouni
          Rashid A.H. al-Urfia
          April 1973
          April 1973
          April 1973
          April 1973
          April 1973
          Feb ./1982
          Myanmar
          52/1992
          38/1993
          38/1993
          62/1993
          Nay Mm (alias Win Shwe)
          Mm Zeya
          Ye Htoon
          U Tin Oo
          Oct ./1988
          Aug ./1989
          July 1989
          Dec ./1989
          Syrian Arab
          Republic
          6/1992
          53/1992
          11/1993
          11/1993
          11/1993
          Riad al Turk
          Khalil Brayez
          Muhammad Munir Missouti
          Abdullah Quabbara
          Nash' At Tuma
          Oct ./1980
          Nov ./1970
          May 1987
          May 1987
          Feb ./1989
          Republic of
          Korea
          28/1993
          Hwang Tae Kwon
          Kim Song Man
          June 1985
          June 1985
          China
          53/1993
          65/1993
          Chen Lantao
          Jampa Ngodrup
          Lhundrup Ganden
          Lobsang Choejor
          Lobsang Yeshe
          Lobsang Palden
          Drakpa Tsultrim
          Lobsang Tashi
          Tempa Wangdrak
          Tenzin Tsultrim
          Ngawang Phulchung
          Ngawang Oser
          Jamphel Changchub
          Kelsang Thutob
          Ngawang Gyaltsen
          Jampal Lobsang
          Ngawang Rigzin
          Jampal Monlam
          Jampel Tsering
          Ngawang Kunga
          Yulu Dawa Tsering
          Ngawang Chamtsul
          Tsering Ngodup
          June 1989
          Oct 1989
          March 1988
          March 1988
          March 1988
          March 1988
          March 1988
          March 1988
          March 1988
          March 1988
          Nov ./1989
          Nov ./1989
          Nov ./1989
          Nov ./1989
          Nov ./1989
          Nov ./1989
          Nov ./1989
          Nov ./1989
          Nov ./1989
          Nov ./1989
          Dec ./1987
          March 1989
          March 1989
        
          
          E/cN. 4/1996/40
          page 29
          114. The Working Group otherwise welcomes the release of Aung San Suu Kyi,
          which had been called for in its report for 1993.
          2. Concerning the Working Group's activities
          115. Once again the Working Group deplores the lack of cooperation on the part
          of Governments. Out of 37 communications transmitted (concerning
          829 persons) , it received information within 90 days only in 11 cases
          (578 persons) and beyond the 90-day limit in 4 cases (6 persons), which
          represents 40 per cent.
          116. The Working Group is bound to point out that the failure to provide a
          full and timely reply cannot prevent it from discharging its mandate, since it
          will have to decide on the basis of the information available to it, in
          accordance with the methods of work approved by the Commission.
          117. With regard to the follow-up to its decisions and recommendations, the
          Group refers to its comments in paragraph 52 above.
          118. The Group is still anxious to carry out a joint study with the Special
          Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers regarding the existence
          of “faceless”, that is to say, anonymous judges, a phenomenon made necessary
          in some countries in order to protect the lives and safety, and thus the
          independence of magistrates, but which in many instances has led to a loss of
          judicial guarantees.
          3. Regarding the situation in Rwanda
          119. The Working Group expresses grave concern regarding the situation in
          Rwanda, in particular the presence of over 50,000 persons in the country's
          detention centres. The Group notes that most of these detentions are of an
          arbitrary nature. It notes further, however, that they are the result not so
          much of the penal legislation in force as of the lack of judicial authorities
          to apply such legislation. For this reason, the Group endorses appeals for
          the international community to help Rwanda to restore effective justice as
          soon as possible in order to put an end to the situation.
          4. Regarding the situation in Nigeria
          120. In the course of the year, the Working Group was particularly concerned
          by the situation of persons deprived of liberty in Nigeria in conditions which
          might imply arbitrary detentions.
          121. During the year, it sent four urgent communications concerning
          16 persons to the Government of Nigeria. Some of these communications
          referred among others to Ken Saro Wiva, Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti and retired
          General Olusegun Obasanjo.
          122. In addition, the High Commissioner for Human Rights requested that the
          Chairman of the Working Group or a Group member should undertake a mission to
          Nigeria with a view to obtaining information concerning the situation of
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1996/40
          page 30
          detained persons in danger of incurring the death penalty. Although the Group
          of course immediately agreed to undertake the mission, the Government
          unfortunately never gave its consent, despite many requests.
          123. The Group is at present considering 26 cases of detention denounced as
          arbitrary, which are awaiting a reply from the Government, and it will
          continue to be attentive to any information which may allow it to reach its
          decisions.
          B. Recommendations
          124. In the light of its four years of experience, the Working Group wishes to
          make the following recommendations to the Commission on Human Rights:
          1. With regard to its mandate, the Working Group stresses the need for
          reports which Governments are requested to provide to be delivered to it
          within the stipulated period of 90 days, containing full and detailed
          information, with regard to both the facts and the law.
          2. The Working Group once again requests that the Commission should
          recommend that Governments maintaining declared states of emergency,
          particularly where such states are of long standing, should lift them and
          restore the normal rule of law, and in cases where the state of emergency is
          justified, should strictly apply the principle of proportionality and
          limitation in time, considering the frequency with which arbitrary detentions
          occur in such conditions.
          3. The Working Group also suggests that the Commission should request
          that Governments eliminate from their legislation precepts which sanction
          modes of conduct without describing them with sufficient clarity. Individuals
          must understand clearly which conduct is lawful and which is not, without any
          possible room for doubt.
          4. The Working Group suggests that the Commission should ask States to
          incorporate the remedy of habeas corpus in their legislation, as an individual
          right, which has been shown capable of ending arbitrary detention, or at least
          preventing its harmful consequences.
          S. Once again, the Working Group asks the Commission to recommend that
          the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
          Minorities should transmit the declaration on habeas corpus which is currently
          being drafted as soon as it has been approved.
          6. The Group also suggests that the Commission should renew the
          mandate of a rapporteur for the Sub-Commission on the question of states of
          emergency, suggesting that the rapporteur's report should identify for each
          country the harmful effects of states of emergency on institutions and the
          rights likely to be affected by such regimes.
          7. The Group proposes that the advisory services should assume
          responsibility for the matters referred to in paragraph 59 of this report.
        
          
          E/cN. 4/1996/40
          page 31
          Jthnex I
          REVISED METHODS OF WORK
          1. The methods of work take due account of the specific features of the
          terms of reference of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention under
          Commission on Human Rights resolution 1991/42, whereby it has the duty of
          informing the Commission by means of a comprehensive report (para. 5) , and
          also of “investigating cases” (para. 2)
          2. The Group takes the view that such investigation should be of an
          adversarial nature so as to assist it in obtaining the cooperation of the
          State concerned.
          3. In the opinion of the Working Group, situations of arbitrary detention,
          in the sense of paragraph 2 of resolution 1991/42, are those described in
          accordance with the principles set out in annex I of document E/CN.4/1992/20.
          4. In the light of resolution 1991/42, the Working Group shall deem
          admissible communications received from the concerned individuals
          themselves or their families. Such communications may also be transmitted to
          the Working Group by representatives of the above-mentioned individuals as
          well as by Governments and intergovernmental and non-governmental
          organizations.
          5. The communications must be submitted in writing and addressed to the
          secretariat giving the family name, first name and address of the sender, and
          (optionally) his telephone, telex and telefax numbers.
          6. As far as possible, each case shall form the subject of a presentation
          indicating family name, first name and any other information making it
          possible to identify the person detained and all elements clarifying the legal
          status of the person concerned, particularly:
          (a) The date and place of the arrest or detention and the forces
          presumed to have carried them out, together with all other information
          shedding light on the circumstances in which the person was arrested or
          detained;
          (b) The reasons given by the authorities for the arrest or detention;
          (c) The relevant legislation applied to the case in point;
          (d) The internal steps taken, including domestic remedies,
          especially approaches to the administrative and legal authorities,
          particularly for verification of the detention and, as appropriate, their
          results or the reasons why such steps were ineffective or were not taken; and
          (e) A short account of the reasons why the deprivation of liberty
          is regarded as arbitrary.
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1996/40
          page 32
          7. In order to facilitate the Group's work, it is hoped that communications
          will be submitted taking into account the model questionnaire.
          8. Failure to comply with all formalities set forth in paragraphs 6 and 7
          shall not directly or indirectly result in the inadmissibility of the
          communication.
          9. The cases notified shall be brought to the attention of the Government
          concerned by the Chairman of the Group or, if he is not available, by the
          Vice-Chairman, by means of a letter transmitted through the Permanent
          Representative to the United Nations asking the Government to reply after
          having carried out the appropriate inquiries so as to provide the Group with
          the fullest possible information.
          10. The communication shall be transmitted with an indication of the deadline
          established for receipt of a reply. The deadline may not exceed 90 days. If
          the reply has not been received by the time the deadline is reached, the
          Working Group may, on the basis of all data compiled, take a decision.
          11. The procedure known as “urgent action” may be resorted to:
          (a) In cases in which there are sufficiently reliable allegations that
          a person is being detained arbitrarily and that the continuation of the
          detention constitutes a serious danger to that person's health or even life.
          In such cases, between the sessions of the Working Group, the Working Group
          authorizes its Chairman or, in his absence, the Vice-Chairman, to transmit the
          communication by the most rapid means to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of
          the country concerned, stating that this urgent action in no way prejudges the
          Working Group's final assessment of whether the detention is arbitrary or not;
          (b) In other cases, where the detention may not constitute a danger to
          a person's health or life, but where the particular circumstances of the
          situation warrant urgent action. In such cases, between the sessions of the
          Working Group, the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman, in consultation with
          two other members of the Working Group, may also decide to transmit the
          communication by the most rapid means to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of
          the country concerned.
          However, during sessions, it devolves on the Working Group to take a decision
          whether to resort to the urgent action procedure.
          12. Between the sessions of the Working Group, the Chairman may, either
          personally or by delegating any of the members of the Group, request an
          interview with the Permanent Representative to the United Nations of the
          country in question in order to facilitate mutual cooperation.
          13. Any information supplied by the Government concerned on specific
          cases shall be transmitted to the sources from which the communications were
          received, with a request for comments on the subject or additional
          information.
        
          
          E/cN. 4/1996/40
          page 33
          14.1 In the light of the information examined during its investigation, the
          Working Group may take one of the following decisions:
          (a) If the person has been released, for whatever reason, since the
          Working Group took up the case, it shall decide in principle to file the case;
          it reserves the right, however, to decide on a case-by-case basis whether or
          not the deprivation of liberty was arbitrary, notwithstanding the release of
          the person concerned;
          (b) If the Working Group considers that the case is not one of
          arbitrary detention, it shall so decide;
          (c) If the Working Group considers that further information is required
          from the Government or source, it may decide to keep the case pending until
          that information is received;
          (d) If the Working Group considers that it is unable to obtain enough
          information on the case, it shall decide to file the case
          (e) If the Working Group decides that the arbitrary nature of the
          detention is established, it shall so decide and make recommendations to the
          Government concerned. The decisions and recommendations shall also be
          transmitted three weeks after their transmittal to the Government to the
          source from which the case was originally received, and be brought to the
          attention of the Commission on Human Rights in the annual report of the
          Working Group to the Commission.
          14.2 Very exceptionally, the Group may, at the request of the Government
          concerned or the source, reconsider its decisions on the following conditions:
          (a) If the facts on which the request is based are considered by the
          Group to be entirely new and such as to have caused the Group to alter its
          decision had it been aware of them;
          (b) If the facts had not been known or had not been accessible to the
          party originating the request;
          (c) In a case where the request comes from a Government, on condition
          that the latter has replied within 90 days as stipulated in paragraph 10
          above.
          15. When the case under consideration concerns a country of which one of
          the members of the Working Group is a national, that member shall not
          participate in the discussion owing to the possibility of a conflict of
          interest.
          16. The Working Group shall not deal with situations of international
          armed conflict, in so far as they are covered by the Geneva Conventions
          of 12 August 1949 and their Additional Protocols, particularly when the
          International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has competence.
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1996/40
          page 34
          17. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 4 of resolution 1993/36,
          the Working Group may, on its own initiative, take up cases which, in the
          opinion of any one of its members, might constitute arbitrary detention.
          If the Working Group is in session, the decision to communicate the case to
          the Government concerned shall be taken at that session. Outside the session,
          the Chairman, or in his absence the Vice-Chairman, may decide on transmittal
          of the case to the Government, provided at least three members of the Working
          Group so agree. When acting on its own initiative, the Working Group shall
          give preferential consideration to the thematic or geographical subjects to
          which the Commission on Human Rights has requested it to pay special
          attention.
          18. The Working Group shall also communicate any decision it adopts to the
          Commission on Human Rights, whether thematic or country-oriented, or to the
          body set up by an appropriate treaty for the purpose of proper coordination
          between all organs of the system.
        
          
          E/cN. 4/1996/40
          page 35
          Annex II
          STATISTICS
          (Covering the period from January to December 1995. The figures given in
          parentheses are the corresponding figures from last year's report.)
          I. CASES OF DETENTION IN WHICH THE WORKING GROUP ADOPTED A DECISION
          REGARDING THEIR ARBITRARY OR NOT ARBITRARY CHARACTER
          A. Cases of detention declared arbitrary
          Female Male Total
          1. Cases of detention declared arbitrary
          falling within category I (-) 7(-) 7(-)
          2. Cases of detention declared arbitrary
          falling within category II (including
          nine cases of persons (male) who
          were released) 23(1) 89(29) 112 (30)
          3. Cases of detention declared arbitrary
          falling within category III (including
          four cases of persons (male) who
          were released) 4(-) 574 (19) 578(19)
          4. Cases of detention declared arbitrary
          falling within categories II and III (-) (3) (3)
          Total number of cases of detention
          declared arbitrary 27(1) 670(51) 697(52)
          B. Cases of detention declared not arbitrary
          Female Male Total
          (-) 4(6) 4(6)
          II. CASES WHICH THE WORKING GROUP DECIDED TO FILE
          Female Male Total
          A. Cases filed because the person
          was released, or was not detained 9(1) 50(24) 59(25)
          B. Cases filed because of insufficient
          information (-) 1(-) 1(-)
        
          
          E/CN. 4/1996/40
          page 36
          III. CASES PENDING
          Female Male Total
          A. Cases which the Working Group decided
          to keep pending for further information 2(4) 8(25) 10(29)
          B. Cases transmitted to Governments on
          which the Working Group has not yet
          taken a decision 23(38) 208(177) 231(215)
          Total number of cases dealt with by
          the Working Group during the period
          January to December 1995 61(45) 941(334) 1002 (379)
        

Download Attachments:

Show More

Related Articles

Back to top button