UNITED
NATIONS
Economic and Social Distr.
Council
GENERAL
E/CN.4/200211 06
27 February 2002
Original: ENGLISH
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Fifty-eighth session
Item 17 (b) of the provisional agenda
PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS
Report submitted by Ms. Hina Jilani, Special Representative of
Secretary-General on human rights defenders, pursuant to the
Commission on Human Rights resolution 2000/61
E
GE.02-11122 (E) 220302
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 2
CONTENTS
Paragraphs Page
Executive summary 4
Introduction 1 6
MANDATE AND METHODS OF WORK 2 6
II. ACTIVITIES 3 - 38 6
A. Country visits 5 - 6 7
B. Cooperation with the United Nations system and other
intergovernmental organizations 7 - 16 7
C. Cooperation with NOOs 17 - 25 9
D. Participation in seminars and various events 26 - 32 11
E. Other activities 33 - 38 12
III. ISSUES 39- 107 13
A. Trends 40-79 13
B. Women human rights defenders 80 - 94 20
C. The impact on human rights defenders of the
11 September attacks 95 - 107 22
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 108 - 138 25
Annex*
Country situations
Algeria 31
Argentina 32
Bangladesh 35
Belarus 35
Bhutan 39
Bolivia 39
Brazil 40
Cameroon 41
Central African Republic 41
Chad 42
China 42
Colombia 44
Croatia 60
Cuba 61
* Reproduced in the languages of submission only
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 3
CONTENTS ( continued)
Page
Democratic Republic of the Congo . 62
Dominican Republic 63
Ecuador 64
Egypt 65
Equatorial Guinea 68
Ethiopia 69
Georgia 70
Guatemala 71
Haiti 76
Honduras 77
India 78
Indonesia 79
Iran 81
Israel 82
Jamaica 84
Kenya 84
Kyrgyzstan 85
Malaysia 87
Mauritania 88
Mexico 89
Morocco 101
Nepal 103
Nicaragua 103
Palestine 104
Peru 104
Republic of Korea 105
Russian Federation 106
Rwanda 109
Singapore 109
Sri Lanka 109
Sudan 110
Syrian Arab Republic 112
Tanzania 113
Togo 114
Tunisia 115
Turkey 122
Uganda 128
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 129
Uzbekistan 130
Venezuela 133
VietNam 133
Zimbabwe 136
Appendix 137
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 4
Executive summary
This is the second report presented by the Special Representative of the
Secretary-General on human rights defenders, Ms. Hina Jilani, to the Commission on
Human Rights. It is submitted pursuant to Commission resolution 2000/6 1. The report
describes the activities undertaken by the Special Representative in the past year and contains a
discussion of pressing issues, a brief summary of communications to and from Governments, as
well as the Special Representative's conclusions and recommendations. With regard to country
situations, the Special Representative has sent 134 urgent appeals and 27 allegation letters during
the year. A large number of communications were sent jointly with other thematic mechanisms,
in particular the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the
Special Rapporteur on torture, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, the
Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on
the independence ofjudges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, the
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous
people and the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child
pornography. The Special Representative also joined with country mechanisms, in particular the
Special Rapporteurs dealing with the situations in the Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Iran and the former Yugoslavia.
During the year under review, the Special Representative has engaged cooperation with
specialized bodies within the United Nations system and regional intergovernmental
organizations. Concrete steps of collaboration were made with the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights of the Organization of American States. The Special Representative
maintained regular contacts with international and national NGOs and participated in three
regional NGO consultations of major importance, in Western Africa, Latin America and Asia.
Country visits are an essential aspect of the mandate. The Special Representative
undertook her first visit, to Kyrgyzstan, from 30 July to 4 August 2001 and the second, to
Colombia, from 23 to 31 October 2001. During the year under review, the Special
Representative has sought to obtain invitations to visit the following countries: Bhutan, Egypt,
Guatemala, hidia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Singapore, Tunisia and Venezuela. She
received official invitations from the Governments of Guatemala, Mexico and Venezuela.
On the basis of the communications sent by the Special Representative, the report
identifies trends that may encourage Governments to review practices and take remedial
action when required. The Special Representative also directs the attention of Governments
to two issues of concern, the situation of women human rights defenders and the impact of
the 11 September attacks on human rights defenders.
The Special Representative concludes the report with the assertion that human rights
defenders continue to be at risk and face serious violations of their rights throughout the world.
In this regard, situations of armed conflict and the militarization of States place human rights
defenders at even greater risk. The Special Representative expresses her apprehension about
developments arising from the 11 September terrorist attack in the United States. She also
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 5
concludes that the police, military and other security forces, as well as State intelligence
agencies, are the main perpetrators of abuse against human rights defenders. Impunity for the
violation of human rights has become one of the most serious human rights problems and
directly affects the security of human rights defenders.
The Special Representative's main recommendations focus on the following:
The necessity for Governments to pay particular attention to the trends identified in the
report and to address issues relevant to the situation in their countries with regard to laws,
policies and practices that impede the promotion, protection and implementation of
human rights or place human rights defenders at risk;
The need for Governments to increase their tolerance of criticism and be more willing to
correct lapses of governance pointed out as affecting the work of human rights defenders;
Governments must become conscious of the need to eliminate impunity for human rights
violations;
The urgent need to enforce the conformity of non-State entities engaged in armed conflict
to international standards of human rights and humanitarian law as a measure to secure
civilians and human rights defenders from violations;
Legislation in the name of national security, public order or emergency must not be
allowed to silence dissent, or suppress peaceful protest and reaction against the violation
of human rights;
The dissemination of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders is important for
increasing awareness of the legitimacy of activity for the promotion, protection and
implementation of human rights;
The need for better and fuller coordination between the political and human rights
systems of the United Nations in collective undertakings for the prevention and removal
of threats to peace and security. hiternational action, or support for any action by the
international community in this respect, must be guided by human rights norms.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 6
Introduction
1. The present report is the second report presented by Ms. Hina Jilani (Pakistan),
Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders. The mandate was
established by the Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 2000/61 of 27 April 2000.
The present report is submitted pursuant to resolution 2001/64. Section I of the report contains
the mandate and methods of work. Section II presents an account of the activities undertaken
within the framework of her mandate in the past year. Section III provides a brief discussion on
a number of issues which the Special Representative considers to be important. Section IV
contains the conclusions and recommendations of the Special Representative. Summaries of
urgent appeals and communications to and from Governments, along with observations of the
Special Representative, are contained in the annex.
I. MANDATE AND METHODS OF WORK
2. The Special Representative refers to her previous report to the Commission on
Human Rights (E/CN.4/2001/94) as regards the mandate and methods of work adopted by her.
II. ACTIVITIES
3. During the period under review, the Special Representative sent 161 communications
to Governments, 134 urgent appeals and 27 allegation letters. Seeking to avoid unnecessary
duplication of the activities of the other thematic rapporteurs and country specific rapporteurs,
the Special Representative has joined during the past year with the following thematic
special procedures: the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions
(54 urgent appeals and 4 allegation letters), the Special Rapporteur on torture (31 urgent appeals
and 14 allegations), the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression (17 urgent
appeals and 4 allegations), the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention (14 urgent appeals), the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and
lawyers (13 urgent appeals and 1 allegation), with the Special Rapporteur on violence against
women (5 urgent appeals), the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and
fundamental freedoms of indigenous people (1 urgent appeal) and the Special Rapporteur on the
sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (1 urgent appeal). Moreover, the
Special Representative also joined with the Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (4 urgent appeals) and the Sudan (2 urgent appeals).
Finally, 2 urgent appeals were sent together with the Special Representative on the situation of
human rights in Iran and 1 with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the
former Yugoslavia.
4. The Special Representative is concerned at the considerable number of communications
and requests she received in 2001 that allege serious violations of the rights of human rights
defenders throughout the world. The cases contained in these communications give evidence of
the continuous need for the effective promotion and protection of the rights of human rights
defenders. In view of the wealth and complexity of information pertaining to her mandate, as
well as of the fact that violations occur in many countries of the world, an objective and
even-handed approach requires the provision of sufficient financial and human resources to
enable her to fulfil her mandate.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 7
A. Country visits
5. The Special Representative considers the carrying out of country visits to be an
essential element of the mandate. She undertook her first visit, to Kyrgyzstan, from 30 July
to 4 August 2001 and her second visit, to Colombia, from 23 to 31 October 2001. For these two
visits, the Special Representative has submitted separate reports to the Commission at its current
session (E/CN.4/2002/106/Add. 1 and E/CN.4/2002/106/Add.2).
6. During the year under review, the Special Representative has sought to obtain invitations
to visit the following countries: Bhutan, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Uzbekistan, Singapore, Tunisia and Venezuela to examine in situ the situation of human rights
defenders. She received official invitations from the Governments of Guatemala, Mexico and
Venezuela. The Special Representative wishes to reiterate that her criteria for requesting an
invitation for a country visit are not limited to those countries in which human rights defenders
are experiencing problems in carrying out their human rights activities, or where trends, practices
or legislation are apparently hampering the effective implementation of the Declaration on the
Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect
Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereafter the Declaration on
Human Rights Defenders).
B. Cooperation with the United Nations system and
other intergovernmental organizations
7. Close cooperation is engaged by the Special Representative with specialized bodies
within the United Nations system, regional intergovernmental organizations and
non-governmental organizations, particularly at the local level.
8. On 11 May 2001, the Special Representative addressed a letter to the United Nations
Children's Fund (UNICEF), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Food Programme
(WFP), the United Nations Development Fund for Women, the International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC), the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), the
European Union, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe (OSCE), the Organization of American States (OAS), the Organization of African Unity
(OAU) and the League of Arab States. In her communication, the Special Representative
presented her new mandate and expressed her intention to collaborate with international agencies
and regional mechanisms in order to benefit from their experience and to have their assistance in
monitoring events relevant to her mandate. The Special Representative received replies from
UNDP, ILO, UNICEF, OAS, the European Union and the Council of Europe (the Commissioner
for Human Rights). In their replies, they essentially congratulated the Special Representative on
her appointment and expressed their support for this new mandate. They provided information
relevant to their area of specialization and expressed a similar will to work in close cooperation
with the Special Representative.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 8
9. The Special Representative wishes to thank these organizations for their replies and the
interest shown for her mandate.
10. In regard to cooperation with regional organizations, more concrete steps have been taken
in favour of a systematic collaboration with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(IACHR) of the OAS. On 13 and 14 November 2001, the Special Representative was invited to
Washington by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in order to exchange views
and ideas regarding the situation of human rights defenders in the Americas and to discuss future
collaboration between the IACHR and the Special Representative.
11. The Special Representative first met with Mr. Cesar Gaviria, Secretary-General of
the OAS before attending a general audience of the IACHR which dealt with the situation of
human rights defenders in Colombia and Mexico. She had also an informal discussion with all
commissioners of the IACHR and a formal audience before the OAS Commission on Juridical
and Political Matters which was attended by all member States of the OAS. These meetings
were very fruitful and allowed the Special Representative to present her mandate as well as her
concerns with regard to the situation of human rights defenders in Latin America. On these
occasions, the need to create a focal point on human rights defenders within the OAS in order to
facilitate cooperation with the Special Representative was expressed. The Special
Representative was delighted by the support she received publicly from several member States of
the OAS within the framework of the meeting with the Commission on Juridical and Political
Matters.
12. The Special Representative took the opportunity of her visit to Washington to meet with
representatives of the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and NGOs of the
Latin American region.
13. All these meetings were facilitated by the Human Rights Defenders Office of the
International Service for Human Rights, a non-governmental organization based in Geneva.
14. Shortly after her visit to Washington, the Special Representative was pleased to learn that
on 7 December 2001, the Executive Secretary of the IACHR decided to create a specific unit on
human rights defenders within the executive secretariat of the IACHR in order to coordinate
activities on this issue. The Special Representative considers this initiative to be extremely
important for the region of the Americas and for their mutual cooperation.
15. The Special Representative considers the collaboration between universal and regional
mechanisms for the protection of human rights to be vital for ensuring a coordinated and
effective strategy of protection of human rights defenders worldwide. In this respect, she wishes
to extend her special thanks to Mr. Santiago Canton, Executive Secretary of the IACHR and the
Human Rights Defenders Office of the International Service for Human Rights for their support
to make this collaboration possible.
16. The Special Representative intends to meet with the African Commission on Human
Rights of the OAU and hopes to be able to establish similar cooperation with it. She also intends
to make similar contacts with the relevant agencies of the European human rights system.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 9
C. Cooperation with NGOs
17. As mentioned in her first report to the Commission, the Special Representative would
like to stress the importance of collaborating with NGOs. The Special Representative would like
to reiterate that the role of non-governmental organizations in furthering the promotion and the
protection of the rights of human rights defenders is crucial. Indeed, it is those organizations
which spearhead these concerns and are forcefully advocating, monitoring and lobbying for
human rights. In this regard, the information provided by NGOs on allegations of violations
against human rights defenders around the world is essential for the good functioning of this
mandate. In this context, the Special Representative has developed guidelines for the submission
of allegations (see appendix).
18. In addition, the Special Representative considers that these NGOs have a crucial role to
play in further disseminating the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders through translation
into local languages, training and education campaigns. NGOs are also especially important in
promoting and disseminating the work of the Special Representative. This was indeed one of the
objectives of the NGO consultations that the Special Representative attended this year. Thanks
to the help of a certain number of NGOs, the Special Representative had the opportunity to
attend three NGO consultations in Western Africa, Latin America and Asia. It was the occasion
for the Special Representative to be better informed of the regional issues relating to human
rights defenders and to have a direct contact with the main local NGOs.
19. From 10 to 13 April 2001, the Special Representative attended a sub-regional
consultation with West African human rights defenders in Dakar, Senegal. This event was part
of the wider Amnesty International “Defending the Defenders Project”, which aims at improving
the protection of human rights defenders by developing strategies for the protection of human
rights defenders. The main objective of this event was to bring together representatives of
human rights defenders within the sub-region and individual human rights defenders to facilitate
the exchange of experiences; to develop a sub-regional network of human rights defenders, to
develop guidelines and mechanisms of protection of human rights defenders in Africa and to
develop working relationships with the Special Representative. At the end of this consultation, a
resolution was adopted by the participants (representing 13 countries in Western Africa), which
in particular called on Governments in West Africa to cease all forms of persecution of human
rights defenders, to investigate cases of violations of their rights and to ratify all international
and regional human rights treaties and to make national laws conform to them, as well as to the
Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.
20. The Latin American consultation took place in Mexico City from 13 to 15 June 2001 and
was organized jointly by the Human Rights Defenders Office of the International Service for
Human Rights, Amnesty International, the Ad Hoc Committee of Defenders from Colombia, and
the Defenders Committee of La Red Nacional de Organismos Civiles de Derechos Humanos
from Mexico. This consultation gathered together more than 44 defenders from 18 countries of
Latin America and the Caribbean, independent experts and observers for discussions with the
Special Representative on how to strive for the defence and promotion of human rights in the
Americas and to propose and coordinate actions to protect human rights defenders. A
presentation of the main issues regarding human rights defenders was made by representatives
of Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Panama, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras,
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 10
El Salvador, Jamaica, Cuba and Mexico. A final declaration was adopted at the end of the
consultation which called on the Special Representative to institutionalize a process of periodic
consultations with civil society in the region, to produce a special report on the impact of
impunity, and another on the impact on the work of defenders of current restrictions on freedom
of association and to coordinate with regional and international organizations, including the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and ILO. The participants also called on
Governments inter alia, to apply the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, to support the
work of the Special Representative and to comply with the resolutions of the Inter-American
human rights protection system.
21. While in Mexico, the Special Representative had a one-day informal meeting with
several government officials: Under-Secretary for Human Rights and Democracy,
Mexico Secretariat for Foreign Affairs (Marie-Claire Acosta), the Director-General of the
Human Rights Division of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Gomez Camacho), the
President of the Commission of Human Rights of the Senate (Mr. Miguel Sadot Sanchez
Carreflo), the President of the Commission of Human Rights and Justice of the Chamber of
Deputies (Dep. José ElIas Romero Apis), the President of the Commission on Human Rights of
Mexico City (Dr. Luis de la Barreda), the General Director for the Protection of Human Rights at
the Office of the General Prosecutor (Dr. Mario Alvarez Ledesma) and representatives of the
human rights division at the Ministry of the Interior. The Special Representative wishes to thank
the Government of Mexico for its openness and cooperation in this regard.
22. From 30 November to 1 December 2001, a consultation entitled “Toward more effective
protection of human rights defenders in Asia” was jointly organized in Bangkok (Thailand) by
the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum Asia), Human Rights Watch,
Amnesty International, the Friedrich Neuman Stiftung and the Centre for Social and
Development Studies of Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok. The purpose of the meeting was
to facilitate an exchange of information between the Special Representative and human rights
NGOs in the Asian region, to formulate recommendations for more effective protection of
human rights defenders and to produce a handbook on the protection of human rights defenders
for local, national and regional organizations. The consultation brought together about
60 participants from 18 countries of the Asian region. Particular country situations were
discussed, such as the situation in Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Malaysia and China. At the end
of the consultation, a declaration was adopted by all participants, in which they particularly
denounced the killing of human rights defenders around Asia and the misuse of national security
laws, which has now worsened since the 11 September attacks in the United States of America.
Participants suggested strategies to protect human rights defenders, such as the strengthening of
the urgent action network in Asia, the legitimization and institutionalization of the role of human
rights defenders and supporting defenders in difficult situations.
23. The Special Representative took the opportunity of her presence in Bangkok to meet
with Thai officials to discuss the situation of human rights defenders in Thailand. She had
informal meetings with the Permanent Secretary of the Minister of Justice, the Director-General
of the Department of Probation of the Ministry of Justice, the Deputy Permanent Secretary
of the Ministry of Interior Affairs and the Human Rights Commission of Thailand. The
Special Representative thanks the Government of Thailand for its cooperation.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 11
24. The Special Representative considers these three regional consultations to have been
extremely useful and she wishes to extend particular thanks to Amnesty International, the
Human Rights Defenders Office of the International Service for Human Rights and Forum Asia
for having organized these important events. From this experience, the Special Representative
was reinforced in her conviction that there is a need for developing visible regional networks to
ensure better communication with the Special Representative. She therefore hopes to attend
further regional consultations in the course of 2002, in particular in order to meet with human
rights defenders from other parts of Africa, the Middle East and Europe.
25. Regarding the Middle East region, the Special Representative would like to mention that
a regional consultation was organized from 19 to 22 September 2001 in Beirut, Lebanon by the
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) for the Middle East region. The subject was
“the defence of human rights in the Euro-Mediterranean region and the issue of funding human
rights NGOs”. Owing to the tragic 11 September attacks, the Special Representative was not
able to travel to attend this important consultation. Her statement was delivered at the meeting
by one of the organizers. The conclusions of this seminar were transmitted to her and she noted
with interest that several concrete proposals were made with a view to reinforcing the links
between NGOs and donors. In particular, donors were asked to manifest their solidarity and to
engage themselves with the human rights defenders that they have financed and who are
repressed for using foreign funds for their human rights activities.
D. Participation in seminars and various events
26. The Special Representative was impressed by the number of invitations she received to
attend seminars and conferences held around the world on the issue of human rights defenders.
This confirms the growing importance and recognition of the work of human rights defenders.
27. Owing to her heavy schedule, the Special Representative was unfortunately not in
a position to accept all the invitations transmitted to her. She excused her absence from
the following events: a conference on the crisis in Zimbabwe organized by Transparency
International Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe, 4 August 2001), the Supplementary Human
Dimension Meetings on the issue of human rights defenders organized by the OSCE
(Austria, 22-23 October 2001), the International Congress on Human Rights/Women's Rights
organized by Terre des Femmes (Germany, 12-13 October 2001), the conference on
“Conflict accompaniment for the protection of human rights” organized by Peace Brigades
International (Germany, 26-27 October 2001), the expert seminar on the definition of torture
organized by the Association for the Prevention of Torture (Switzerland, 10-11 November 2001),
the General Assembly of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights
(Croatia, 15-18 November 2001), a round table on women's leadership in Afghanistan
organized by UNIFEM (Belgium, 10-11 December 2001) and a celebration of Human
Rights Day organized by the Canadian Parliamentary Human Rights Group
(Ottawa, 10 December 2001).
28. The Special Representative was also invited to attend an international conference on
human rights and democratization in Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus. This event took
place from 8 to 10 October 2001 in Dubrovnik (Croatia) and was organized by the Office of
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 12
the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Owing to an unexpected commitment, the
Special Representative had to cancel her participation but her statement was delivered by a
member of the secretariat.
29. During the period under review, the Special Representative was able to attend other
meetings and events in her capacity of Special Representative on human rights defenders.
30. On 13 December 2000, the Special Representative addressed the European Union (EU)
Human Rights Forum, which was organized in Paris jointly by the French Presidency of the
European Union and the European Commission. One of the themes chosen for the forum was
human rights defenders and how to support their action. In this regard, several proposals were
made for the EU to defend the cause of human rights defenders, in particular that the EU
members, within their bilateral relations, use instruments at their disposal, like déniarches and
declarations, to respond actively to situations of violation of the rights of human rights defenders
brought to their attention.
31. While in Paris, the Special Representative attended several other meetings.
On 11 December, she made a statement at a meeting of the European Council's Human
Rights Working Group (COHOM) in the context of the European Union and met with
French government officials, in particular the Adviser to the President of the Republic
(Mr. Jean-Marc de la Sabliere), as well as senior officials of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs
and the French Ambassador for Human Rights (Ambassador Patrick Henault). She also held
consultations with NGOs based in Paris, in particular FIDH, Amnesty International, la Ligue
des Droits de l'Homme, Reporters sans frontières, Action by Christians for the Abolition of
Torture (ACAT) and International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of
Torture (FIACAT).
32. On 13 August 2001, the Special Representative made a presentation at the preparatory
meeting for the Social Forum of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of
Human Rights in Geneva. This preparatory meeting was being convened to plan the first formal
session of the Social Forum, to be held in August 2002.
E. Other activities
33. On 12 November 2001, the Special Representative was in New York to present her
first report to the United Nations General Assembly (A156/341). She gave a statement to the
Third Committee of the General Assembly, which was followed by a dialogue with the
delegations. While the representative of Belgium (on behalf of the European Union) expressed
interest in the NGO regional consultations, the representative of Singapore requested more
information on the methods of work. The representatives of Egypt and Cuba both raised the
issue of the responsibilities of human rights defenders. Concerning this last question, the
Special Representative clarified the responsibilities of both Governments and human rights
defenders, referring to articles 2 and 3 of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. She also
referred to the exchange of correspondence with Cuba she annexed in her first report to the
Commission.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 13
34. During its Fifty-sixth session, the General Assembly, adopted, without a vote,
resolution 56/163 on the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, presented by Norway.
The Special Representative welcomes this resolution and the fact that it was sponsored by
an unprecedented number of 83 countries from all regions.
35. The Special Representative took the opportunity of being in New York to hold bilateral
consultations with government representatives, United Nations agencies (UNICEF, UNIFEM)
and NGOs (Human Rights Watch and Lawyers Committee).
36. Additionally, the Special Representative attended the eighth meeting of special
rapporteurs/representatives, experts and chairpersons of working groups of the special
procedures and advisory services programme, held in Geneva from 18 to 22 June 2001.
During this meeting, the Special Representative briefed the participants on her mandate
and on the importance of cooperation and coordination between special procedures
(see E/CN.4/2002/14, paras. 48-49).
37. Furthermore, the Special Representative visited Geneva from 17 to 20 April 2001 for
consultations and to present her first report to the Commission on Human Rights at its
fifty-seventh session. During this period, the Special Representative held a press conference and
organized a briefing for NGOs, which were both very well attended. She also met with various
delegations to discuss issues pertaining to her mandate.
38. Finally, the Special Representative made herself available to brief students and interested
persons on her mandate. In this connection, she gave lectures at the Iberoamerican University in
Mexico City, at the Columbia Law School in New York and at Harvard University in Boston.
While the Special Representative was on official mission to Kyrgyzstan, she accepted an
invitation to brief the Academy of Police in Bishkek.
III. ISSUES
39. This section contains an analysis of communications sent by the Special Representative
(in order to highlight trends), issues pertaining to the situation of women human rights defenders
and concerns relating to the impact of the 11 September attacks on human rights defenders.
A. Trends
40. Unlike last year's, the present report of the Special Representative covers a one-year-long
review period. The Special Representative received a large number of communications from a
variety of sources, including international, regional, national and local NGOs, professional
associations, trade unions, political parties including members of the opposition, lawyers,
teachers, journalists, intellectuals, members of the judiciary, indigenous rights organizations, as
well as from individuals. As a result, the Special Representative believes that in this report she is
in a position to highlight a number of overall trends that she has been able to discern from the
communications to Governments upon which action was taken.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 14
41. The trends identified by the Special Representative are based on the communications
upon which she took action in the context of the implementation of her mandate. She also relied
on cases of human rights defenders raised in various thematic mandates' reports submitted to the
Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-seventh session in 2001.
42. Her findings reveal certain patterns and characteristics: the different types of violations
to which human rights defenders are subjected or might be at risk of, their own identity, as well
as that of the alleged perpetrators, and the latter's motivation, if any, and finally, the context in
which human rights defenders work and become victims of human rights abuses.
43. Identifying trends, in turn, enables the Special Representative to recommend specific
remedial actions to Governments so as to ensure that the rights of human rights defenders are
respected and that governmental policies and practices comply with international human rights
standards, and in particular with the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals,
Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (the Declaration).
44. As far as her mandate is concerned, the Special Representative sent 161 communications
to Governments during the period under review. In this regard, she would like to emphasize that
one communication can contain more than one case.
45. In addition, it is important to caution that the trends identified by the Special
Representative do not necessarily reflect the situation of human rights defenders worldwide in its
entirety. This inevitable partiality should not, however, be taken as a legitimate or valid reason
to discount the significance of the trends identified by the Special Representative.
46. The Special Representative would like to point out that the reports of violations of the
rights of human rights defenders that came to her attention concern countries in all regions of the
world and are certainly not confined exclusively to those where the political and institutional
arrangements are implicitly or explicitly undemocratic.
47. In fact, the allegations received pertain to cases of violations of the rights of human rights
defenders in all countries, including emerging democracies and countries with long-established
democratic institutions, practices and traditions. The majority of allegations concern those
countries where: (a) the legal and institutional protections and guarantees of human rights are, to
a greater or lesser degree, circumscribed; (b) internal armed conflict or severe civil unrest exists;
or (c) legal and institutional protections and guarantees exist but are not properly implemented.
48. On the basis of the above remarks, the Special Representative recommends that
Governments pay particular attention to the trends identified henceforth in the report in relation
to the situation of human rights defenders worldwide. In addition, she urges Governments to
take all appropriate action, consistent with the standards set out in the Declaration and the
International Bill of Human Rights and associated instruments, to eliminate not only the
violations themselves but also their causes and negative consequences.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 15
1. Individuals, groups and organizations working for the promotion
and protection of human rights
49. Out of 161 communications sent, the majority of cases (118) relate to violations
committed against human rights defenders in their capacity as members of NOOs. This trend is
also supported by the figures relating to cases of human rights defenders raised by various
thematic mechanisms in their reports to the Commission on Human Rights last year. Again, on
the basis of those reports, it emerges that the highest number of cases concern human rights
defenders who were members of NOOs (31).
50. Human rights defenders have also been targeted in their professional capacity, for
example, as human rights lawyers (32), trade unionists (22), indigenous rights activists (20)
and journalists (11). Corresponding figures for some of the same categories in various
thematic reports submitted to the Commission on Human Rights last year support the
Special Representative's findings. For example, the cases of 14 lawyers and 10 trade unionists
who were targeted for their work in the defence of human rights were raised last year in the
reports of other thematic mandates.
51. Others, such as peasants, environmental activists, members of religious, ethnic and sexual
minorities, students, teachers and intellectuals - all working for the promotion and protection of
human rights - have been subjected to human rights abuses. Equally, members of parliament,
procurators, ombudspersons and members of the opposition, as well as human rights activists in
general, have all been targeted for upholding human rights.
52. In addition to individuals who are in the line of fire as human rights defenders, the
authorities have also been targeting NOOs working on human rights issues. Organizations have
been warned about so-called “violations of official regulations” and have been threatened with
fines, suspension, dc-registration and closure. Legislation already enforced or currently under
consideration in various countries allows the suspension of NGO activities simply for
contravening the authorities' interests. Some legislative measures also provide for the
imprisonment of members of such organizations simply for operating beyond the expiration or
revocation of a licence.
2. Human rights abuses against human rights defenders
Harassment and intimidation campaigns against human rights defenders
53. The majority of cases featured in the communications sent by the Special Representative
to Governments (88 out of a total of 161) concerned human rights defenders who have been
subjected to sustained campaigns of harassment and intimidation in order to make them desist
from their activities for the promotion and protection of human rights. This trend is also
consistent with the cases of defenders raised by various thematic mechanisms in their reports to
the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-seventh session, last year, with 24 instances of
harassment and intimidation.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 16
54. Human rights activists have been kept under constant surveillance, including by being
constantly followed by plain clothes police officers and by having their telephone lines cut or
tapped into; they have had documents confiscated, including travel documents such as passports,
identity cards and driving licences to prevent their attendance at international human rights
forums; lawyers have been threatened with being disbarred for alleged misconduct violating the
rules of the legal profession, or have been under investigation for alleged financial irregularities.
Under the pretext of security reasons, defenders have been banned from leaving their towns and
countries, and have even been unfairly dismissed from their long-held employment as a result of
their activities for the promotion and defence of human rights.
55. Human rights defenders have also endured vilification campaigns, with slanderous
allegations appearing in the State-controlled press attacking their integrity and morals. Spurious
complaints have been fabricated to discredit independent NGOs and journalists exposing human
rights abuses. Police and secret service officials and members of the security forces have
repeatedly summoned human rights defenders to their offices to intimidate them and have
ordered the suspension of all human rights activities.
56. Human rights defenders have had their offices and homes searched, broken into, burgled
and raided. The premises from which human rights defenders operate have been sealed and
defenders have had their bank accounts seized, thus preventing them from continuing their work.
Their possessions, including documents, photographs, diskettes, computers and files, have been
confiscated and the authorities have refused to return them.
57. Human rights defenders have suffered administrative harassment - having been forced to
pay heavy fines for alleged violations of legislation governing the funding of NGOs - and have
been victims of extortion attempts, including demands for significant amounts of money in
return for the release of colleagues, friends and relatives from detention.
58. The enactment and enforcement of laws curtailing the legitimate exercise and enjoyment
of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, religious belief, freedom of association and
movement, such as laws on registration and regulation of the activities of NGOs, or legislation
banning or hindering the receipt of foreign funds for human rights activities, have all been used
to harass, intimidate and threaten human rights defenders.
Arrests, detention, prosecution and imprisonment of human rights defenders
59. From the Communications sent to Governments, the arbitrary arrest and detention of
human rights defenders emerge with particularly striking regularity among the human rights
abuses which they face daily. Numerically, in terms of the type of violations to which human
rights defenders are subjected, their arrest, detention (81) - with or without charges - prosecution,
conviction and imprisonment on totally spurious charges come second after intimidation and
harassment campaigns. The number of cases of arrest and detention of defenders featured in
various other thematic mandate reports in 2001 was also high (19).
60. Participation in a meeting of indigenous rights activists can result in charges of public
disturbance. Peaceful picketing against disappearances, or simply exercising one's profession as
a lawyer can give rise to criminal charges. Outspoken criticism of the authorities can bring
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 17
bribery charges and a long sentence of imprisonment. Legitimately demanding that the
authorities return confiscated equipment has been enough to justify the detention of human rights
defenders. Charges of hooliganism, carrying a long sentence of imprisonment in the case of
conviction, have been brought against defenders who sought to lodge an official complaint
against the ill-treatment they received at the hands of the police. Arrests without a warrant are
commonplace for those who advocate greater freedom of opinion and expression. Unfurling a
banner commemorating victims of human rights violations has resulted in activists being forcibly
transferred to psychiatric institutions. “Re-education through labour” has been the fate of those
denouncing deaths as a result of torture. Seeking justice for victims of human rights abuses has
led to imprisonment for defenders. Human rights activists have been prosecuted under vaguely
defined “national security” provisions, placed under house arrest, detained indefinitely in
administrative detention or sentenced to hard labour.
61. Human rights defenders have been arrested, detained, charged, tried and sentenced,
sometimes to long terms of imprisonment or even to hard labour, because of their engagement in
a variety of activities for the promotion and defence of human rights, including: campaigning
for an end to torture and for humane prison conditions; demanding official investigations in
cases of abduction and disappearance; participating in international human rights conferences
and forums; calling for the release of political prisoners; investigating official corruption and
collusion in human rights abuses committed by paramilitary groups; documenting atrocities and
providing assistance to victims of human rights violations and their families; working on behalf
of refugees, asylum-seekers and internally displaced populations; campaigning for workers'
rights and for the promotion of basic labour standards; peacefully advocating independence;
protesting against emergency legislation; demanding greater respect for the environment;
denouncing judicial corruption; upholding the right to conscientious objection; publishing
translations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; campaigning for more effective law
enforcement in cases of violence against women; advocating the rights of religious, ethnic and
sexual minorities; upholding land rights and the rights of indigenous peoples; and denouncing
official embezzlement of funds.
62. Human rights defenders have been convicted on an equally wide-ranging set of charges:
attempted murder of police officers; arson; conspiracy to commit unnatural acts; affiliation and
contact with foreign organizations; sedition; defamation; libel; illegal exercise of their
profession; contempt of court; propagation of false information susceptible of threatening the
public order; contacts with unauthorized or illegal organizations; breaching laws on public
demonstration; apostasy; insults to religion, the authorities, the military and the security of the
State; aiding and abetting terrorism; “diffusion of propaganda of a nature capable of damaging
the vital interests of the State and the nation”; advocacy of hatred and subversion of the
democratically elected institutions of the State; collaborating with the enemy; accepting foreign
funds without government authorization; incitement to violence and leaking State secrets.
63. In many instances, despite the seriousness of the charges brought against them and the
likelihood of long terms of imprisonment if found guilty, human rights defenders were denied
access to legal counsel throughout their pre-trial detention and sometimes even at their trial.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 18
Violations of the rights of human rights defenders to life and mental and physical integrity
64. In sheer numerical terms, the combined totals of the figures of human rights defenders
killed (34), those on whose life attempts have been made (8), those who have disappeared (10),
and those tortured or otherwise ill-treated (7) come to a staggering third place in terms of the
most likely form of abuse meted out against human rights defenders, immediately after
intimidation and harassment campaigns, and arrest and detention, as detailed above. Similarly,
the combined total (38) of cases of defenders killed, victims of assassination attempts, who have
disappeared, been tortured or ill-treated found in various 2001 thematic mechanisms' reports
adds to the concern at the emergence of this tragic trend.
65. The Special Representative is deeply disturbed at these figures. Without a doubt, the
very high likelihood indicated by her findings that human rights defenders may become victims
of physical threats, or indeed harm, sometimes with lethal consequences, is the most worrying
among the trends identified by the Special Representative.
66. The most disconcerting regional trend arises from Latin America, which emerges as the
region with the majority of human rights defenders killed during the period under review -
accounting for nearly 90 per cent of all defenders murdered worldwide, 30 out of a total of 34.
67. Police officers have opened fire and shot dead women's rights activists participating in an
anti-rape march. Members of the security forces have stopped human rights defenders at
gunpoint, lined them up against a wall and killed them. Other defenders have been forcibly
abducted by plain clothes police officers and made to disappear simply because of their
affiliation with human rights NOOs. Assassination attempts, including by having their homes set
on fire at night, have left human rights defenders seriously wounded, requiring hospitalization
and surgery. Military personnel, police and security force officials have resorted to savage
beatings in an attempt to torture defenders into making false confessions or simply in reprisal for
the latter's attempts to denounce routine torture in official custody. Valiant attempts to
investigate army officers who opened fire on a crowd of unarmed civilians killing a number of
people, have resulted in death threats and torture while in detention.
68. Calling on the authorities to conduct an independent and impartial investigation into an
incident of multiple disappearances has brought about physical assaults consisting of punches
and kicks, with subsequent denial of medical care.
69. Human rights defenders who have sought an end to impunity for human rights abuses by
working to bring to justice perpetrators of past atrocities have been physically assaulted,
including by being beaten by police while attending a demonstration. Serious injuries, such as
broken arms, have been sustained by human rights activists as a result of beatings in police
custody and in prison, simply for demonstrating against human rights violations. Defenders have
been held in incommunicado detention, denying them any contact with the outside world for
prolonged periods.
70. Members of religious minorities advocating the right to practise their religious beliefs
have been arbitrarily arrested, detained and confined in dark isolation cells for long spells.
Conditions of detention amounting to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment have been inflicted
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 19
on pro-democracy activists in an attempt to humiliate them and punish them for their activities.
There have been instances of defenders being denied food, water and family visits while in
detention.
71. Human rights activists have also been threatened with abuse, including with death, and
similar threats have been directed at their family members. Anonymous phone calls threatening
arrest, rape and death, and verbal abuse and insults have all been used in intimidation campaigns
against defenders, who have had to flee their homes and countries or have gone into hiding
fearing the authorities' reprisals. Human rights activists have been forcibly removed from their
home and confined to psychiatric hospitals.
3. Perpetrators
72. The communications sent to Governments by the Special Representative paint a very
worrying situation with respect to the identity of the perpetrators of human rights violations
committed against human rights defenders.
73. Out of 161 communications sent, 53 cases concerned police officers directly responsible
for abusing the rights of human rights defenders.
74. The police conduct arbitrary arrests of human rights defenders without arrest warrants,
burst into their offices and homes, confiscate their equipment and documents, raid their homes,
verbally insult, threaten, intimidate, harass and physically assault defenders with beating,
punches and kicks, and detain peaceful protesters. Anti-riot police officers disperse non-violent
demonstrators using excessive force.
75. Police forces worldwide are also refusing to act on, or even register, complaints of
attacks against human rights defenders, let alone effectively investigate them, and have failed to
provide those defenders at risk with adequate protective measures. Police officers have sought to
extort money from human rights defenders in exchange for the release of their colleagues or
relatives.
76. Under false pretences the police have mounted armed guard outside the office of an NGO
with a view to intimidating visitors and clients, thereby making the work of human rights
defenders impossible.
77. The trends also point to a recurrent phenomenon, namely the acquiescence, connivance
and collusion of members of various countries' police forces in the perpetration of grave human
rights abuses against defenders, including the killing of human rights lawyers.
78. In this connection, human rights abuses perpetrated against defenders by paramilitary
groups associated with the authorities and operating with their approval have emerged as a trend
of particular concern to the Special Representative. Members of paramilitary armed groups have
killed human rights defenders with the authorities' collusion or acquiescence.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 20
79. In this context, impunity for human rights abuses against defenders is a serious problem,
particularly with respect to abuses perpetrated by non-State actors. The authorities have either
directly sponsored the actions of these non-State actors, including armed groups, paramilitaries,
security groups and militias armed by the State, or acquiesced in them, and therefore they have
no interest in conducting serious impartial and independent investigations with the purpose of
bringing those responsible to justice.
B. Women human rights defenders
80. Since the submission of her first report, the Special Representative has been receiving
information from many sources regarding the situation of women human rights defenders
worldwide. With respect to the cases upon which the Special Representative took action, out
of 161 communications sent by her to Governments, 70 concerned women human rights
defenders or women's organizations. Fifteen cases of women human rights defenders were also
raised in reports of other thematic mechanisms to the Commission on Human Rights at its
fifty-seventh session and the Special Representative has paid due regard to these cases as a
source of information regarding the situation of women human rights defenders worldwide. The
following paragraphs highlight some of the trends that the Special Representative was able to
discern from this information.
81. The world over, against all odds, women human rights defenders are working tirelessly
for the protection and promotion of the human rights of all. In this respect, it is important to
emphasize the sheer wealth, diversity and breadth of the human rights work they undertake.
However, given the wide-ranging nature and scope of the activities these women are involved in,
it is an impossible task to list them all. The following remarks provide examples and should in
no way be considered as exhaustive, but merely as illustrative.
82. During the period under review, as professionals and as mothers, sisters, daughters,
wives, partners and colleagues, women human rights defenders have been at the forefront of
demands for an end to “disappearances”. They have campaigned indefatigably for humane
prison conditions and have been documenting and exposing human rights abuses. Women
defenders have asserted the rights of, among others, ethnic and religious minorities, and
protested against widespread impunity for violence against women; they have supported
countless victims of human rights abuses and their relatives in demanding justice; they have led
projects dedicated to helping other women, victims of sexual abuse, obtain legal redress. As
victims themselves of human rights abuses, they have testified in proceedings against the alleged
perpetrators. As trade union activists they have championed workers' rights; as lawyers they
have been active in seeking redress for victims of human rights abuses and in combating
impunity; and they have also organized and campaigned for the rights of human rights defenders.
It is a testament to their courage and achievements that this list could go on and on.
83. However, it is also important to highlight the fact that, worldwide, women human rights
defenders are paying a heavy toll for their work in protecting and promoting the human rights of
others. Unfortunately, an equally impossibly long list could be drawn up of the human rights
abuses women defenders face or to which they have actually been subjected simply for
upholding human rights. For women human rights defenders, standing up for human rights and
the victims of human rights abuses - be they migrants, refugees, asylum-seekers or political
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 21
activists, or simply people unwillingly relegated to the margins of society, such as ex-offenders
and members of sexual minorities - can result in intimidation, harassment, unfair dismissal, death
threats, torture and ill-treatment, and even death.
84. At best, the harassment that women human rights defenders have had to endure has seen
them proving their innocence in time-consuming, energy-draining and costly proceedings
brought against them by corrupt prosecuting authorities and a subservient judiciary in order to
put an abrupt end to their human rights work. At worst, however, women human rights
defenders have suffered violations of some of the most fundamental rights, including the right to
life, to mental and physical integrity, to liberty and security of person, to freedom of expression
and association, and to privacy and family life.
85. In the reporting period, women human rights defenders have been deliberately killed.
Some have been abducted and made to disappear, others have been raped or otherwise sexually
abused. They have suffered arbitrary arrest and detention without charges or have been falsely
accused and prosecuted on various spurious charges, including espionage, subversion,
anti-national activities, being a threat to national security and passing secrets to foreign
organizations, all of which can result in long terms of imprisonment. Some women defenders
have been forced to flee their homes and countries in fear for their life. Others have survived
attempts on their life. Some have been verbally and physically assaulted, or have been
threatened with violence and death simply for, for example, protesting against abysmal prison
conditions. Some have been subjected to compulsory treatment for a falsely diagnosed mental
illness. Their family members have also come under threat and have suffered harassment,
intimidation, beatings, verbal abuse, arbitrary arrest and detention.
86. The offices and homes of women human rights defenders have been searched, broken
into or raided, and their belongings confiscated or destroyed or rendered otherwise useless.
Their standing in their communities has been called into question with slanderous allegations in
an attempt to discredit and humiliate them.
87. At times the authorities have resorted to insidious ways to make women human rights
defenders desist from their work in the defence of human rights. Accusations of financial
irregularities or even fraud have been brought against them or the police have kept them under
constant surveillance in an attempt to intimidate them.
88. Often, despite repeated requests, women human rights defenders have been denied
protection or have been offered hopelessly inadequate protective measures, leaving them to fend
for themselves. Such denials or inadequacies on the part of the authorities further increase the
risk that women defenders will themselves become victims of human rights violations, especially
at the hands of non-State actors, for whom these failures act as a green light for abuse.
89. On the basis of the information received, the Special Representative has been able to
observe that, while women defenders work as indefatigably as their male counterparts in
upholding human rights and the rights of victims of human rights violations, there exist some
characteristics that are specific to them as women involved in the defence of human rights. The
following remarks seek to highlight some features that are peculiar to the situation of women
human rights defenders worldwide.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 22
90. Women human rights defenders are on a par with their male colleagues in putting
themselves on the front line in the promotion and protection of human rights. In doing so,
however, as women, they face risks that are specific to their gender and additional to those faced
by men.
91. In the first instance, as women, they become more visible. That is, women defenders
may arouse more hostility than their male colleagues because as women human rights defenders
they may defy cultural, religious or social norms about femininity and the role of women in a
particular country or society. In this context, not only may they face human rights violations
for their work as human rights defenders, but even more so because of their gender and the
fact that their work may run counter to societal stereotypes about women's submissive nature,
or challenge notions of the society about the status of women. Secondly, it is not unlikely
that the hostility, harassment and repression women defenders face may themselves take a
gender-specific form, ranging from, for example, verbal abuse directed exclusively at women
because of their gender to sexual harassment and rape.
92. In this connection, women's professional integrity and standing in society can be
threatened and discredited in ways that are specific to them, such as the all too familiar
pretextual calling into question of their probity when - for example - women assert their right to
sexual and reproductive health, or to equality with men, including to a life free from
discrimination and violence. In this context, for example, women human rights defenders have
been tried using laws criminalizing conduct amounting to the legitimate enjoyment and exercise
of rights protected under international law on spurious charges brought against them simply
because of their views and advocacy work in defence of women's rights.
93. Thirdly, human rights abuses perpetrated against women human rights defenders can, in
turn, have repercussions that are, in and of themselves, gender-specific. For example, the sexual
abuse of a woman human rights defender in custody and her rape can result in pregnancy and
sexually transmitted diseases, including HI V/AIDS.
94. Certain women-specific rights are almost exclusively promoted and protected by women
human rights defenders. Promoting and protecting women's rights can be an additional risk
factor, as the assertion of some such rights is seen as a threat to patriarchy and as disruptive of
cultural, religious and societal mores. Defending women's right to life and liberty in some
countries has resulted in the life and liberty of women defenders themselves being violated.
Similarly, protesting against discriminatory practices has led to the prosecution of a prominent
women's rights defender on charges of apostasy.
C. The impact on human rights defenders of the 11 September attacks
95. As a premise to her remarks henceforth, the Special Representative wishes to emphasize
that, in the light of the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, she is deeply
aware of and recognizes the need and duty of the international community and Governments
worldwide to take steps to restore and maintain public confidence in domestic and international
security. Having said that, the Special Representative would also like to stress what she sees as
an equally paramount need, namely, the observance by States of the principles of human rights
and the standards established by the legal and normative instruments in the field of human rights.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 23
Those responsible for acts of terrorism must be apprehended and brought to justice only in
accordance with international fair trial standards so that the imperatives of peace and security are
served in a manner such that they complement the obligation to do justice and to respect human
rights and fundamental freedoms.
96. While the present report is, in the main, based on communications received prior to the
tragic events of 11 September 2001, since then the Special Representative has begun receiving
information that has led her to conclude that there is a real danger that, in the wake of the
terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, some Governments may be using the global war on
terrorism as a pretext to infringe human rights and to clamp down on human rights defenders.
Non-governmental organizations in various regions of the world, in particular, have expressed
their concern to the Special Representative about the heightened risk to human rights defenders
in the increasingly threatening climate - as they see it - since 11 September 2001.
97. There is a danger worldwide that, under the guise of combating terrorism, some
Governments may increase their efforts to stifle peaceful dissent and suppress opposition. In the
current climate, those who question the legitimacy of some of the post-li September so-called
anti-terrorist measures, or simply anyone who does not socially conform - be they migrants,
refugees, asylum-seekers, members of religious or other minorities, or simply people living at
the margins of society - may be branded as terrorists and may end up being caught in a web of
repression and violence.
98. In the light of these developments, the Special Representative has become aware that the
context and climate in which she discharges her mandate for the protection and promotion of the
rights of human rights defenders have changed considerably in the aftermath of the tragic events
of 11 September 2001 in the United States.
99. Measures stifling peaceful dissent and silencing legitimate opposition were unfortunately
a not uncommon reality with which human rights defenders had to contend long before the
attacks on 11 September 2001. It would appear, however, that the widespread sense of
insecurity and fear that the attacks have generated internationally and domestically have given
rise to a climate in which legislatures, judiciaries and the general public at large are increasingly
less vigilant in their scrutiny of the actions or acts of omission of their respective executives.
100. Some Governments are effectively giving themselves carte blanche as to the extent and
scope of their purported response to the 11 September 2001 attacks. In the United States, for
example, as already lamented by the Special Rapporteur on the independence ofjudges and
lawyers on 16 November 2001, the executive can now direct the trial of non-citizens before
military commissions established in such as way as to seriously undermine human rights and the
rule of law. In the United Kingdom, foreign nationals can now be indefinitely detained without
trial. New anti-terrorism legislative measures have also been recently enacted or are currently
being contemplated in a number of other countries, including Australia, Canada, India, Nepal,
Pakistan, Russia, South Africa and Thailand. Concern has been raised that many of the
provisions of these measures would directly violate human rights or create a climate in which the
possibility of human rights violations is heightened.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 24
101. Despite the ongoing failure of the international community to agree on a common
definition of terrorism, some Governments are conveniently paying deference to each other
by uncritically accepting the denomination of even non-violent dissent as subversion and
terrorism. In this context, in her statement to the Third Committee of the General Assembly
on 6 November 2001, the High Commissioner warned that, in the wake of the 11 September
attacks, peaceful activities were being equated with terrorism; the lawful enjoyment and exercise
of the right to privacy and family life, the right to a fair trial, the right to asylum, the right to
political participation, freedom of expression and peaceful association were being eroded,
curtailed or altogether abrogated. Under human rights law, however, some core rights are so
fundamental that they cannot be derogated from even in times of public emergency. Article 4 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights lists the rights that can never be
derogated from under any circumstances, they include the right to life, the prohibition of torture
or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and freedom of thought, conscience and
religion, as well as the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law except where a later law
imposes a lighter penalty.
102. The global political environment after 11 September has become especially dangerous for
those who are standing up for one of the most fundamental rights of all: the right of all peoples
to self-determination. Peoples' inalienable right to self-determination is a fundamental
cornerstone of human rights law, as well as being among the foundations of one of the
United Nations principal purposes, namely, “to develop friendly relations among nations”
(article 1.2 of the Charter of the United Nations). Self-determination, not only features in
Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, but also in the first article of both International
Covenants. According to General Comment 12 adopted in 1984 by the Human Rights
Committee, the realization of all peoples' inalienable right to self-determination “is an essential
condition for the effective guarantee and observance of individual human rights and for the
promotion and strengthening of those rights”. In the post-il September 2001 climate, where
human rights defenders peacefully campaigning for and advocating the realization of all peoples'
right to self-determination are under renewed and sustained attack worldwide, it seems
particularly poignant to recall also another general comment of the Human Rights Committee,
General Comment ii on article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
prohibiting war propaganda and incitement to national, racial and religious hatred. In that
general comment, adopted in 1983, the Human Rights Committee stated that “ [ flhe provisions of
article 20, paragraph 1, do not prohibit advocacy of... the right of peoples to self-determination
and independence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”.
103. In the current climate, upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms is being
portrayed in a number of countries as a threat to national and international security. Against
this stark reality, human rights defenders are finding themselves under siege. Peaceful
pro-independence activists are being portrayed as disseminators of propaganda likely to harm the
State, as a threat to national security, as attempting to overthrow the Government and as aiding
and abetting terrorism. While spuriously equating legitimate and peaceful advocacy of the right
to self-determination with terrorism - however defined - is not a new phenomenon, it is certainly
assuming a greater resonance and human rights defenders working for the realization of peoples'
quests for self-determination are experiencing some of their darkest hours.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 25
104. It is easy for Governments to foment suspicion, create public anxiety and direct sheer
hostility towards human rights defenders. Human rights defenders reach out to groups that are
already socially vulnerable and marginalized, such as ethnic minorities, ex-offenders, sexual
minorities, asylum-seekers, refugees and migrant workers. In the post-li September climate,
Governments and other actors have an easier time in portraying anyone who disagrees with them
or expresses any form of criticism as a dissident and subversive or even as aiding and abetting
“foreign terrorists”.
105. When human rights defenders seek to assert the legitimacy of peaceful dissent and the
lawful exercise of the right to freedom of association and assembly, they become the object of
government crack-downs and are branded as subversives, anti-national and enemies of the State.
106. Human rights defenders are in many cases the first port of call for victims of human
rights violations. In the aftermath of the 11 September attacks, human rights defenders face
greater challenges in their work of promoting and protecting the human rights of all. Therefore,
as some Governments enact ever more draconian and excessive measures in their purported
efforts to combat terrorism, human rights defenders have remained vigilant and are monitoring
the state of human rights worldwide.
107. However, as pointed out by some 17 independent experts of the Commission on Human
Rights in their statement on 10 December 2001 to mark Human Rights Day, human rights
defenders, together with other groups, have been particularly targeted and have become victims
of human rights violations as a result of the adoption or contemplation of anti-terrorist and
national security legislation and other measures that may infringe human rights and
fundamental freedoms. In this context, the need is greater than ever for States to limit their
response to the 11 September 2001 attacks to what is strictly required by the exigencies of the
situation and to seek to strike a balance between ensuring domestic and international security and
upholding human rights.
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
108. Human rights defenders continue to face serious violations of their rights throughout the
world. Communications received by the Special Representative lead her to conclude that the
rights of human rights defenders are violated in States with widely different political systems and
institutional frameworks. Certain conditions, however, increase the insecurity of the work of
human rights defenders and increase the prospect of their rights being violated.
109. Political tensions and situations of armed conflict place human rights defenders at greater
risk, especially with regard to their physical security. In such situations, the credibility of human
rights defenders and the legitimacy of their work for the promotion and protection of human
rights may be attacked with the intention of justifying the action or reaction of parties to the
conflict, be they States or non-State entities.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 26
110. The level of democracy practised by Governments significantly affects respect for human
rights norms and the value attached by the State to the work of human rights defenders. The
independence of State intuitions and their capacity to offer protection against human rights
violations and support for the defence of human rights are severely hampered where the
commitment of a Government to the practice of democracy is absent or is weak.
111. Situations observed by the Special Representative and information received by her seem
to indicate a direct connection between the severity of human rights violations and the
militarization of States through military governance or resort to military means and methods as a
response to security concerns. Freedom of movement and assembly and access to information
are particularly affected in such situations. Not only is there little or no scope for human rights
activity, but human rights defenders are subjected to harsh forms of repression. The Special
Representative had underlined this as a concern in her report to the General Assembly at its
fifty-sixth session (A156/341).
112. The Special Representative is extremely apprehensive about developments arising from
the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, which have made human rights
norms and standards vulnerable to erosion. She would like to recall the fifth preambular
paragraph of the Declaration to remind States that there are no circumstances or conditions that
justify or permit lowering the threshold of human rights standards: “Recognizing the relationship
between international peace and security and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental
freedoms, and mindful that the absence of international peace and security does not excuse
non-compliance.”
113. Where Governments have displayed a tendency to view human rights defenders as
adversaries, tensions have risen between the State and civil society. Such relations diminish the
prospects for consolidated efforts to create an environment that is conducive to the promotion
and protection of human rights and safe for human rights defenders to carry out their activities.
114. Repressive action by the State against human rights activity affects the transparency and
openness with which human rights defenders can work. Such circumstances increase the risks
for defenders and can undermine the credibility of their work.
115. Defenders seeking to protect the political, civil, economic, social or cultural rights of
marginalized groups and persons face stronger resistance to their work, are more vulnerable and,
therefore, more threatened. They include leaders of indigenous and other minority communities,
leaders of movements of the poor, and defenders of the rights of women, sexual minorities,
displaced persons, migrants and refugees. Environmental and anti-globalization activists seeking
redress against violations of social and economic rights continue to be denigrated and exposed to
violence.
116. Methods employed for the suppression of protest or forms of reprisal against those
striving to exercise or protect human rights directly violate civil and political rights, as well as
economic, social and cultural rights.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 27
117. National laws in many countries do not provide a suitable legal framework for the
protection of activity for the defence of human rights. Laws which are directed at or allow
criminalization of human rights activity continue to be enforced and are being used, in some of
the countries, to prosecute human rights defenders. Laws restricting the freedom of association,
or placing undue restrictions on NGOs for receiving or utilizing financial resources to conduct
human rights activities, have been used to intimidate and harass human rights defenders. Such
laws serve no useful purpose nor are they relevant to any legitimate concerns of the State.
118. The police, military and other security forces, and State intelligence agencies by far
outnumber others as perpetrators of abuse against human rights defenders. Paramilitary groups
operating either independently of Governments or with their collusion have figured as
perpetrators of abuse against human rights defenders in a considerable number of cases brought
to the attention of the Special Representative. Non-State entities responsible for violations of the
rights of defenders include armed guerrilla and other opposition groups. Women human rights
defenders, in particular, are targeted by various social and private actors, such as religious groups
and institutions, community or tribal elders, or even members of their own family, especially
when these defenders are engaged in the defence of women's rights.
119. Impunity for violation of human rights has become one of the most serious human rights
problems and directly affects the security of human rights defenders. It has been noted that the
mere existence of legislation or administrative procedures is not an adequate response to this
problem. Stronger political will to combat impunity must complement legislative and procedural
measures. The Special Representative refers to her report to the General Assembly at its
fifty-sixth session (A/56/341), which includes a detailed section on this subject.
120. In the light of these conclusions, the Special Representative makes the following
recommendations.
121. It is recommended that Governments pay particular attention to the trends identified in
the present report and address issues relevant to the situation in their countries with regard to
laws, policies and practices that impede the promotion, protection and implementation of human
rights or place human rights defenders at risk. The Special Representative proposes to undertake
studies on the scope of the freedom of association in the context of the promotion and protection
of human rights; on repressive legislation that restricts human rights activity or places defenders
at risk for engagement in such activity; and on reprisals against human rights defenders,
especially for exercising their rights under article 6 and article 9.4 of the Declaration.
122. Governments need to increase their tolerance of criticism and be more willing to correct
lapses of governance pointed out as affecting the work of human rights defenders. In this regard
better cooperation with human rights groups becomes critical for strong initiatives to remove the
impediments in the way of the promotion and protection of human rights. Governments must
actively encourage and make space for consultations between civil society groups and key
agencies of the State, particularly those responsible for law enforcement and security.
Governments should undertake initiatives directed at impressing upon State functionaries the
legitimacy and importance of human rights activity. These may include dissemination of
information on human rights standards and the work of international, regional and national
human rights mechanisms.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 28
123. Where national institutions for the protection of human rights have been established, their
political and financial independence must be ensured. The capacity of these institutions must be
enhanced so that they are able to respond adequately and effectively to complaints of human
rights violations. The role of human rights defenders as a conduit of information to these
institutions and in aiding action for redress of violations should be institutionalized. This could
improve access to national human rights institutions and add to the legitimacy of human rights
defenders. Protection of human rights defenders must be explicitly included in the mandate of
these institutions.
124. Governments must become conscious of the need to eliminate impunity for human rights
violations. Better systems of accountability for human rights abuses are clearly an essential
need. The exposure of human rights violations and the possibility of seeking redress for them
are greatly dependent on the security and freedom with which human rights monitors and
activists can work. Addressing the issue of impunity with respect to defenders is, therefore, a
critical element in the protection and promotion of human rights. Any allegations of attacks,
threats, harassment or intimidation of human rights defenders must be investigated and punished.
Such investigations might be made the responsibility of specially empowered high-level officers
and must be carried out with complete transparency in order to inspire confidence.
125. States have the responsibility to adopt all necessary measures to create conditions in the
social, economic, political and other fields to ensure the enjoyment of human rights and
freedoms in practice. Groups and individuals, whether armed or otherwise, have the obligation
to respect the rights recognized in the Declaration. This respect can be ensured by necessary
legal and administrative measures taken by States, within whose jurisdiction these groups
operate. The mandate of the Special Representative requires her to establish cooperation and
conduct dialogue with Governments and other interested actors on the effective implementation
of the Declaration. The Special Representative sees an urgent need to enforce conformity by
non-State entities engaged in armed conflict with international standards of human rights and
humanitarian law as a measure to safeguard civilians and human rights defenders from
violations. Development of legal and normative frameworks for accountability of non-State
entities is an important strategy for confronting violations by these actors. In circumstances that
so require and permit, and after consultation with governments, the Special Representative may
establish communications with such groups to engage them in a dialogue on the promotion of
human rights and protection of human rights defenders in accordance with the Declaration.
126. The role of the judiciary in the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms
demands from them closer scrutiny of laws that undermine these rights and freedoms.
Legislation in the name of national security and public order, or adopted in times of emergency
must not be allowed to silence dissent, or suppress peaceful protest and reaction against
violations of human rights.
127. Judiciaries must, in particular, be more vigilant with regard to the conduct of State
functionaries and the bona fide nature of prosecutions filed against human rights defenders.
Judiciaries must also demonstrate increased sensitivity to the value of human rights activity.
Interaction between judiciaries in different countries on their role in the protection and
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 29
promotion of human rights and the acquisition by them of greater familiarity with concerns
relevant to the situation of human rights defenders could elicit more support from these
institutions for and increase their understanding of activity in defence of human rights.
128. The commitment of Governments to improving the environment for the promotion of
human rights and the protection of human rights defenders in accordance with the Declaration
can be demonstrated by inviting the Special Representative to visit their country in order for her
to assess the situation of human rights defenders. This would help the Special Representative to
report on practices, where they exist, that are beneficial to the work of human rights defenders.
129. The protection of human rights defenders is greatly dependent on the structures of
support that defenders create collectively at the national, regional and international levels. The
implementation of the mandate of the Special Representative would be greatly assisted by the
creation or strengthening of defenders' coalitions, national and regional networks for
communication of information, monitoring groups and support groups that could provide safe
haven, inside or outside their country, to defenders in situations of serious and immediate threat.
130. The Special Representative would look to such networks to supplement information she
receives from Governments, as additional sources to verify violations, and to facilitating contact
with human rights defenders at risk during country visits. The Special Representative urges
trade unions, workers' organizations, Bar associations and other professional associations to
fully participate in such protection networks. The creation or strengthening of these networks is
an important strategy for protection of human rights defenders that must be supported and
encouraged at all levels.
131. Regional consultations with human rights defenders have proved to be an effective
strategy for the development and visibility of this mandate. These consultations have enabled
the Special Representative to acquaint herself better with trends and conditions that affect the
situation of human rights defenders. She intends to continue these contacts on a regular basis.
132. The Special Representative would like to give priority to the organization of two thematic
consultations, one on women human rights defenders and the other on defenders of the rights of
indigenous peoples. The objective of these meetings would be to give greater visibility to the
work of these defenders, to emphasize the value of their contribution to the promotion and
implementation of human rights and to encourage their participation in defenders' networks at
national and regional levels.
133. The urgent action mechanism is a critical element of the methodology of work of the
Special Representative. In order to make urgent action meaningful as a mechanism,
Governments must provide an expeditious response to communications sent by the Special
Representative.
134. The Special Representative intends to seek more frequent meetings with Governments in
order to communicate to them her concerns regarding the situation of human rights defenders. In
this regard, regular consultations with regional groups at the Commission on Human Rights
would be extremely useful. The Special Representative looks forward to the cooperation of
Permanent Missions in Geneva and coordinators of the regional groups.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 30
135. With a view to better protecting the rights of human rights defenders, the Special
Representative is particularly eager to develop strong working relationships with mechanisms
established at the national and regional level. In this regard, she has had meetings with national
human rights institutions in countries that she has visited, either on official missions or when she
has attended regional consultations of defenders in her capacity as the Special Representative.
She is happy to report good and constructive cooperation with the Inter-American Commission
for Human Rights of the OAS. She will continue to seek the cooperation of other regional
mechanisms as a means of strengthening the prospects for the protection of defenders in all
regions.
136. The dissemination of the Declaration on human rights defenders is important for
increasing awareness of the legitimacy of activity for the promotion, protection and
implementation of human rights. The Special Representative urges more frequent reference to
the Declaration by the various mechanisms of the United Nations and regional human rights
systems, and the national human rights institutions. For this purpose, translation of the
Declaration into national languages should be facilitated.
137. Situations of conflict existing in many parts of the world have their roots in the violation
of human rights and fundamental freedoms. At the same time, conflicts not only have serious
implications for the promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights but also place human
rights defenders at greater risk. The Charter of the United Nations underlines the need to achieve
international peace and security through actions that conform to the principles ofjustice and
international law. This clearly indicates the need for better and fuller coordination between the
political and human rights systems of the United Nations in collective undertakings for the
prevention and removal of threats to peace and security. International action, or support for any
action by the international community in this respect, must be guided by human rights norms.
The Special Representative strongly recommends that concrete steps be taken to strengthen this
interaction between the two systems of the United Nations and that there should be increased
involvement of human rights mechanisms in peace initiatives and in the response to
emergencies.
138. The Special Representative will make every effort to fulfil her responsibility for the
effective implementation of the mandate, regardless of the financial situation of the mandate.
However, she reiterates her view that sufficient human and material resources are indispensable
for devising effective means of protection and for accelerating the impact of the mandate on the
situation of human rights defenders.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 31
Annex
COUNTRY SITUATIONS
1. For technical reasons, the chapter on country situations is reproduced as an annex to this
report. The annex contains brief summaries of communications to and from Governments, along
with the observations of the Special Representative. In order to leave enough time for
Governments to respond, only the communications sent before 1 December 2001 are included.
All government replies received by the Special Representative until 10 January 2002 are
included in this section.
ALGERIA
Communication envoyée
2. Le 16 mars 2001, la Représentante spéciale a adressé au Gouvernement un appel urgent
concernant Me Sofiane Chouiter et M. Mohamed Smain, tous deux membres de la Ligue
algérienne de defense des droits de l'homme (LADDH). Me Chouiter, également avocat, serait
constamment suivi par deux policiers en civil depuis le 24 février 2001 dans tous ses
déplacements quotidiens, y compris dans le cadre de ses activités professionnelles au palais de
justice a Constantine. Ses lignes de téléphone au travail et a la maison auraient été coupées.
Selon les informations reçues, il aurait, quelque temps auparavant, participé a Casablanca au
séminaire de la Fédération internationale des droits de l'homme (FIDH) sur lajustice
internationale dans les pays méditerranéens. Des craintes ont été exprimées quant a cette forme
de harcèlement qui serait liée au travail de Me Chouiter en tant qu'avocat en faveur des familles
de disparus a Constantine, de même qu'en tant que défenseur des droits de l'homme.
M. Mohamed Smain aurait été interpellé le 20 février 2001 a l'aéroport d'Oran par les services
de sécurité et les responsables de la douane alors qu'il se rendait en France. Le passeport et les
documents de M. Smain auraient été confisqués et il aurait été maintenu en garde en vue pendant
une heure et demie dans les locaux de la douane. Après son retour de France le 23 février, oU il
aurait participé a des reunions avec la FIDH et le Collectif des familles de disparus en Algérie,
M. Smain aurait été arrêté et détenu pendant 48 heures. Selon les informations reçues, M. Smain
aurait été inculpé de diffamation le 25 février suite a l'information qu'il aurait fournie ala presse
le 3 février concernant la découverte et l'exhumation de charniers par les services de
gendarmerie et la milice de Fergane. Bien qu'il ait été provisoirement libéré, le Procureur aurait
fait appel de cette decision. M. Smain serait maintenant sous controle judiciaire avec interdiction
de quitter la province de Relizane et son passeport ainsi que sa carte d'identité nationale et son
permis de conduire auraient été confisqués.
Observations
3. La Représentante spéciale regrette qu'au moment de la finalisation du present rapport,
le Gouvernement n'ait transmis aucune réponse a sa communication.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 32
ARGENTINA
Communications sent
4. On 5 December 2000, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on the
independence ofjudges and lawyers, sent an urgent appeal concerning the continuous death
threats and harassment to which Ms. Matilde Bruera, a teacher at the National University of
Rosario, and lawyer of families of the disappeared, of the Asamblea Permanente por los
Derechos Humanos and the Foro Memoria y Sociedad in Santa Fe Province, had reportedly been
subjected. It was reported that, on 20 July 2000, Ms. Bruera received a parcel in her office,
inside of which was a hollowed out book containing explosives, a battery and cables. The parcel
did not contain a detonator, but carried the message “rest in peace”. Later, a threatening message
was reportedly left on the voicemail of her cellular phone.
5. On 21 March 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, sent an urgent appeal regarding members of the
Comisión de Familiares de Victimas de Gatillo Facil, established by a group of parents whose
children have been killed in police shootings. According to the information received, they have
been intimidated and threatened by police agents since the group published a report documenting
over 800 cases of fatal police shootings. Mr. Alberto Barreto, whose 12-year-old daughter was
killed in a police shooting in January 2000, has reportedly been threatened and harassed by the
police and has been followed on numerous occasions by a police patrol car. In addition, since
Ms. Silvia Ruiz's 16-year-old son was shot dead by police in November 2000, the police have
reportedly forced their way into her home on four occasions, although they did not have
a warrant. Twice the police have threatened to kill her and her other teenage son.
On 5 January 2001, the police reportedly prevented Mr. Oscar Rios from posting flyers
denouncing the killing of his son. On 13 January 2001, an anonymous caller reportedly phoned
to Ms. Delia Garcilazo's home to say that her grandson would be shot the next time.
On 2 January 2001, a policeman reportedly threatened Ms. Lidia Zarate and her family. Since
the killing of her 17-year-old son, the police have detained her other younger son three times.
Shortly after he was threatened, unknown men driving a car shot him three times in the leg.
6. On 24 August 2001, the Special Representative transmitted an allegation letter to the
Government of Argentina regarding the following cases.
7. According to the information received, Ms. Vanessa Piedrabuena, President of
the Asociación Travestis Unidas de Cordoba (ATUC), received threats from the police
on 16 February 2001 after she took part in a demonstration calling for the investigation into the
death in custody of her fellow activist, Ms. Vanessa Lorena Ledesma, to be reopened. She
complained to the Police Internal Affairs Division, but no action to investigate the case has been
taken yet.
8. Ms. Hebe de Bonafini, President of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, reportedly
received messages in May 2001 from unidentified persons threatening her. On 25 May 2001, her
daughter, Ms. Maria Alejandra Bonafini, 35 years old, was reportedly violently attacked at her
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 33
home in La Plata, Buenos Aires province, where she lives with her mother. These incidents are
apparently retaliatory measures against the activities carried out by Ms. Hebe de Bonafini, whose
two children and daughter-in-law were reportedly kidnapped and disappeared in 1977.
9. According to the information received, Mary y Pedro Ortiz, Lidia Zarate,
Delia (I}arcilazo, Oscar Rios and Silva Ruiz, members of the Comisión de Familiares de Victimas
de Gatillo, have been intimidated and threatened. The threats reportedly intensified after the
Comisión submitted a report to the Ministerio de Gobernacion on 18 December 2000 containing
details of 800 cases of fatal police shootings. Members of the Comisión were reportedly
threatened after they organized a 25-day demonstration in December 2000 against the local
authorities in Buenos Aires province. Those responsible for the incidents were allegedly
members of the armed police.
10. Carlos Varela, Diego Lavado and Alejandro Acosta, lawyers in the province of Mendoza,
are reportedly continuously the victims of harassment and threats in connection with their work
on one case of enforced disappearance and two cases of murder. According to the information
received, on their way to the office, on 2 March 2001, they discovered that during the night their
nameplate had been stolen and that electric cables had been removed. These facts were reported
to the ministry ofjustice of the province who ordered measures to guarantee their safety. The
Special Representative has been informed that the measures were not sufficient to protect the
lawyers.
11. On 22 October 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal regarding threats
against Ms. Olga Luquéz. According to the information received, on 17 September 2001, after
she had appeared on television to commemorate the anniversary of her son's death (murdered
on 1 October 1999 by the police of Tropero Sosa), a policeman reportedly aimed a gun at her
while in a bus. Ms. Olga Luquéz's friends who appeared on television were reportedly
threatened and questioned by the police. In addition, on 11 October 2001, a police car reportedly
kept Ms. Olga Luquéz under surveillance while she was accompanying her daughter to school.
Comunicaciones recibidas
12. Por carta fechada 2 de noviembre de 2001, el Gobierno de la Argentina informo respecto
al caso de la Sra. Olga Luquéz, enviado por la Representante Especial el 22 de octubre de 2001.
El Gobierno establecio que las autoridades competentes en la CancillerIa han enviado sendas
notas al Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos y al Subsecretario de Justicia de la provincia
de Mendoza solicitando informacion sobre los hechos denunciados.
13. Por carta fechada S de diciembre de 2001, el Gobierno de la Argentina informo ala
Representante Especial respecto a los casos de Alejandra Bonafini, Varela, Lavado y Acosta
enviados el 24 de agosto de 2001. Respecto al caso de Alejandra Bonafini, el Gobierno seflalo
que la SubsecretarIa de Derechos Humanos del Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos
dirigio una nota con fecha 28 de mayo de 2001 al Ministro de Seguridad de la Provincia de
Buenos Aires, manifestando su preocupación por los hechos y reclamando una investigación
exhaustiva. La investigación penal preparatoria se encuentra actualmente en etapa instructiva.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 34
Respecto a los casos de Mary y Pedro Ortiz, Lidia Zárate, Delia Garcilazo, Oscar RIos y
Silva Ruiz, la Subsecretaria de Derechos Humanos del Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos
Humanos informo que se continüan efectuando gestiones para contactar a miembros de la
Comisión de Familiares de VIctimas de Gatillo Facil con el objeto de esclarecer la situación y
actuar dentro de sus competencias. Respecto al caso de Varela, Lavado y Acosta, el Gobierno
seflalo que la Subsecretaria de Derechos Humanos del Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos
Humanos de la nación informo que solicito al Ministerio de Justicia y Seguridad de la provincia
de Mendoza que se resguarde en todo lo que las vIctimas reclamen en cuanto a sus vidas y
seguridad; asimismo que se implementen las investigaciones que permitan el cese de la situación
que pesa sobre las personas antes mencionadas. Finalmente el Gobierno informo que se
compromete a informar cualquier novedad en relacion a los casos antes mencionados.
14. Por carta fechada 5 de diciembre de 2001, el Gobierno de la Argentina transmitió
información respecto al caso de miembros de la Comisión de Familiares de VIctimas de
Gatillo Facil enviado el 21 de marzo de 2001. Segün la SubsecretarIa de Derechos Humanos del
Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos, se continüan efectuando gestiones para contactar a
miembros de la mencionada Comisión. Asimismo, dicha SubsecretarIa mantiene un permanente
contacto con la Dirección de Derechos Humanos y el Ministerio de Seguridad, a fin de aunar
esfuerzos en la investigación y esclarecimiento de los hechos.
15. Por cartas fechadas S y 28 de diciembre de 2001, el Gobierno de la Argentina informo
respecto a los casos de Vanesa Lorena Ledesma y Vanesa Piedrabuena. El Gobierno seflalo que
la SubsecretarIa de Derechos Humanos del Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos se ha
puesto en contacto con el Ministro de Gobierno de la provincia de Cordoba reclamandole el cese
de las presuntas amenazas contra la vida y la seguridad de Vanessa Piedrabuena. Ademas, el
Gobierno de la Argentina establecio que el 25 de abril del 2001 las actuaciones fueron giradas a
la Unidad Judicial Delitos Especiales a los fines de continuar con la investigación iniciada
por la Dirección de Lucha Contra la Discriminación. Con motivo de la muerte de
Vanesa Lorena Ledesma, el Gobierno indico que en el mes de octubre de 2000, a requerimiento
de la FiscalIa Interviniente, el juzgado de control dicto el sobreseimiento total de los nueve
uniformados quienes habIan procedido a la detencion de Vanesa Lorena Ledesma y que habIan
estado a cargo de la misma en los momentos inmediatamente posteriores a su detencion.
Asimismo, el Gobierno seflalo que cada una de las cuestiones planteadas en relacion al
fallecimiento de Vanesa Lorena Ledesma fueron oportunamente investigadas, valoradas y
resueltas. No procedio nuevo analisis por cuanto las instancias procesales han sido agotadas,
tras motivadas resoluciones, sin que hayan sido cuestionadas por recurso alguno. Hizo saber
a Vanesa Piedrabuena que aparece innecesaria la audiencia solicitada sobre las mismas
cuestiones.
Ob se rv a ci on es
16. La Representante Especial quisiera agradecer al Gobierno todas las respuestas facilitadas.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 35
BANGLADESH
Communication sent
17. On 23 January 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on freedom of opinion and expression, sent an urgent appeal concerning nine activists who
were reportedly arrested on 12 January 2001. Those activists were Mr. Sanchay Chakma,
an indigenous Jumma leader and former president of the Hill Students' Council,
Mr. Dipayon Khisha, member of the Reorganization Committee of the Hill People's Council,
Mr. Rupok Chakma, President of the Hill Students' Council, Mr. Biplob Chakma, a student of
Chittagong University and member of the Executive Committee Hill Students' Council,
Mr. Rupayon Chakma, a polytechnic student at Chittagong, Mr. Newton Chakma,
Mr. Sadhan Mitra Chakkma, Mr. Kilai Chakma, supporters of the United Peoples Democratic
Front and Mr. Karim Abdullah, Chittagong City leader of the Janotantric Biplobi Jote. The nine
were reportedly arrested by the police and plain clothed personnel from the Intelligence Bureau
while they were participating in a public meeting to celebrate the second anniversary of the
formation of the United Peoples Democratic Front (UPDF), one of the organizations of the
indigenous Jumma peoples. Mr. Chakma and his associates were charged for having allegedly
created a disturbance in the minds of the public because of statements they made against the
Accord of the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
Communication received
18. By letter sent on 21 May 2001 the Government responded that the Chittagong
Metropolitan Police had received secret information on 12 January 2001 that some accused
persons who had absconded from different thanas of Rangamati Hill District were present at the
meeting in the Zila Parishad Auditorium arranged by the United Peoples Democratic Front. On
receipt of that information, the police had arrested the nine persons and produced them before the
Court of the Chittagong Metropolitan Magistrate, which sent them to Chittagong jail. As there
was no specific allegation against Karim Abdullah, he was released. According to the
Government, Mr. Chakma and his seven tribal associates were wanted for a specific murder case,
No. G.R-1(10) 2000 dt. 9.10.2000 US 302 B.P.C lodged at Kawkhali police station under
Rangamati Hill District. They were sent to Rangamati District Jail on 10 February 2001 as
under-trial prisoners.
Observations
19. The Special Representative thanks the Government for its reply. She will continue to
watch and evaluate the situation of the imprisoned Chakma leaders.
BELARUS
Communications sent
20. On 27 September 2001, the Special Representative transmitted an allegation concerning
the following cases.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 36
21. Ales Abramovich, a member of the Belarusian Helsinki Committee and the Belarusian
Social Democratic Party, reportedly spent 35 days in detention, from 14 February
to 20 March 2000, for staging three peaceful pickets in the town of Borisov. According to
the information received, this sentence reportedly related to a peaceful protest action
on 16 January 2000, during which Mr. Abramovich and other protestors reportedly held posters
bearing slogans such as “Zakharenko, Gonchar ... who is next?” It was reported that, while he
has been in detention, the guards have repeatedly placed people with the open stage of
tuberculosis in his cell.
22. Vera Stremkovskaya, a leading human rights lawyer, a defence counsel in a number of
high-profile cases who received a number of prestigious international human rights awards
in 1999, and the director of the Centre for Human Rights, has been reportedly threatened with
expulsion from the Collegium of Advocates if she did not cease her human rights activities.
According to the information received, the Collegium of Advocates exerted pressure on
Ms. Stremkovskaya, during a two-day human rights conference held in Minsk in March 2000,
for alleged violations of regulations which govern the legal profession in Belarus. According to
the information received, three different criminal cases have also been brought against
Ms. Stremkovskaya since December 1998 on the basis that she had defamed public officials, all
three of which were dropped at the end of December 1999. It was reported that,
on 20 June 2001, a Minsk Court convicted Ms. Stremkovskaya of libel, fining her, and that she
immediately filed an appeal against her conviction.
23. Andrei Petrov, Dmitry Abramovich and Anton Telezhnikov, three members of Zubr, a
non-registered pro-democracy and human rights organization, were reportedly detained outside
the Presidential Administration Building in Minsk, on 5 March 2001, after participating the same
day in a demonstration and holding pictures and placards of four men who reportedly
disappeared in 1999-2000: the former Minister of the Interior, Yury Zakharenko, the
Deputy Speaker of the dissolved 13th Supreme Soviet, Viktor Gonchar and his companion,
Anatoly Krasovsky, and the Russian Public Television cameraman, Dmitry Zavadsky.
According to the information received, Mr. Petrov and Mr. Abramovich were reportedly
fined 20 times the minimum monthly salary by Leninsky District Court in Minsk
on 6 March 2001, while Mr. Telezhnikov was reportedly sentenced to 15 days in prison in
Okrestina Detention Centre for participation in an unsanctioned action under article 167 (2) of
the Belarusian Criminal Code.
24. Four other activists from Zubr, Aleksey Shidlovsky, Timofey Dranchuk,
Dmitry Drapochko and Ales Apranich, were reportedly arrested in Minsk on 5 April 2001 for
spray-painting on the wall of a factory: “Where is Gonchar? Where is Zavadsky? Where is
Zakharenko?” According to the information received, the four activists are facing charges under
article 341 of the Belarusian Criminal Code for allegedly defacing a building with graffiti.
25. Yuri Bandazhevsky, an internationally recognized scientist specializing in medical
research on nuclear radioactivity and former Rector of the Medical Institute of Gomel, was
reportedly charged on 18 June 2001 with bribery and sentenced by the Military Collegium of the
Belarusian Supreme Court in Gomel to eight years' imprisonment at the UZ 15/1 prison in
Minsk. This sentence was allegedly related to his outspoken criticism of the Belarusian
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 37
authorities' reaction to the Chernobyl nuclear reactor catastrophe of 1986 and its harmful
consequences on the health on the population. His conclusions were reportedly in contradiction
with the official thesis spread by the authorities.
26. The offices of the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, a non-governmental organization,
have reportedly been burgled several times since 1996, resulting in the loss of a significant
amount of valuable information. The persons responsible for the burglary allegedly ignored
expensive office equipment but instead stole the organization's database on election monitoring
and human rights violations, covering a five-year period. On 10 July 2001, the Belarusian
Helsinki Committee reportedly suffered a further break-in, with the loss of two computers
holding information about the organization's activities relating to the 2001 presidential election.
27. The Belarusian Association of Women Lawyers, based in the western city of Brest,
reportedly came under particular scrutiny in 1998. According to the information received, at that
time the human rights organization was reportedly receiving a number of foreign grants for the
purpose of human rights promotion. It was reported that, although the organization was
subjected to a tax audit lasting around five months, the tax authorities reportedly found an
inconsistency equivalent to $4. In the interim, the president of the organization,
Ms. Galina Drebezova, was reportedly forced to expend considerable energy and time in
producing and explaining the relevant documents and figures. In addition, the local authorities
were reportedly not willing to allow the Belarusian Association of Women Lawyers to use
municipally owned property for seminars and other human rights events.
28. The Belarusian Free Trade Union in Minsk was reportedly raided on 19 August 1999 by
police officers who burst into the organization's offices on the pretext that an explosive device
had been placed there. According to the information received, although no explosive device was
ever found, the police officers allegedly confiscated around 30,000 leaflets calling on people to
take part in the pro-democracy freedom march planned for October that year.
29. The Minsk offices of the human rights organization Spring-96 were reportedly raided
on 4 October 1999 by around 10 police officers. According to the information received, the raid,
which lasted for around four hours, took place two weeks before the pro-democracy freedom
march. It was reported that police officers confiscated two computers, two printers and copies of
the organization's human rights journal Right to Freedom, on the grounds that the organization
did not possess the necessary authorization to print on the premises. The chairperson of
Spring-96, Ales Byalytsky, was reportedly detained on 18 November 1999 and kept in custody
for one day after demanding from officials that the organization's confiscated equipment be
returned. According to the information received, the equipment was returned to the organization
after a delay of around two months. It was further reported that on 16 March 2001 police
officers conducted a raid on the offices of Spring-96 in the town of Borisov, north-east of Minsk,
on the basis that people in a neighbouring building had reportedly complained about noise.
30. Oleg Volchek, local chairperson of Legal Assistance to the Population, was reportedly
denied, on 2 April 2001, registration of a national organization which was to be named “Legal
Defence of Citizens”. According to the information received, Mr. Volchek submitted, on
9 February 2001, in accordance with the law, the documents required to register the organization.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 38
It was reported that the Ministry of Justice refused registration of the organization, claiming that
it had not meet the necessary requirements to become a public association. The main basis for
the refusal was reportedly the organization's statute, which declared its aims to render legal
assistance and associated consultations to others in the area of human rights and basic freedoms.
According to the decision, the aims were reportedly contrary to the official definition of the term
“legal assistance” and contrary to article 22 of the Law on Public Associations, which reportedly
states that public associations can only represent and defend the rights and legal interests of their
members and not third parties.
31. It has been reported that human rights organizations, like all other associations, are
subject to a system of official warnings, which may result in their official closure by the Ministry
of Justice. Fears have been expressed that official warnings may permit the Belarusian
authorities to interfere in the internal affairs of the organizations. In this connection, three
members of the human rights organization Spring-96, the chairperson, Ales Byalytski, as well as
Palina Stepanenka and Valyantsin Stefanovich, reportedly received and official warning
on 18 August 2001 from the Ministry of Justice. According to the information received, the first
warning received from the Ministry of Justice had complained that the letterhead used on
Spring-96's office paper had reportedly violated official regulations. It was further reported that,
in October and December 2000, the organization received a second and third official warning for
the alleged incorrect use of the organization's name on its monthly human rights publication,
Right to Freedom. Sergei Obodovsky, the chairperson and founder of the Mogilov Human
Rights Centre, reportedly received a warning on 29 September 2000 from the local justice
authorities stating that that organization had violated the 1994 Law on Public Associations by
defending the rights of people who were not members of the organization. Mr. Obodovsky had
appealed against the action taken against the organization to a higher judicial instance.
32. Furthermore, it has been brought to the attention of the Special Representative that
on 14 March 2001, President Alyaksandr Lukashenka issued a decree entitled “Several measures
on improving distribution and use of foreign humanitarian aid”, which reportedly prohibits the
use of foreign funding for pro-democracy purposes. NOOs may be at risk of incurring fines and
closure if they violate the legislation. On 11 May 2001, another presidential decree, entitled
“On certain measures to improve procedures for holding meetings, rallies, street processions,
demonstrations and other mass actions and pickets”, was introduced which imposes new
restrictions on the right of freedom of assembly. It has been reported that, under the decree, the
body organizing a sanctioned event may be held entirely responsible for the action and may be
fined or dc-registered if public order is deemed to have been violated.
33. On 27 September 2001 the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on torture and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, transmitted an
allegation regarding the following cases.
34. Oleg Volchek, a lawyer, chairperson of Legal Assistance to the Population, and
chairperson of the non-governmental committee which has demanded an independent
investigation into the possible disappearances of Yury Zakharenko, Viktor Gonchar,
Anatoly Krasovsky and Dmitry Zavadsky, was reportedly arrested on 21 July 1999, in Minsk,
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 39
after a pro-democracy demonstration with other companions. He was then taken to the
Moskovsky District Department of Internal Affairs, where it is alleged that he was repeatedly
punched and kicked on the body and head by three police officers who refused him access to a
doctor. Mr. Volchek and his companions were not reportedly released until 22 July 1999.
Apparently, as a result of his complaint, Mr. Volchek was charged with malicious hooliganism
under article 201 (2) of the Belarusian Criminal Code and risked a sentence of several years'
imprisonment. The charges against him were reportedly dropped in November 1999 owing to
lack of evidence. Another allegation was transmitted on this case on 30 September 2001 by the
Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special
Rapporteur on freedom of expression.
35. Valery Schukin, a human rights defender, independentjournalist and member of the
dissolved parliament, was reportedly sentenced by Minsk City Court on 17 April 2001 to three
months' imprisonment. According to the information received, Mr. Schukin was convicted for
his alleged role in organizing the October 1999 pro-democracy freedom march, and for alleged
hooliganism relating to an incident which reportedly occurred on 16 January 2001 when police
officers refused him entry to a press conference given by the Minister of the Interior,
Vladimir Naumov, in Minsk. It was further reported that a struggle had ensued between
Mr. Schukin and guards policing access to the conference, who had reportedly violently forced
him to the ground.
36. Vladimir Yuhko, a member of the Belarusian Conservative Christian Party, was
reportedly ill-treated by police officers on 18 May 2001 and suffered a broken arm while
protesting outside the Palace of the Republic building in Minsk. According to the information
received, police officers detained approximately 30 protestors who were reportedly carrying
posters of the men who had apparently disappeared and distributing leaflets contesting the
proposed union of Belarus with Russia. It was reported that plain clothes police officers are
alleged to have used force to disperse the peaceful protestors and ill-treated a number of them.
Observations
37. The Special Representative regrets that at the time of the finalization of this report the
Government had not transmitted any reply to her communications.
BHUTAN
38. In a communication dated 25 July 2001, the Special Representative requested the
Government to extend an invitation to her to carry out an official visit to Bhutan. No reply has
been received so far.
BOLIVIA
Communication sent
39. On 6 March 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, sent an urgent appeal concerning Mr. Waldo
AlbarracIn Sanchez, President of the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights in Bolivia
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 40
(APDHB). According to the information received, Mr. Waldo AlbarracIn Sanchez received
threatening phone calls on his cell phone on two occasions, on 22 and 28 February 2001. In the
second phone call, threats were reportedly extended to Mr. Waldo AlbarracIn Sanchez's family.
According to the source, the APDHB reported the facts to the Commission for Human Rights of
the Bolivian Parliament, the National Ombudsman Office, the Ministry of Justice and the
Minister of Interior.
Observations
40. No reply has been received so far.
BRAZIL
Communications sent
41. On 24 April 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, sent an urgent appeal regarding
Romoaldo Vandresen, the son of Mr. Dionisio Vandresen, coordinator of the Pastoral
Commission on Land in Parana. According to the information received, he was followed on
10 April 2001 in Parana by a vehicle driven by two unknown men, who allegedly forced him to
stop, then threatened him with a gun and searched his car. The two gunmen reportedly told
Romoaldo Vandresen to tell his father that they were going to kill both of them. It is alleged that
the emblem of the civil police was on the guns that were used in the incident. According to the
source, these acts were connected with the active role played by the victims in denouncing the
repression of rural farmers without land in Parana.
42. On 30 October 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, sent an urgent appeal regarding death threats
against Friar Wilson Zanatta, a member of the Pastoral Land Commission in Tupancireta, in
the State of Rio Grando do Sul. According to the information received, on 20 October 2001,
Friar Wilson Zanatta was stopped on the road while he was on his way to assist landless rural
labourers in Estancia Grande Estate. A man driving a Chevrolet pickup truck struck the vehicle
driven by Friar Wilson Zanatta. He asked Mr. Zanatta where he was going and it is reported that
when Mr. Zanatta answered that he was going to the encampment of the landless labourers, the
man ordered him to turn around and threatened to kill him if he did not execute his orders.
Mr. Zanatta reportedly filed an incident report with the local police. Because of the climate of
fear and tension in Tupancireta, the community of friars to which Zanatta belongs decided to
transfer him out of the region.
Observations
43. The Special Representative has not yet received a response from the Government.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 41
CAMEROON
Communication envoyée
44. Le 4 mai 2001, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le Rapporteur special sur le
droit a la liberte d'opinion et d'expression, le Président-Rapporteur du Groupe de travail sur la
detention arbitraire et le Rapporteur special sur la torture, a adressé au Gouvernement un appel
urgent concernant le professeur Sindjoun Pokam, Djeukam Tchameni, Djimo Léandre,
Peter William Mandio, journaliste, directeur de publication du journal Le Front indépendant, et
Olivier Sande. Ces cinq personnes auraient été arrêtées sans mandat d'arrêt le 26 avril 2001 et
détenues au commissariat central de Douala. Bien que la raison de leur detention ne soit pas
connue, des craintes ont été exprimées quant au fait que les personnes mentionnées ci-dessus
aient été arrêtées en raison de leurs activités en faveur des droits de l'homme et dans le but de
les empêcher d'exercer leur droit ala liberte d'opinion et d'expression. En effet, le professeur
Sindjoun Pokam, Djeukam Tchameni, Djimo Léandre et Peter William Mandio sont membres du
Collectif national contre l'impunite, une organisation qui lutte pour que les personnes coupables
de violations des droits de l'homme soient présentées devant lajustice. Ils auraient été arrêtés
alors qu'ils se rendaient a une reunion du Collectif
Observations
45. La Représentante speciale regrette qu'aucune réponse du Gouvernement ne lui soit
parvenue.
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC
Communication envoyée
46. Le 7 mars 2001, la Représentante speciale, conjointement avec le Rapporteur special sur
la torture et le Rapporteur special sur le droit ala liberte d'opinion et d'expression, a adressé au
Gouvernement un appel urgent concernant la situation de M. Aboukary Tembeley, Président du
Mouvement des droits de l'homme et directeur de publication du Journal des droits de 1 ‘honinie.
Selon les informations reçues, il aurait été arrêté le 14 février 2001 ala suite de la publication
des resultats d'un sondage qu'il aurait effectue sur la démission du Président Patassé. Selon les
informations reçues, il aurait été interrogé par la Direction generale de la Gendarmerie nationale
pendant quatre heures. Transféré devant le parquet de Bangui le 16 février 2001, M. Tembeley
aurait été inculpe en vertu de l'article 77 du Code penal pour “diffusion de propagande de nature
a nuire aux intérêts vitaux de l'Etat et de la Nation” et pour “incitation ala haine et ala revolte
contre les institutions démocratiquement elues”. Selon les informations reçues, le tribunal de
Bangui aurait declare M. Tembeley coupable “d'actes de manieuvre de nature a compromettre la
sécurité publique ou a occasionner des troubles politiques graves”. Ii aurait été condamné a deux
mois de prison eta une amende de 150 000 francs CFA.
Observations
47. La Représentante speciale regrette qu'aucune réponse du Gouvernement ne lui soit
parvenue.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 42
CHAD
Communication envoyée
48. Le 5 juillet 2001, la Représentante spéciale a adressé au Gouvernement un appel urgent
concernant Mme Jacqueline Moudéina, responsable juridique de l'Association tchadienne pour la
promotion et la defense des droits de l'homme (ATPDH) et avocate des victimes tchadiennes
dans les poursuites judiciaires engagées a l'encontre de l'ancien chef d'Etat, Hissein Habré.
D'après les informations reçues, elle aurait été attaquée le 11 juin 2001 par des membres de la
police antiémeutes alors qu'elle participait devant l'ambassade de France a N'Djaména a un
rassemblement d'une centaine de femmes qui souhaitaient soumettre une motion a
l'Ambassadeur de France pour protester contre la politique de la France au Tchad. D'après les
informations reçues, pendant la dispersion du rassemblement, des éléments des forces de sécurité
auraient demandé oU se trouvait Mme Moudéina et auraient lance une grenade dans sa direction,
la blessant a lajambe droite. M. Mahamat Wakaye, ancien haut responsable de la DDS, la police
politique de Hissein Habré, aurait dirigé la police antiémeutes au moment des faits. Ii semblerait
que cette action s'inscrive en represailles des activités de Mme Moudéina. Cette crainte se serait
confirmee suite au harcèlement dont aurait été victime Mme Moudéina dans l'enceinte de la
clinique Providence oU elle a été emmenée pour être soignée. Cet appel urgent concernait
egalement M. Samuel Togoto, commissaire de police et ancien Vice-Président de l'Association
des victimes de crimes et repressions politiques au Tchad (AVCRP) et ancien détenu de la DDS,
qui serait victime de harcèlement administratif. Ii lui serait reproché d'avoir voyage hors du pays
sans autorisation prealable du Ministre de l'interieur et d'avoir fait des declarations contraires a
son statut de policier au Tchad et a Dakar, oU il se serait rendu pour témoigner en tant que
victime dans l'affaire de l'ancien chef d'Etat, Hissein Habré. D'après les informations reçues,
son interrogatoire aurait été mené par l'inspecteur Brahim Djidda, ex-directeur general de la
Süreté poursuivi aujourd'hui par les victimes pour torture. M. Togoto encourrait une suspension
de salaire pendant plusieurs mois, voire une radiation pure et simple. Enfin, cet appel urgent
mentionnait egalement le cas de M. Daniel Bekoutou, journaliste tchadien, qui, des le
commencement du procCs d'Hissein Habré a Dakar, aurait reçu des menaces de mort en raison
de ses articles en faveur dujugement de l'ancien chef d'Etat. En consequence, il aurait du fuir le
Senegal et s'exiler en Europe.
Observations
49. Aucune réponse du Gouvernement n'a été reçue jusqu'a cc jour.
CHINA
Communications sent
50. On 31 August 2001 the Special Representative transmitted an allegation jointly with the
Special Rapporteur on torture on the following cases.
51. Wang Wanxing, a human rights activist, was reportedly forcibly removed from his
home by public security officers and taken to Ankang Psychiatric Hospital in Beijing
on 23 November 1999. This followed Mr. Wanxing's request to the authorities to hold a press
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 43
conference to discuss his confinement. He was allegedly first detained in Ankang Public
Security Hospital on 3 June 1992 after trying to unfurl a banner in Tiananmen Square
commemorating the events of 4 June 1989. On 19 August 1999, Wang Wanxing was reportedly
released for a three-month trial period.
52. Li Lanying, Chen Shihuan, Liu Jinling and Chi Yunling, four Falun Gong practitioners
from Zhaoyuan county in Shandong province, were reportedly detained in November 1999 for
disclosing details of the death due to torture of Zhao Jinhua in October 1999. In December 1999,
Li Lanying and Chen Shihuan were reportedly assigned to three years' “re-education through
labour”, to be served in a labour camp in Zibo county, Shandong province.
53. On 26 September 2001 the Special Representative transmitted an allegation jointly with
the Special Rapporteur on torture regarding the following cases.
54. Mr. Lobsang Tenzin and Mr. Tenpa Wangdrak were reportedly caught,
on 31 March 1991, while in Drapchi Prison, attempting to hand over a letter to the then
United States Ambassador, James Lilley, who was visiting Drapchi Prison. According to the
information received, the letter contained in detail treatment meted out to political prisoners
and a list of prisoners who had reportedly been tortured. Mr. Lobsang Tenzin and
Mr. Tenpa Wangdrak were reportedly beaten by officers of the Public Security Bureau (PSB),
and moved to dark isolation cells.
55. Mrs. Li Yang was reportedly arrested on 15 March 2000 and sent for one month to
Chaoyang District Detention Centre for appealing for the rights of Falun Gong practitioners at
the Government Central Appeal Office in Beijing. She was reportedly held in very bad
conditions.
56. Ms. Zhang Xueling was reportedly sentenced on 24 April 2000 to three years'
imprisonment in the Wangcun Labour Camp in Shandong province for collaborating with the
enemy. According to the information received, her arrest was connected with the appeal
Ms. Zhang filed to seek justice for her mother, Ms. Chen Zixiu, who had allegedly been beaten
to death on 21 February 2000, while in detention, and ask for a forensic report. It has been
further reported that, on 20 April 2000, Ms. Zhang gave details of her mother's death and of her
quest for justice to the Asian Wall Street Journal.
57. On 27 September 2001 the Special Representative transmitted an allegation to the
Government of China regarding the following cases.
58. Jamphel Jangchup, Ngawang Phulchung, Ngawang Woeser and Ngawang Gyaltsen,
Drepung monk members of the “Organization of Ten” were reportedly arrested by officers of the
Public Security Bureau (PSB), on 16 April 1989, for forming a “counter-revolutionary
organization, producing reactionary literature, which attacked the Chinese Government and
slandered the People's Democratic dictatorship”. In fact, the group reportedly published a
Tibetan translation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and had also given information
about the human rights abuses reportedly perpetrated by the authorities. According to the
information received, Mr. Jangchup and Mr. Phulchung were sentenced to 19 years'
imprisonment and Mr. Woeser and Mr. Gyaltsen were sentenced to 17 years.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 44
59. Mr. Chu 0-ming, a Falun Gong practitioner based in Hong Kong, was reportedly arrested
on 7 September 2000 in connection with the complaint he filed, on 29 August 2000, with the
Supreme Procuratorate of China, against Jiang Zemin, the President, Zeng Qinghong, Minister of
the Ministry of Human Resources and Personnel, and Luo Gan, Secretary of the Political and
Legal Committee of the State Council, for alleged persecution of Falun Gong practitioners. To
date, Mr. Chu's family has still not obtained any information about his whereabouts.
60. Ms. Teng Chunyan, a medical doctor and Falun Gong practitioner, was reportedly
charged with “prying into State intelligence for overseas organizations” and sentenced to three
years in jail by Beijing Intermediate People's Court, on 23 November 2000. According to the
information received, on 7 February 2000, Ms. Teng led foreign journalists to a village in the
Fangshan district of Beijing, where they reportedly interviewed Falun Gong practitioners
detained in a mental hospital. In March 2000, Ms. Teng returned to Fangshan and provided a
digital camera for a man to take pictures of the detained Falun Gong members to document their
detention and hunger strike. She later reportedly forwarded the pictures to foreign news
organizations by e-mail.
61. On 8 and 12 March 2001, the local police reportedly arrested He Kechang,
Ran Chongxin, Jiang Qingshan and Wen Dingchun, four farmers, who were planning to go to
Beijing in early March 2001 to present a petition to the Government complaining that local
officials had embezzled funds intended to pay for resettling them. According to the information
received, the four farmers are among thousands of people whose homes will be flooded by the
Three Gorges Dam, a giant reservoir that is reportedly planned to be operational in the centre of
Gaoyang in 2003. All four of them were reportedly held in the Yunyang county police Detention
Centre, charged with disturbing the social order, leaking State secrets and maintaining illicit
relations with a foreign country.
Observations
62. The Special Representative regrets that at the time of the finalization of this report the
Government had not transmitted any reply to her communications.
COLOMBIA
Urgent appeals
63. On 4 January 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal concerning the
Commander of the Colombian Army who issued a press release on 26 July 2000 attacking
Mr. Gustavo Gallon Giraldo, Director of the NGO Colombian Commission of Jurists, and other
members of the organization. According to the information received, the press release has made
a reference to their involvement in the judicial proceedings aimed at solving the disappearance of
a human rights defender on 4 July 1990. On 31 July 2000, Mr. Gallon asked the President of
Colombia and the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of the Republic to order a
rectification of that information. It was reported that the answer given by the Commander of the
Army was reportedly incomplete since it did not respond to important questions relating to the
video made by the members of the National Army showing human rights defenders who had
participated in the judicial proceedings.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 45
64. On 19 January 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding Ivan Madero
Vergel and José Guillermo Larios, members of the organization CREDHOS in Barrancabermeja,
who were reportedly threatened on 3 January 2001 by army-backed paramilitaries. According to
the information received, several people thought to belong to the paramilitary group AUC came
to the homes of the above-named persons, threatening them and their families. Since then,
Mr. Madero Vergel has received a number of threatening phone calls at his home, reminding him
that he is considered to be a military target and accusing him of being a guerrilla collaborator or
supporter. Both men are members of an organization which has played a vital role in drawing
international attention to human rights abuses committed by guerrillas, the security forces and
their paramilitary allies.
65. On 6 February 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur
on the independence of judges and lawyers regarding Mr. Oscar Rodas Villegas, a lawyer and
human rights defender, member of the José Alvéar Restrepo Lawyers' Association (CAJAR),
who has reportedly been threatened with death and ordered to put an end to his investigations
about human rights violations. According to the information received, on 24 January 2001, his
wife, Ms. Olga Iliana Velez, was abducted by three men and a woman thought to belong to a
paramilitary group. She was taken to an unknown house and beaten. She was freed at the end of
the day and asked to tell Mr. Rodas Villegas that he had to disappear before 17 February or his
family would be set upon.
66. On 13 February 2001, the Special Representative transmitted a joint urgent appeal with
the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special
Rapporteur on violence against women regarding two men who identified themselves as
members of the paramilitary group AUC and who reportedly came on 27 January 2001 to a
women's community centre “Casa de la Mujer” run by the Organización Femina Popular (OFP)
in the district of Barrancabermeja. According to the information received, these two men
announced that they had come to take over the centre and demanded the keys from the activists.
One of the men reportedly returned the same day, threatened Jackeline Rojas and stole her
mobile phone. He reportedly said that the paramilitaries would take the centre by force
and “blow the door and trample over whoever stands in their way”. This man was arrested
by the police, but it is feared that the AUC will carry out their threats. Furthermore, on
8 February 2001, two armed men, who identified themselves as members of the AUC,
approached an international observer from Peace Brigades International (PBI) and ordered him
to hand over his papers and mobile phones. When he refused, the men threatened him with a
gun, at which point he and his colleague from the OFP gave the men their papers and mobile
phones. As the men were leaving the centre, they threatened the international observer
from PBI, declaring the organization a military target.
67. On 22 February 2001, the Special Representative transmitted a joint urgent appeal with
the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding Mr. Omar
Vera Luna, President of the Junta de Acción Comunal in Barrancabermeja and collaborator of
the Peace and Development Programme in Magdalena Medios, who has reportedly been
threatened with death on various occasions since 16 February 2001 by members of the AUC.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 46
According to the information received, Mr. Vera Luna has reportedly refused to take part in
a demonstration organized by the paramilitaries protesting against the creation of a place,
“El Retén”, designed to host meetings between the guerrilla members of ELN and the
Government. As a result of renewed threats, and despite the presence of the police,
Mr. Vera Luna and his family have been forced to leave their house and find shelter in the
“Casa de la Mujer” centre run by the OFP in Barrancabermeja. In addition, Mr. Andrés Aldana,
President of the Junta de Acción Comunal reportedly received a visit on 15 February 2001 from
two persons who identified themselves as members of the AUC. He was reportedly forced to
sign a document requesting the presence of the national army in the city and the expulsion of
the OFP. On 16 February 2001, he received two other visits from members of paramilitary
groups who forced him to join a demonstration against the creation of “El Retén”. Mr. Angel
Miguel Solano, received a visit on 7 February 2001 from three men who identified themselves
as members of the AUC and who warned him that he had to leave the city of Barrancabermeja.
He was also asked to take part in the demonstration.
68. On 9 March 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding activists of the
OFP who were reportedly attacked and threatened by paramilitaries as they organized a
celebration of International Women's Day on 8 March 2001. According to the information
received, on 7 March two OFP members were handing out leaflets to promote the activities they
were organizing. A group of men who said they were members of the paramilitary AUC
approached them. The men snatched the leaflets and burned them. They also threatened the
women and told them to leave the area. Later, the OFP President, Yolanda Becerra, received a
call on her mobile phone in which a threatening voice told her she would have to take the
consequences.
69. On 2 April 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding professional
killers who have reportedly been ordered to murder Mr. Alirio Uribe, a human rights lawyer,
President of the José Alvéar Restrepo Lawyers' Association (CAJAR) and Vice-President of the
International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH). According to the information
received, the threats came as Mr. Uribe was participating in the session of the Commission on
Human Rights in Geneva.
70. On 11 June 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur
on violence against women regarding army-backed paramilitaries who reportedly told OFP
worker Ms. Dany Rada Jimenez (22 years of age) on 18 May 2001 that she was a military target.
Subsequently, she received further death threats and the paramilitaries reportedly told
community members in various districts of Puerto Wilches, in Santander department that they
would kill more OFP members. Ms. Rada Jimenez was reportedly kept under constant
surveillance by men following her in the street for the past few weeks. She reported all this to
the police.
71. On 11 June 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding three armed
gunmen, thought to be army-backed paramilitaries belonging to the AUC, who reportedly
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 47
abducted Mr. Kimi Domico Pernia in the municipality of Tierralta, department of Cordoba, on
the evening of 2 June 2001. According to the information received, he has not been seen since
his abduction. Mr. Domico Pernia is a leader of the Embera indigenous people, who live along
the rivers Sin and Verde in the department of Cordoba. He has played a leading role in the
indigenous communities' campaign against the construction of the UrrU dam, which will destroy
much of their ancestral lands.
72. On 12 June 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding Ms. Bernice
Celeyta Alayon, President of the human rights organization NOMADESC, who reportedly found
a message on her home answering machine on 18 May 2001 threatening her with death. The
next day, a funeral wreath was left on her doorstep. Since 14 May 2001, she has reportedly been
kept under constant surveillance by unknown men in cars. In the past few months, NOMADESC
has denounced human rights violations by paramilitaries who have threatened and killed trade
unionists in Valle del Cauca department, and massacred civilians living along the River Naya in
Valle del Cauca.
73. On 15 June 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding the safety of
Ms. Islena Rey, the only surviving member of a disbanded human rights organization, Meta
Civic Human Rights Committee. On 5 June 2001, Mr. (I}onzalo Zarate and his brother were
reportedly killed by unidentified gunmen at their home in the Manantial district of
Villaviciencio, capital of the department of Meta. Before it was disbanded, the organization
played an important role in denouncing human rights violations committed by the security forces
and their paramilitary allies in Meta. Since 1991, four leading members have been gunned down
and three other members have disappeared. In its second year, the organization faced continuous
threats, and three of its members disappeared.
74. On 15 June 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding Astrid Manrique
Carnaval, a member of the Popayan branch of the ASFADDES, and her family who had
reportedly repeatedly been threatened in the previous few weeks. On 3 June 2001, it was
reported that two men smashed all the windows at Ms. Manrique Carnaval's house. On
25 May 2001, she and her 14-year-old daughter were followed by six unidentified men in the
street. At the end of April 2001, unknown men came to the home of her sister, who saw them
keeping it under surveillance.
75. On 29 June 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding Ms. Emma
Gómez de Perdono, a member of the trade union ANTHOC in Honda city, department of
Tolima, and her daughter Diana de Perdono, who were reportedly victims of an attempted
murder by paramilitaries on 13 June 2001. According to the information received, in the
previous few weeks, a paramilitary group had threatened with death members of ANTHOC at a
hospital in Honda if they refused to take part in the meetings of the paramilitary group. It was
reported that paramilitary groups often accuse trade unionists of being members of guerrilla
groups and considered them as military targets.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 48
76. On 9 July 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding the
disappearance and murder by paramilitaries of Mr. Alirio Pedro Domicó Domicó, Governor of
the Embera indigenous group, which occurred in Cabildo del Rio Esmeralda, department of
Cordoba, on 25 June 2001, and of Mr. Alberto Sabugara Velasquez, a leader of the Embera
indigenous group, in Quibdo, department of Choco, on 27 June 2001. Concern was also
expressed at the enforced disappearance on 2 June 2001 in Cabildo del Rio Verde, department
of Cordoba, of Mr. Kimi Domico Pernia, also a leader of the Embera indigenous group.
On 10 July 2001, the Special Representative and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary executions issued a press release expressing their deep concern over the
murder and disappearance of indigenous leaders in Colombia.
77. On 12 July 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur
on the independence of judges and lawyers regarding Dr. Alirio Uribe Mufloz, a lawyer and
human rights defender, and two other members of the José Alvéar Restrepo Lawyers'
Association (CAJAR) in Bogota, Luis Guillermo Perez Casas and Maret Cecilia Garcia, who are
still facing harassment and intimidation by paramilitary groups in Cundinamarca. Since
Mr. Luis Guillermo Perez Casas started working on the case of massacre committed by members
of the army in Mapiripan, he has reportedly been the victim of harassment and regular
surveillance.
78. On 24 July 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding Mr. Hernando
Hernandez Pardo, Vice-President of CUT and President of the Oil Workers' Trade Union (USO),
who escaped an assassination attempt on 6 July 2001. According to the information received, he
was speaking at a union meeting in Barrancabermeja in Santander department when he was
warned that a group of heavily armed paramilitary gunmen had come to the meeting to kill him.
The meeting was immediately suspended and Mr. Hernandez Pardo was taken to safety.
79. On 6 August 2001, the Special Representative transmitted an urgent appeal regarding
members of the Bogota-based human rights organization, Corporación Sembrar, who have
reportedly been kept under surveillance and threatened. It was alleged that members of the
organization, as well as other people who work with Sembrar, have been watched on entering
and leaving its office in Bogota. The threats appear to be related to the organization's activities
in and around the city of Barrancabermeja, an area for the control of which army-backed
paramilitaries are waging a military campaign.
80. On 23 August 2001, the Special Representative transmitted a joint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding the situation of
threats, murders and harassment faced by trade unionists. According to the information
received, on 16 August 2001, three board members of SINTRAELECOL were victims of an
attempted murder when they were leaving its offices in Fusagasuga, department of
Cundinamarca. As a result, Ms. Doris Lozano Nuflez died and Mr. Omar Garcia Angulo was
seriously injured. On the same day, Mr. Manuel Pajaro Peinado, treasurer of the Trade Union of
Public Services of Barranquilla district was murdered in his home. It was reported that
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 49
Mr. Edgar Pua and Mr. José Meriflo, treasurer and attorney respectively of ANTHOC received
death threats and were asked to leave the city and to put an end to their activities. It was also
alleged that Mr. Gustavo Villanueva, Director of ANTHOC in Polonuevo, received death threats.
81. On 28 August 2001, the Special Representative transmitted an urgent appeal regarding
Commandant Enrique Cotes Prado's declarations during a meeting on 27 July 2001 between
local civil and military authorities and a national commission in Fusagasugá. This commission
comprised the Vice-Presidency, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ombudsman and the
Prosecutor's Office, as well as human rights organizations and the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights as observer, and aimed at establishing dialogue with local
authorities about the human rights situation in the region. One of the key issues in this dialogue
was the relationship between members of the Military Base Camps of Las Aguilas and the
inhabitants. According to the information received, Commandant Cotes Prado publicly declared
that the State institutions and their civil servants, which did not take position regarding the
occupation of the area by the guerrilla 20 years ago, were “serving guerrilla members”. It has
been reported that these declarations violated Presidential Directive 07, which aims to protect
human rights defenders, including civil servants who perform human rights work. In that sense,
Commandant Cotes's public declarations reportedly did not contribute to promoting dialogue
between the different actors in the region and, on the contrary, might create a polarization of the
situation.
82. On 13 September 2001, the Special Representative transmitted an urgent appeal
regarding Edgar Pua, Judith Castillo, Argemio Rivaldo, Carlos Bustamente, Ubaldo Galindo,
José Meriflo and Arminto Sarmiento, members of ANTHOC in Baranquilla, Atlantico region,
who were reportedly threatened with death by paramiliatries who accused them of being guerrilla
members. As a result of these threats, they were forced to leave the region. Carmen Pungo and
Ricaurte Yanten Pungo, members of ANTHOC, were murdered on 2 September 2001 by
paramilitary groups in Tambo, Cauca region.
83. On 26 September 2001, the Special Representative transmitted an urgent appeal jointly
with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding
Mr. Hernando Montoya, a trade union leader of SINTRAMUNICIPIO, Cartago section,
department of Valle, who reportedly received anonymous death threats on 7 September 2001.
Previously, the Cooperativa de Seguridad (COPROSEG) had reportedly threatened
Mr. Montoya. Although a beneficiary of the Minister of the Interior programme of protection,
he is allegedly still facing harassment and threats by paramilitary groups. In addition, it has been
reported that the mayor of Cartago has proffered verbal threats against Mr. Montoya on various
occasions which have contributed to increasing the risk for his safety.
84. On 25 October 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint urgent appeal with
the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special
Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression regarding Mr. Luis Manuel Anaya Aguas,
treasurer of the Sindicato de Conductores y Trabajadores del Transporte de Santander
(SINCONTRAINDER) in Barrancabermeja, and its president, Mr. Luis Lopez, who were
reportedly killed on 16 and 19 October 2001. On 17 October 2001, Mr. Julian Rodriguez, a
member of the Corporación CREDHOS, was murdered in Barrancabermeja, allegedly in
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 50
retaliation for his human rights activities. According to the information received, six trade
unionist leaders of the Union Sindical Obrera (USO) were reportedly held in detention
on 19 October 2001 in various cities around the country and accused of rebellion. Among the
detainees were Mr. Jairo Calderon, former president of the USO, held in detention in
Bucaramanga, Mr. Alonso MartInez, a USO activist, held in Bogota, Mr. Ramon Rangel, a
member of the USO Human Rights Commission, held in Barrancabermeja and
Mr. Fernando Acufla, former president of FEDEPETROL, held in Barrancabermeja. Agents of
the Technical Body of Investigation of the Public Prosecutor's Office and of the Administrative
Department of Security (DAS) were reportedly responsible for the arrests. These acts were
connected with a one-day demonstration against ECOPETROL, a petrol company under State
control, organized by the USO to protest against continuing harassment, death threats, murders
and disappearances reportedly suffered by USO leaders and activists. Various board members of
the Comité Permanente por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (COMPERDH) as well as one
of its lawyers, have been reportedly threatened with death. This is the case for Mr. Ernesto
Amezquita Camacho, Mr. Luis Jairo Ramirez, Dr. Jahel Quiroga in relation with her activities in
the Corporación Reiniciar and Dr. Carlos Lozano. On 11 October 2001, Mr. Rigoberto Jimenez,
president of the Asociación de Ayuda Solidaria (ANDAS) in Cartagena, and an ANDAS board
member were intimidated by two unidentified men on a motorbike. On 16 October 2001,
Mr. Manuel de la Rosa, treasurer of ANDAS, was reportedly detained by three armed men in
plain clothes and taken away by force in a van. He was released at the request of other members
of the organization.
85. On 30 October 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint urgent appeal
with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding
Ms. Gladys Avila, Secretary-General of ASFADDES, Ms. Gloria Herney, ASFADDES General
Coordinator, and other human rights defenders with that association, who were reportedly
receiving death threats and being followed on a continuous basis. In recent weeks, it was
reported, anonymous telephone calls had been made to ASFADDES. In addition, interference
was heard on the office telephones.
86. On 13 November 2001, the Special Representative transmitted an urgent appeal
regarding the destruction of the Organización Femenina Popular (OFP) community centre in the
Barrio La Virgen, Barrancabermeja, department of Santander. According to the information
received, on 10 November 2001, a group of armed men forcibly entered the OFP centre and
began to demolish it.
87. On 30 November 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal regarding
continuous threats against members of the Asociación Campesina del Valle del Rio Cimitarra
(ACVC) despite the recommendation made by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights
on 1 November 2001 to the Government of Colombia to implement the protective measures
granted in 1999 in order to protect members of ACVC allegedly declared military targets by
paramilitary groups. According to the information received, on 7 November 2001, members of
the Cuerpo Técnico de I nvestigaciones (CTI) of the Attorney-General's Office (Fiscalia) and of
the Fifth Brigade of the Army broke into the home of Mr. César Jerez, a member of the board of
the Association, in Bucaramanga, and intimidated his family. These threats are allegedly linked
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 51
to the activities carried out by ACVC in the defence of the human rights of the inhabitants of
Valle del RIo Cimitarra in Magdalena Medio Colombiano. The Special Representative was also
informed of the existence of a military intelligence report as well as a judicial investigation by
the Attorney-General's Office against ACVC and its board.
Allegation letters
88. On 15 February 2001, the Special Representative expressed her concern at the killing
of Mr. Ivan Villamizar, regional ombudsman (defensor del pueblo) in Cücuta City in
North Santander, on 12 February 2001. Mr. Villamizar, who had been the Dean of the
University of Cücuta, had consistently denounced human rights violations in Catatumbo as well
as the massacres, reportedly committed in 1999 by paramilitaries, in La Gabarra and Tibu, all in
the department of Northern Santander. It is reported that, because of his work, he had been the
object of constant death threats. A press release was issued on the same case by the Special
Representative on 16 February 2001.
89. On 17 April 2001, the Special Representative submitted a communication to Mr. Gustavo
Bell Lemus, Vice-President of the Republic of Colombia, reminding him of a list of cases she
has already sent to the Government. The Special Representative expressed concern over the
particularly precarious situation of human rights defenders in the country, especially in the city
of Barrancabermej a. Reports indicated that serious human rights abuses are perpetrated by the
paramilitary “Self Defence Group” (AUC). The Special Representative acknowledged that the
Government of Colombia had taken measures to address the problem, such as the Special
Protection Programme for Witnesses and Threatened Persons under the Ministry of the Interior.
However, she remained concerned about the slow pace ofjudicial investigations into crimes
against human rights defenders and about the limited administrative, security and financial
resources to protect those human rights defenders who found themselves at risk.
90. On 19 October 2001, the Special Representative, jointly with the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on the independence
ofjudges and lawyers, sent an allegation letter to the Government regarding the case of
Mr. Eduardo Umafia Mendoza, a lawyer and human rights defender. According to the
information received, Dr. Mendoza was killed on 18 April 1998 by two men and a woman who
identified themselves as journalists. Prior to his death, Dr. Mendoza had been threatened on
numerous occasions. Complaints had been filed with the competent authorities, but no progress
had been made on the investigations into these threats. A number of arrests have been made in
connection with the murder, but so far only one person has been formally charged. There is a
grave concern that, despite indications of military involvement in the crime, it appears that this
line of investigation has not been followed.
91. On 19 October 2001, the Special Representative, jointly with the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, sent an allegation letter regarding the following
cases.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 52
Human rights organizations
92. According to the information received, army-backed paramilitaries threatened to kill OFP
members after they helped to organize three days of events and marches in Barrancabermeja
calling on both sides in Colombia's armed conflict to respect the human rights of civilians. The
paramilitaries declared 11 families who took part in the 14 to 17 August 2001 event to be
military targets. First, paramilitary gunmen went to women's homes and told them not to go on
the march, and set up roadblocks to stop the event taking place, despite the fact that the army had
a strong presence in the city. At the end of the march, the women gathered in the city football
stadium to hear speeches. OFP members Jackeline Rojas and Yolanda Becerra were on the
podium preparing to begin the event when a man approached and threatened them. On
24 August 2001, OFP was told that paramilitaries had decided to assassinate their members,
beginning with one of their leaders, Patricia RamIrez.
93. According to the information received, on 8 and 9 October 2000, four families
belonging to the Asociación de Familiares de Detenidos Desaparecidos (ASFADDES) branch
at MedellIn reportedly received several threatening telephone calls, which were repeated on
31 October 2000, following which they had to leave the region. Ms. Martha Elizabeth
Soto Gallo received a threatening message on her answerphone on 13 April 2000.
On 11 and 23 November 2000, in MedellIn, two letters carrying a death threat was sent to
Mr. Sancho Castro, a collaborator of the association. On 20 November 2000, the person in
charge of the Cundinamarca branch of ASFADDES is reported to have been followed in Bogota
by two unknown people. It was also reported that, in May 2000, Ms. RocIo Campos, a member
of the Managing Council of ASFADDES and its Barrancabermeja branch received several
telephone calls from unknown persons who threatened her, fired gunshots and asked her about
her brother, Daniel Campos, who disappeared in May 1998. The Special Representative has
also been informed of the murder of Ms. Elisabeth Caflas Cano, a member of ASFADDES,
on 11 July 2000 in Barrancabermeja. She had been actively involved in combating unpunished
criminals, especially in connection with the disappearance of a group of 25 people, including her
son, Giovanny Caflas Cano, and her brother, José Milton Cafias Cano, who both disappeared at
Barrancabermeja on 16 May 1998. Furthermore, on 29 and 30 September 2000, during a forum
entitled “For life and human rights” held in Barrancabermeja, threats were made by paramilitary
groups in the form of slogans against members of ASFADDES accused of being members of
guerrilla groups and military targets. As a result of the threats targeting it, ASFADDES decided
to close temporarily its office in Barrancabermeja on 28 February 2001.
94. According to the information received, since the Regional Corporation for the Defence of
Human Rights (CREDHOS) was created 13 years ago, eight of its members have been killed and
two others were the victims of murder attempts. The former president of CREDHOS,
Osiris Bayther, and the coordinator of the organization in BolIvar, Marco Tulios Campos,
were forced to leave Colombia in 1998 and to give up their activities in the region after
receiving death threats. The offices of CREDHOS in Barrancabermeja were raided on 16
and 18 October 1999. On 19 October 1999, the coordinator of CREDHOS in Barrancabermeja,
Pablo Javier Arenales, received numerous threatening phone calls. In August 2000, the secretary
of the organization, Monica Madera Vergel, received a threatening call on the phone assigned to
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 53
her by the Ministry of the Interior programme. These acts are connected with the pamphlet
distributed by CREDHOS in Bucaramanga during an event, “For life and human rights”, in
September 2000 denouncing the threats against its members and holding the AUC responsible
for them.
Members of human rights organizations
95. According to the information received, on 19 May 1997, a group of masked gunmen,
identifying themselves as members of the Attorney General's Office, killed Carlos MarIo
Calderon and Elsa Constanza Alvarado, both activists of the Centre for Research and Popular
Education, in their Bogota apartment. According to the information received, in July 2001
four persons were reportedly accused of having participated in the murder and sentenced to
between 4 and 60 years' imprisonment. It has been reported that detention orders have been
issued against paramilitary leaders Carlos and Fidel Castaflo, who were allegedly charged with
having planned the murders. It has been further reported that although the authorities knew
about their whereabouts, they did not take the appropriate measures to arrest them. According to
the information received, four judicial police officers and one key witness have been murdered in
the course of the investigation. The Special Representative requested information regarding the
follow-up to the measures taken by the competent authorities to investigate, prosecute and
sentence those found responsible for these acts.
96. Dr. Jesus Valle Jaramillo, a renowned human rights lawyer, was shot dead in
February 1998 by unidentified gunmen in his office in Medellin after denouncing links between
members of the Colombian military and paramilitary organizations. He was the president of the
Antioquia Permanent Committee for the Defence of Human Rights, and the fourth president of
that organization to be killed. He was also a university professor and a Conservative Party local
councillor.
97. Jairo Bedoya Hoyos, treasurer of the Indigenous Organization of Antioquia (O IA) and
former members of the Patriotic Union (UP) political party and of Parliament in 1992-1993,
disappeared on 2 March 2000 in the department of Antioquia. Those responsible are reportedly
members of paramilitary groups allied with security forces. The victim had participated in a
campaign calling for the respect of the cultural rights and for the safety of Embera indigenous
people.
98. Marleny Rincon and Ana Julia Arias de Rodriguez, members of the National Association
of Peasants and Indigenous Women of Colombia (ANMUCIC), and Marta Cecilia Hernandez,
leader of ANMUCIC Zulia, department of North Santander, were killed, allegedly by
paramilitary forces, on 21 July 2000, 19 August 2000 and 26 January 2001, respectively.
Marleny Rincon, president of the association in the department of Meta, as well as Julia Arias de
Rodriguez, treasurer of ANMUCIC and a member of the UP political party, have been accused
of being guerrilla members. Marta Cecilia Hernandez's murder is allegedly due to her refusal to
withdraw her candidature for the municipal elections.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 54
99. Orlando Moncada, spokesman and member of the board of the Peasants Association of
Valle del RIo Cimitarra, department of Santander, was killed on 1 September 2000 while
standing near a road block set up by the AUC on the road between Puerto de Barrancabermeja
and El Tigre.
100. Fernando Cruz Peda, a human rights lawyer and member of the Association of
Democratic Jurists of Colombia, continues disappeared in Cali. On 10 December 2000, three
unidentified persons in plain clothes took him away to the Attorney-General's Office on the
pretext of checking his professional card. Although numerous complaints have been lodged with
various national authorities, the case has reportedly not been investigated so far.
101. Pepe Zabala and Angela Andrade, members of the Multi-Ethnic People's Movement of
the Nariflo Pacific Coast campaigning for the rights of the various ethnic minority groups in the
department of Nariflo, were killed on 6 August 2001 in the Aguaclara district of the municipality
of Tumaco. According to the information received, paramilitaries began threatening to kill
members of this NGO in September 2000. The Movement had appealed to the Ministry of the
Interior for protection because of the death threats. The Ministry had provided mobile
telephones for members to inform the authorities if they were attacked.
102. Yolanda CerOn, a nun and director of the human rights team of the Catholic church
organization Pastoral Social in Tumaco, Narizo department, was reportedly shot several times
on 19 September 2001 by unidentified gunmen as she walked across a park in Tumaco. She was
taken to the local hospital, where she died moments later. Ms. CerOn had worked for many years
with Pastoral Social to denounce human rights violations in Narizo department and in support of
the victims and their families. She had recently reported that unidentified men had followed her
and that the offices of Pastoral Social were under permanent surveillance. Some time before, she
had also been called to the Attorney-General's Office in Tumaco to ratify the denunciations she
had made some months before of several cases of human rights violations.
Internally displaced persons
103. On 3 September 2000, Cesar Molina, director of the Corporación para la Educacion y
Autogestión Ciudadana (CEAC), a human rights NGO in Barranquilla, department of Atlantico
was reportedly intercepted by two armed men who threatened to kill him if he did not
discontinue his work with internally displaced persons and students in the University of
Atlantica. The two men also mentioned Luis Felipe Flores, director of another human rights
NGO, Fundacion para el Estudio de las Ciencias Sociales (FUNPECIS). The facts of the case
suggest that the perpetrators are members of an organized group of contract killers who may
have paramilitary links. As a result of the threat, both individuals have been forced to abandon
their human rights work in Barranquilla and have been displaced in other cities in Colombia.
104. Armando Achito, an Embera indigenous leader from the municipality of Jurado,
department of Choco, was killed on 25 December 2000 by armed men, allegedly members of
paramilitary groups, in his own house in Jurado. Mr. Armando Achito had taken part in several
procedures claiming land, food and health for those communities. After the massacre of three
indigenous persons by alleged paramilitaries, he had been displaced to Jurado on 8 August 1999.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 55
Apparently the local authorities had suggested that he move to Bahia Solano, so that he could be
provided with the necessary protection. However, this removal did not, reportedly, prevent him
being killed.
105. Pedro Varón, teacher and Fiscal of the executive board of the Central Unitaria de
Trabajadores workers (CUT), department of Tolima, has reportedly been subjected to acts of
pursuit and threats against his life, allegedly committed by paramilitaries, which, according to
the information received, forced him in April 2001 to flee the region, to give up his union work
and to leave his family.
106. Evert Encizo, a teacher and director of the “La Reliquia” school and leader of the
displaced people in the settlement of the same name in the town of Villavicencio, was killed
on 19 August 2001 by two strongly armed men who entered his house and shot him. In this
incident, two other people, Mrs. Marleny Coronado Gomez, deputy president of the “Junta de
Acción Comunal” of this settlement, and a child, were reportedly injured.
107. According to the information received, Marino Cordoba, President of the Association
of Displaced Afro-Colombians, (ASFRODES), received threatening phone calls, allegedly
from paramilitaries, at the headquarters of the organization in March 2001. ASFRODES
deals mainly with the defence of the rights of Afro-Colombians and displaced people.
Previously, Mr. Cordoba had reportedly been the victim of attempts on his life in 2000 and had
received several death threats since he moved in January 1997 from the department of Choco to
Bogota.
Tnide unionists
108. In the period January-October 2001, 112 trade unionists were assassinated,
and 65 disappeared/were abducted, a significant increase in repressive action against trade
unionists considered as military targets. Moreover, 23 trade unionists were the victims of
aggression during the same period. Members of paramilitary groups have been accused of being
responsible for most of these violent deaths.
109. Geraldo Gonzalez, Secretary for Agrarian and Indigenous Affairs of the Central Unitaria
de Trabajadores (CUT), also president of the small farmers' trade union in Cundinamarca, was
reportedly constantly subjected to threats against his life during 1999 and 2000. For instance, his
name was included in a document given to the CUT, which announced a plan of extermination of
trade union leaders. His family has also been seriously affected.
110. On 19 September 2000, two unknown armed strangers reportedly fired several shots
at Ricardo Herrera, Secretary-General of the trade union SIINTRAEMCALI and Omar de
Jesus Noguera, a trade union employee, on their arrival at Mr. Herrera's home in the JunIn
neighbourhood of Cali, Valle de Cauca. Mr. Noguera, who was wounded during the attack, died
on 23 September 2000. He had spoken out against corruption and participated as a trade union
member in mobilization activities against the privatization of EMCALI. The chairman of
SINTRAEMCALI, Mr. Alexander Lopez Amaya, was forced to leave the country in
September 2000 after receiving repeated death threats and after being chased by hired assassins.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 56
111. Wilson Borja, president of the National Federation of State Workers (FENALTRASE)
and a peace activist, was reportedly the victim of an armed attack on 15 December 2000. It was
reported that he had previously lodged a complaint with the Regional Attorney of Bogota
concerning the death threats he had been receiving by telephone and in letters. Mr. Borja is also
member of the Civil Society Negotiation Commission, whose aim is to help create a free zone in
the Bolivar and Antioquia regions in order to begin peace talks with the National Liberation
Army (ELN).
112. Orlando Ospina Loaiza and Carlos Alberto Florez, vice-president and secretary-general
of the Trade Union of Public Service Workers and Employees (SIINTRAEMSDES) in Pereira
reportedly received a condolence card, on 12 February 2001 sent by the AUC.
113. Jaime Alberto Duque Castro, president of the trade union of workers of Cementos
El Cairo (SUTIMAC), was allegedly detained on 24 March 2001 by AUC paramilitaries. He
was released without injuries on 5 April 2001.
114. Gustavo Soler Mora, president of the workers of the multinational Drummond company
and president of the national Mining and Energy Trade Union (SINTRAMINERGETICA), was
found dead on 7 October 2001 in Rincon Hondo, in the municipality of Chiriguana. The day
before, he was reportedly forced by armed men to get off the bus in which he was travelling from
Valledupar to Chiriguana to get into a minibus.
Communications received
115. In a letter dated 16 March 2001 the Government of Colombia replied to the
communication of 13 February 2001 relating to alleged acts committed by a self-defence group
against the Women's Popular Organization (OFP) in Barrancabermeja. The Government
asserted that a preliminary inquiry was made on the day of the events, but an official order for an
investigation had still not been given. The Social Solidarity Network set up by the Office of the
President of the Republic had organized a system of care for displaced persons, in which the
specific case of that organization was included. The Government added that investigations had
also begun into the threats against Mrs. Flor Maria Caflas and other members of the organization,
but they were still at the stage of gathering evidence.
116. In a letter dated 20 March 2001, the Government provided information on official
communication No. 1 247/DAS .D of 6 March 2001, by which the Director of the Administrative
Department for National Security reported that the necessary steps had been taken to neutralize
and prevent any action by outlawed groups against the civilian population.
117. In letters dated 10 April and 28 May 2001, the Government of Colombia replied to the
Special Representative's communication of 6 February 2001. The Government stated that a
preliminary inquiry into Mrs. Olga Liliana Velez's complaint alleging death threats against
herself, her husband, Oscar Rodas Villegas, and her family had begun. As a result, several
pieces of evidence had been examined and an investigation had been initiated to determine who
had committed the offences in question. However, it had not yet been possible to reach any
conclusion. The Government reported on 28 May 2001 that the Public Prosecutor's Office,
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 57
Criminal Courts Division 99 had ordered an investigation into the alleged death threats against
Oscar Rodas Villegas and Olga Liliana Velez and that they were still examining the evidence
and establishing the identity of the culprits.
118. In letters dated 10 April, 22 May and 5 October 2001 the Government of Colombia
replied to the Special Representative's communication of 9 March 2001 regarding the
Women's Popular Organization (OFP). Yolanda Becerra's statement about the threats against
Flor Maria Cafias indicated that she had not received any more such threats. In its letter
dated 22 May 2001, the Government stated that Mrs. Yolanda Becerra, chairperson of the OFP,
had rejected the protection offered to her as being against the principles of her organization. In
its letter of 5 October 2001, the Government reported that the Attorney-General's Office had
taken several steps, such as devising a protection and prevention strategy, and appointing two
human rights consultants, as soon as it learnt of the violence against OFP members and of the
pressures on them, and was beginning a preliminary investigation of members of the Public
Prosecutor's Office headquartered in Barrancabermeja for having released the person who had
allegedly threatened a legal representative of OFP in the name of the AUC. The Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights, for its part, was investigating the same events and
on 26 May 2000 had ordered precautionary measures for several OFP members at their head
office in Barrancabermeja. The Government said that several investigations were being
conducted by the Public Prosecutor's Office. On 2 August 2001, the Sub-Commission on
Protection and Security held a meeting to decide what had to be done to ensure that the meeting
on the International Mobilization of Women, from 14 to 17 August 2001, could proceed
normally. Yolanda Becerra, the legal representative of OFP, said that, according to an
intelligence report apparently received by the Fifth National Army Brigade, paramilitary groups
once again intended to assassinate her, because they considered it an affront that, far from
leaving the Magdalena Medio area, she had opened a new OFP office in Bogota. The
Attorney-General's Office was supporting OFP in connection with the International Mobilization
of Women meeting by maintaining constant communication with members of the security forces
during the event in order to counter attempts by suspected AUC members to hinder the
proceedings.
119. In a letter dated 14 June 2001, the Government of Colombia replied to the Special
Representative's communication of 2 April 2001, providing information about alleged death
threats against Mr. Alirio Uribe Mufloz, president of the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers'
Association and vice-president of the International Human Rights Federation, and said that
investigations were being carried out to clarify the facts and to identify the guilty parties.
120. In a letter dated 27 June 2001, the Government replied to the communication
of 22 February 2001 and provided information on the alleged death threats against Omar Vera
Luna, Andres Aldana and Angel Miguel Solano. It transmitted a report by the Santander
National Police in which it was mentioned that Father Francisco de Roux together with other
bishops and a lady had appeared at the police station stating that members of the Self-Defence
Group had gone to the home of Mr. Omar Vera Luna to force him under threat to sign a
commitment. He and his family were then forced to accompany them forthwith to the
demonstrations against the pull-back zone at the place known as Y in Barrancabermeja. It was
for that reason, that it had been decided to remove Mr. Vera Luna from the crowd of protesters
and take him back home. However, the threats from the Self-Defence Group had continued and
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 58
constant vigilance was required on the part of the Navy. Moreover, Mr. Angel Miguel Solano
reported to the authorities that he had been forced by the community to attend the
demonstrations, though not under threat. The Government would communicate the results of the
relevant investigations.
121. In a letter dated 27 June 2001, the Government replied to the communication
of 11 June 2001, providing information about the alleged disappearance of the leader and
spokesman of the Embera KatIo community, Mr. Kimi Dominico. The Government asserted that
on 5 June the Second Specialized Prosecutor's Office in MonterIa had opened an investigation
into the alleged aggravated kidnapping for ransom and other crimes against the above-mentioned
person, who had reportedly been kidnapped by three individuals on two motorcycles. In
addition, an order had been given to raid and search the “el Cairo” estate. It was executed
on 5 June 2001, but without result. The Government would report on the results of the
investigations.
122. In a letter dated 28 June 2001, the Government replied to the communication
of 15 June 2001 and reported that the Public Prosecutor's Office had initiated preliminary
investigations into the alleged death threats against Mrs. Astrid Manrique Carvajal and her
family. It also pointed out that the alleged victim had submitted a complaint to the Rapid
Reaction Unit (URI) about “acts that she felt were attacks on her personal integrity”. The same
complaint had been submitted to the Military Court of Criminal Investigation. An investigation
was also being carried out concerning damage to the property of others.
123. In a letter dated 2 July 2001, the Government of Colombia replied to the communication
of 15 June 2001. In regard to the alleged death threats against Mrs. Islena Ruiz, a member of the
Meta Civic Committee for Human Rights, and the murder of the brothers Humberto and Gonzalo
Zárate Triana and of Dr. Josué Giraldo Cardona, it asserted that the General Directorate of
Human Rights in the Ministry of the Interior and the Administrative Department for National
Security had adopted a large number of security measures to protect Mrs. Islena Ruiz. With
regard to the murder of Dr. Josué Giraldo on 13 October 1993, the circumstances in which it was
committed had been established and it had been concluded that the motive was his political
opinions and beliefs. As for the murders of Mr. Gonzalo and Mr. Humberto Zárate Triana, the
Prosecutor's Office concerned reported that an investigation was under way. The Government
would report in due course on the results of the investigations.
124. In a reply dated 5 July 2001, the Government reported on the alleged threats and attacks
against the premises of the Regional Corporation for the Defence of Human Rights (CREDHOS)
and its members, particularly Mr. Ivan Madero and Mr. José Guillermo Larios. It stated that
they were not in the city mentioned, as they were in a “soft” protection programme run by the
Ministry of the Interior that involved removing them from that place. In addition, the other
members of the Corporation were all covered by different protection programmes.
125. In a letter dated 10 July 2001, the Government replied to the communication
of 12 June 2001 and provided information about the alleged death threats against Mr. Carlos
Arbey Gonzalez, leader of the University Workers' and Employees' Union of Colombia
(SINTRAUNICOL), and the alleged disappearance of Mr. Gilberto Agudelo, stating that
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 59
Mr. Carlos Arbey was covered by a protection programme and had an escort and a vehicle,
and enjoyed increased security measures. It added that no record could be found of
Mr. Gilberto Agudelo's disappearance.
126. In a letter dated 24 August 2001, the Government of Colombia replied to the
communication of 24 July 2001 and reported on the foiled attempt to kill Mr. Hernando
Hernandez Pardo, vice-president of the Trade Union Confederation (CUT) and president of the
Workers' Trade Union (USO), which occurred on 6 July 2001. It stated that the Administrative
Department of National Security had begun operating a protection and security system, which
could be strengthened without prejudice to the relevant precautionary measures.
127. In letters dated 24 August and 28 September 2001, the Government replied to the
communication of 29 June 2001 and provided information about the foiled attempt to kill
Mrs. Maria Emma Gómez de Perdomo, a member of the National Trade Union of Health Sector
Workers (ANTHOC), and her daughter Diana Perdomo, stating that the Public Prosecutor's
Office was conducting a preliminary investigation to identify those responsible. It was also
investigating threats against some of the staff of the Juan de Dios hospital in Honda, members of
the ANTHOC trade union, it being clear that Mrs. Gómez Perdomo was not among those
mentioned as being concerned. The Government would report in due course on the results of the
investigations.
128. In a letter dated 4 September 2001, the Government of Colombia replied to the Special
Representative's communication of 12 July 2001 and reported on the alleged death threats
against several members of the José Alvear Restrepo Lawyers' Association, stating that a
meeting had been held with all the competent authorities to determine institutional
responsibilities. It was decided at the meeting that the Ministry of the Interior would take
preventive measures in respect of individuals and that the Vice-President's Office would be
responsible for political measures. As a result, several meetings had been held to speed up
procedures for dealing with the requests of petitioners in the case, particular importance being
attached to the consultation of intelligence archives. Since the matter was before the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Government wished to close the case.
129. Por carta fechada 6 de diciembre de 2001, el Gobierno de Colombia informo ala
Representante Especial sobre la destruccion del dispensario “Casa de la Mujer”, caso enviado el
13 de noviembre de 2001. El Gobierno seflalo que el caso se encuentra sometido a examen en la
Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, motivo por el cual se informo acerca de las
medidas cautelares ordenadas por el Gobierno a favor de la OFP. Al respecto, el Gobierno
seflalo que el 11 de octubre de 2001 se llevo a cabo una reunion con el Grupo de Trabajo ad hoc,
con el fin de acordar medidas de protección destinadas a la OFP. Las entidades responsables de
estas medidas son el Ministerio del Interior, la Fiscalia General de la nación, la Policia Nacional,
la Procuradoria General de la nación y la Vicepresidencia de la Repüblica. En el marco de la
politica gubernamental de derechos humanos y derecho humanitario, se tiene previsto la
conformacion de comisiones intersectoriales a nivel regional que tienen como propósito acordar
medidas y acciones que contribuyan a mejorar la situación de los derechos humanos en las
regiones. El Programa Presidencial para los Derechos Humanos y el Derecho Internacional
Humanitario ha participado en las reuniones, eventos, foros y otros que tengan relacion con el
trabajo de la OFP en la region, acompaflandolos y coordinando con el Ejército Nacional y la
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 60
PolicIa Nacional las gestiones necesarias para evitar que se presenten hostigamientos por parte
de los grupos armados a! margen de la icy, que rechazan ias actividades de ia organización.
Se tomó contacto directo con ia Sra. Yolanda Becerra, representante de ia OFP, con ci objeto de
verificar cualquier tipo de informacion o acción de cualquier agente que represente un riesgo o
amenazas contra ias personas o instalaciones de esta organización no gubernamental.
Observations
130. The Special Representative is grateful to the Government of Coiombia for its prompt
replies to her communications. Following the request to visit Colombia sent by the Special
Representative on 20 February 2001, an official invitation was extended to her by the
Government of Colombia on 31 August 2001. In this regard, the Special Representative would
like to refer to the report on her visit to Colombia (from 23 to 31 October 2001) submitted
separately to the Commission at the present session (E/CN.4/2002/106/Add.2)
CROATIA
Communication sent
131. On 4 January 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the
Special Rapporteur on the independence ofjudges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions sent an urgent appeal regarding Mr. Srdj Jaksic, a
prominent human rights lawyer, who was the subject of an assassination attempt by three masked
men on 30 December 2000 outside his home in Dubrovnik. Mr. Jaksic was reportedly seriously
wounded and sustained injuries to his abdomen and his arm, requiring surgery and continued
hospitalization. The next day, 31 December 2000, his wife and eight-year-old daughter were
reportedly also attacked by an unknown assailant. It was alleged that these attacks are in
connection to Mr. Jaksic's work. Mr. Jaksic is a well-established attorney and during the past
decade, has worked on numerous cases of great importance for the protection of human rights in
Croatia. Mr. Jaksic has also reportedly been involved in some property cases that have led to the
eviction of Croatian policemen from Serb-owned homes occupied during the war. It has also
been reported that the Dubrovnik police have done little to investigate these attacks and have not
provided effective security to the Jaksic family.
Communications received
132. By letter dated 12 January 2001, the Government ensured the Special Representative that
the relevant Croatian authorities had taken all the necessary measures in order to apprehend the
perpetrators of this criminal act. The scene of the crime had been examined, as well as all
potential evidence, and a special group of criminal investigators had been established by the
Dubrovnik Police Department and the Criminal Investigation Department of the Ministry of the
Interior in order to solve this case. The Government was ensuring that the Ministry of the
Interior continued to take adequate steps in order to protect the life and physical integrity of
Mr. Jaksic and his family. The Government also informed the Special Representative that
several amendments to the Law on Courts had been recently adopted in order to enhance the
security ofjudicial professionals.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 61
Observations
133. The Special Representative thanks the Government for its prompt response. The Special
Representative appreciates the Government's assurances of additional laws for the better
protection of lawyers. She will study these laws with interest and will continue to assess their
impact on the situation of human rights defenders. She would like to be kept informed on
Mr. Jaksic's case and looks forward to receiving further information from the Government on the
progress of investigation in this case and on the prosecution of the assailants, when identified.
CUBA
Communication sent
134. On 14 September 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on freedom of opinion and expression, sent an urgent appeal regarding Mr. Leonardo Bruzón
Avila, who was reportedly arrested on 5 September 2001 after he set up an independent video
library for children in the capital, Havana. According to the information received, Mr. Leonardo
Bruzón Avila is president of the 24 February Human Rights Movement named for the date
in 1996 on which two planes belonging to a Cuban exile group were shot down by the Cuban Air
Force. He reportedly named the library, in his home in Havana, “The 24 February Library”. It
has been reported that the authorities issued a warrant for his arrest and the eviction of him and
his family. The source indicates that previously Mr. Leonardo Bruzón Avila was repeatedly
detained and harassed. On 3 December 2000, he and other dissidents were reportedly detained to
prevent them taking part in a demonstration to celebrate Human Rights Day. It has been further
reported that Mr. Leonardo Bruzón Avila is now held at a police detention centre, the Technical
Investigations Department, in Havana. As yet, no charge has been brought against him.
Communications received
135. On 18 January 2001, the Government sent a reply to a note verbale sent by the Special
Representative on 10 October 2000 (see report of the Special Representative to the Commission
on Human Rights E/CN.4/2001/94, paras. 54-55). The Government of Cuba thanked the Special
Representative and appreciated the desire that she expressed to carry out the mandate assigned to
her on the basis of a fully open and transparent dialogue with States. It noted that the financing
of non-governmental organizations should follow a clear pattern of transparency and be
conducted responsibly and fully in keeping with the legislation in force in each country. The
Government further stated that it could not accept manipulation of the theme of human rights in
order to try to justify the financing of activities which were clearly incompatible with the
purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. Although Cuba shared
the Special Representative's criterion that States are above all the guarantors of the rights of their
citizens, it reasserted its conviction that, in a classic State-citizen relationship, States in a
globalized and interdependent world can themselves take on the role of defenders of the human
rights of their citizens vis-à-vis the influence of external agents such as other States or agents,
particularly transnational corporations. The Government stressed that it guaranteed the fullest
realization of and respect for all human rights of its citizens to the extent of the resources and
possibilities available to it. Finally, the Government reiterated its desire to cooperate with the
Special Representative in carrying out her mandate.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 62
Observations
136. The Special Representative awaits a reply on the case of Mr. Bruzón Avila.
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
Communications envoyées
137. Le 22 février 2001, la Représentante spéciale a envoyé un appel urgent conjointement
avec le Rapporteur special sur la torture concernant Golden Misabiko, Président de l'Association
africaine des droits de l'homme (ASADHO) - section du Katanga, qui aurait été arrêté
le lundi 5 février 2001. Selon les informations reçues, il aurait été enlevé par deux hommes en
civil qui appartiendraient a l'Agence nationale de renseignements (ANR) alors qu'il allait
chercher sa fille a l'école dans la commune de Lubumbashi. Le motif de son arrestation n'a pas
été rapporté mais serait lie a ses activités de défenseur des droits de l'homme. Golden Misabiko
serait détenu au centre de detention dit du Groupe Litho Moboti (GLM), qui serait dirigé par les
services de sécurité spéciale du Président.
138. Par un appel urgent date du 16 mai 2001, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec
le Rapporteur special sur la République démocratique du Congo et le Président-Rapporteur du
Groupe de travail sur la detention arbitraire, a informé le Gouvernement qu'elle avait reçu des
renseignements concernant la situation de deux membres de l'ASADHO, Mile Jeanne Bilonda et
M. Hubert Tshiswaka. Le 14 mai 2001, M Jeanne Bilonda et M. Hubert Tshiswaka auraient été
arrêtés a Lubumbashi (province du Katanga) a leur bureau avant d'être conduits a la Direction
provinciale de l'ANR, oU ils auraient été détenus. Selon les informations reçues, aucun mandat
d'arrestation n'aurait été présenté et aucun motif d'arrestation invoqué. Selon les informations
reçues, ces deux personnes auraient été arrêtées en raison de leurs activités dans le domaine de la
promotion et de la protection des droits de l'homme.
139. Par un appel urgent date du 8juin 2001, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le
Rapporteur special sur la République démocratique du Congo et le Président-Rapporteur du
Groupe de travail sur la detention arbitraire, a informé le Gouvernement qu'elle avait reçu des
renseignements concernant l'arrestation de M. N'Sii Luanda, Président du Comité des
observateurs des droits de l'homme (CODHO), une organisation de defense des droits de
l'homme dont le role est de porter assistance aux personnes incarcérées. Selon les informations
reçues, M. N'Sii Luanda aurait été interpellé le Sjuin 2001 par des éléments des services de
sécurité. Ii aurait été acheminé ala Direction générale de l'ANR, dans la commune de la Gombe,
oU il aurait été détenu. Selon les informations transmises, le Président du CODHO avait du se
rendre les 2 et 4 juin 2001 a la Detection militaire des activités antipatrie (DEMIAP-extérieure),
oU il aurait été interrogé sur les activités de son organisation. Ii serait reproché a
M. N'Sii Luanda d'être en contact avec des suspects qui porteraient atteinte ala süreté de l'Etat.
Le Président du CODHO n'aurait par ailleurs pas eu accès a un avocat depuis son arrestation.
140. Le 15 juin 2001, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le Rapporteur special sur
la République démocratique du Congo, a transmis un appel urgent concernant M. Robert Ilunga
Numbi, Président de l'organisation <
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 63
présentés au domicile de M. Ilunga Numbi, a Kinshasa, et l'auraient contraint a les suivre.
Le Président de 1'ANMDH aurait par la suite été conduit au Conseil national de sécurité.
Le motif de son arrestation demeure inconnu. Par ailleurs aucun mandat d'arrêt n'aurait été
présenté.
141. Par un appel urgent date du 17 aoüt 2001, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec
le Rapporteur special sur la torture, le Rapporteur special sur la Republique démocratique
du Congo et le President-Rapporteur du Groupe de travail sur la detention arbitraire, a informé
le Gouvernement qu'elle avait reçu des renseignements concernant l'arrestation et la detention au
secret de Constant Thsibadi Matambwa Kadinga, président local des Forces novatrices pour
l'union et la solidarite (FONUS), parti politique d'opposition, et des menaces d'arrestation
contre son épouse, M Edonbo Kalombo Maguy. Selon l'information reçue, le 28juillet 2001,
une vingtaine de policiers auraient arrêté M. Kadinga a son domicile de Kinshasa sans mandat
d'arrêt. Ils lui auraient présenté des tracts appelant a une marche pour la paix et la solidarite en
soutien au <
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 64
Communications received
144. By letter dated 2 October 2001, the Government of the Dominican Republic informed the
Special Representative that Father Ruquoy was being given police protection and that the
competent authorities would conduct a thorough investigation into the threats received by him.
Observations
145. The Special Representative thanks the Government for its reply.
ECUADOR
Communications sent
146. On 3 April 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, sent an urgent appeal regarding members of the
human rights organization QUITOGAY and of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered
(LGBT) community, who reportedly received an e-mail on 23 March 2001 in the QUITOGAY
office in Quito mentioning that “a total social cleansing in all the QUITOGAY sector” was going
to be carried out. Although the threat was directed to QUITOGAY and to LGTB people in
Quito, the message allegedly referred to a “social cleansing of the whole country”. These threats
came at a time when police officers had allegedly tortured and threatened to kill LGTB people.
147. On 25 July 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal regarding
Mr. Alexis Ponce, national spokesperson of the Asamblea Permanente de Derechos Humanos
del Ecuador, who was the victim of harassment by police officers in Quito airport
on 22 July 2001 and forced to abandon attending a conference due to take place in Spain.
Previously, in 1999, Mr. Alexis Ponce was reportedly seriously threatened in retaliation for the
active role he plays in the field of human rights and to have received anonymous threatening
phone calls.
148. On 6 August 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal, jointly with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, regarding a number of
Ecuadorian human rights organizations which reportedly received death threats via e-mail
on 30 July 2001. The e-mail was addressed to the Fundacion Regional de AsesorIa en Derechos
Humanos (IINREDH) and copied to Frente Ecuatoriano de Derechos Humanos (FEDHU),
Comité Andino de Servicio (CAS/AFSC) and Servicio de Paz y Justicia (SERPAJ). The e-mail
specifically mentioned the names of Mr. Pablo de la Vega, coordinator of the Centro de
Documentación en Derechos Humanos “Segundo Montes Mozo SJ”, Ms. Elsie Monje, Director
of the Comisión Ecuménica de Derechos Humanos (CEDHU), Ms. Ines Espinoza,
Ms. Teresa Orrego, Ms. Yanet Yanez and Mr. Jhonny Jiménez, President of SERPAJ. It was
alleged that the message called human rights defenders drug traffickers and accused them of
organizing ideological centres financed by Cuba, China and Russia. It has been further reported
that the threat was reportedly directed at the entire human rights community in Ecuador.
According to the information received, those responsible for these acts are members of a newly
created paramilitary organization named Legion Blanca.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 65
Observations
149. The Special Representative regrets that no reply from the Government has been received
so far.
EGYPT
Communications sent
150. On 11 January 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal regarding Law 153
of 1999, “Law on Civil Associations and Institutions”. This law was allegedly found to be null
and void for procedural reasons by the Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court on 3 June 2000.
According to the source, the Government intended to reintroduce the law in accordance with the
constitutional requirements. It was alleged that Law 153 of 1999 violated the right to freedom of
opinion and expression and the right to peaceful assembly as guaranteed by various international
instruments. Several of its articles were allegedly hampering or prohibiting the work of NGOs in
their function as human rights defenders. Concerns have also been expressed regarding
sanctions against individuals who engage in human rights work without the approval of the
Government.
151. On 15 January 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal concerning
Saadeddin Ibrahim, an independent human rights activist, professor of Political Sociology at the
American University in Cairo and director of the Ibn Khaldoun Centre for Development Studies.
On 30 June 2000, the State security investigation bureau allegedly arrested him and some of his
documents were confiscated. At the same time, another force from the state security
investigation bureau reportedly raided the Ibn Khaldoun Centre and the Women's Voters'
Support Centre and confiscated a number of account files, computer disks, computers, pamphlets
and a safe. Mr. Ibrahim and 27 other individuals reportedly faced charges ranging from
accepting foreign funds without government authorization to compiling false reports about
domestic conditions. Concern has been expressed that if found guilty, Mr. Ibrahim may be sent
to jail for 15 years. It has been alleged by the source that the case against Mr. Ibrahim was
“fabricated” and “politically motivated” since the charges reportedly resulted from his work as a
human rights defender and his intention to set up a watchdog committee to monitor
parliamentary elections.
152. On 18 May 2001, the Special Representative sent another urgent appeal concerning
Saadeddin Ibrahim. According to the sources, Saadeddin Ibrahim's defence counsel had been
denied copies of the documents containing the prosecution's case, and was only allowed to see
these documents for three hours in April 2001. It was reported that the prosecution's case had
almost 300 pages, and therefore Mr. Ibrahim's lawyers could not adequately prepare their
defence. According to the information received, Saadeddin Ibrahim has been charged under
article 80 (d) (1) of the Penal Code with “disseminating tendentious rumours with the purpose of
undermining Egypt's reputation”. It was reported that this matter is being brought before a
Supreme State Security Court, whose verdicts can only be challenged before the Court of
Cassation on procedural grounds, but not before a higher appeal court on the substance of the
case. It was further reported that some of the charges against Saadeddin Ibrahim, in particular
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 66
those alleging the acceptance of foreign funds without government authorization, relate to
projects funded by the European Commission aimed at promoting participation in the elections.
153. On 22 May 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal, jointly with the
Special Rapporteur on the independence ofjudges and lawyers, concerning the conviction
on 21 May 2001 of Saadeddin Ibrahim to seven years imprisonment. It is further reported
that 27 co-defendants, most of whom are members of the Ibn Khaldoun Centre or the Egyptian
Women Voters' Support Centre, received prison terms ranging from one to seven years.
According to the information received, the charges against Saadeddin Ibrahim relate entirely to
his activities as a human rights defender. On 25 May 2001, the Special Representative, jointly
with the Special Rapporteur on the independence ofjudges and lawyers, issued a press release in
which they expressed their deep concern to the Government of Egypt over the trial and
conviction of Saadeddin Ibrahim and 27 co-defendants by the Supreme State Security Court
on 21 May 2001.
154. On 6 June 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
violence against women and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, sent
an urgent appeal regarding Nawal El Saadawi, a writer and eminent defender of women's rights.
According to the information received, legal proceedings have been launched in order to annul
on the grounds of apostasy the 37-year marriage of Nawal El Saadawi and her husband,
Sheriff Hetata, reportedly on the basis of an interview with Nawal El Saadawi published by the
Egyptian weekly newspaper “Al Midan” on 6 March 2001, according to which she was critical
of certain religious practices. It has been reported that Ms. El Saadawi's statements, which
related to historical facts and to her views on the wearing of the veil by women, polygamy and
the inequality of women with regard to inheritance law, were misquoted by the newspaper.
According to the source, a lawyer named Nabih El Wahch lodged a complaint before the General
Prosecutor and the Cairo Court for Personal Status Affairs, accusing her of contempt of Islam
and asking for her separation from her husband.
155. On 8 August 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal concerning the
alleged harassment of Mrs. Sammah Hamid Ali and of members of her family by the Egyptian
police in Helwan. According to the information received, they have been the target of a series of
abuses, including threats, beatings, arbitrary arrests and detention, committed by members of the
Helwan police investigation station. Fears have been expressed that these incidents have been
motivated by Mrs. Hamid Ali's involvement in the ongoing trial of the policeman accused of
having tortured to death her husband, Mr. Fathi Abd El Monem, in the Helwan police station
in 1994. For instance, on 4 May 2001, the police reportedly went to Mrs. Hamid Ali's house in
order to arrest her and confiscated pieces of furniture and ordered the men to take off all of their
clothes except their underwear. The police reportedly took Mrs. Hamid Ali to her son's house,
where they arrested him, ordered him to strip down to his underwear and made Mrs. Hamid Ali
and her son walk down the street without their clothes on, in order to humiliate them. According
to the information received, Mrs. Hamid Ali visited the Helwan prosecutors' office on 12 May,
in order to register a complaint about the aforementioned abuses. She was told to return the
following day, at which time the prosecutor ordered her to go to the police station, in order to
retrieve some of the items confiscated from her home by the police. However, when she went to
the police station, the prosecutor's order was ignored and she was detained at the police station
for three days, until 15 May.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 67
156. On 10 August 2001, the Special Representative transmitted an allegationjointly with the
Special Rapporteur on torture regarding Carsten Jurgensen, a researcher at the International
Secretariat of Amnesty International in London. He was reportedly assaulted by four
plainclothes men, believed to have been security police officers or to have been acting with
the complicity of security police officers. This occurred when he was visiting the polling
station of the Khalid Ben al-Walid school in the parliamentary election district of
Shubra al-Khaima/Da'irat al-Ula on 14 November 2000 as part of a fact-finding mission to
Egypt. His belongings, including a video camera, were said to have been initially seized but
were later returned to him, with the exception of his mobile phone, videotape and camera film.
Communications received
157. By letter sent on 19 January 2001, the Government replied to the urgent appeal sent
on 15 January 2001. The Government stated that the details of the Professor Ibrahim's court
case were public knowledge, that the hearings were being conducted with transparency, and that
a number of local and international observers were being allowed to witness the proceedings.
The Government informed the Special Representative that Professor Ibrahim was being tried by
a court of law which comprised independent civil judges, and its verdict could be appealed.
158. By letter of 19 July 2001 the Government replied to the urgent appeal sent jointly
on 22 May 2001, with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers. The
Government asserted that the Supreme State Security Court consisted of civilian judges who
enjoyed full independence and that all accused persons had the right to appeal against procedural
or substantive aspects of a judgement. The Government informed the Special Representative
that the charges against Dr. Saad ed-Din Ibrahim were: receipt of funds from foreign bodies
without obtaining authorization from the competent authority; criminal conspiracy with a view to
bribery and appropriation, by deception and fraudulent means, of an amount of money belonging
to the European Union through the presentation of falsified documents designed to mislead the
Union into believing in the existence of a bogus project. The Government stated that none of the
charges brought against Dr. Saad ed-Din Ibrahim were of a political nature or related to his right
to freedom of opinion and expression. According to the Government, all the litigation
procedures had been observed, the defence had had free and full access to all the documents in
the case file and all the witnesses called by the defence had been summoned. The Government
added that the court had had almost a full year in which to study the case file. The Government
informed the Special Representative that no executive authority had the right to order the release
of Dr. Saad ed-Din Ibrahim before a court judgment had been handed down.
159. By letter of2l August 2001, the Government replied to the allegation transmitted jointly
with the Special Rapporteur on torture on 10 August 2001. The Government stated that
Mr. Carsten Jurgensen had failed to draw up a report on the incident, which made its follow-up
difficult in the absence of a written statement confirming the injuries, describing the assailants
and indicating whether the persons present at the time were members of the police, so that they
could be called to account, or whether their task was confined to supervision of the delivery of
the ballot boxes. The Government affirmed that if Mr. Jurgensen had drawn up a report, it
would have been possible to pursue the investigation and apprehend and prosecute the assailants
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 68
if he had so desired. The Government stated that if Mr. Jurgensen had notified the Egyptian
authorities of his intention to visit the electoral commissions, a special guard would have been
assigned to protect him.
160. By letter of 23 August 2001, the Government replied to the urgent appeal sent
on 8 August 2001 concerning the case of Mrs. Sammah Hamid Ali. The Government affirmed
that Mrs. Sammah Hamid Ali was the mother of a citizen called Yassir Fathi El Bab Abd
El Monem Sha'ban who had previously been indicted on 18 counts of theft and affray and who
had recently assaulted a citizen by the name of Abd El Rahman Awd Timam. According to the
Government, the Helwan police, acting on a warrant issued by the Department of Public
Prosecutions, arrested Yassir Fathi El Bab Abd El Monem Sha'ban, who confessed to the crime.
The Department of Public Prosecutions ordered that he should be detained pending further
investigation. The Government stated that the inquiries showed that the allegations which
Mrs. Sammah Hamid Ali had made against the Helwan police were totally unfounded and that
she had made those complaints in order to discredit police officers in the hope of preventing
legal action being taken against her son.
Observations
161. The Special Representative thanked the Government of Egypt for the detailed replies
provided. Despite the fact that no reply from the Government was received concerning the case
of Ms. Nawal El Saadaoui, the Special Representative had been informed that on 30 July 2001
the case was dismissed for procedural reasons. The Special Representative would like to be kept
informed of the latest developments concerning the case of Mrs. Sammah Hamid Ali.
Furthermore, the Special Representative would like to express particular concern over the case of
Dr. Saad ed-Din Ibrahim and his 27 co-defendants, particularly at the use of the State Security
Court instead of courts of ordinary jurisdiction, the limited access for defence lawyers to
prosecutorial documents and the speed with which the verdict was reportedly reached. The
Special Representative considers that the conviction of these members of civil society for their
human rights activities will have a chilling effect on the activities of other human rights
defenders in Egypt. The Special Representative notes, with particular concern, the use of laws
that could restrict access to resources for the promotion and protection of human rights and could
be used for penalizing human rights defenders for soliciting, receiving and utilizing funds for
this human rights activity. Finally, the Special Representative recalls that, in a letter
dated 27 April 2001, she indicated her interest in visiting Egypt and hopes that the Government
will give positive consideration to this request.
EQUATORIAL GUINEA
Communication sent
162. On 11 May 2001, the Special Representative transmitted an allegation to the effect that
the right of association of human rights defenders in Equatorial Guinea was seriously restricted.
According to the information received, a law passed in 1999 regulating the activities of NGOs
and defining their possible areas of work, makes no reference to the promotion and protection of
human rights. As a consequence, some people consider that any organization which aims to
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 69
promote or protect human rights is engaging in illegal activities. Furthermore, the Special
Representative has been informed that human rights organizations that have applied for legal
recognition are still waiting for their case to be considered by the authorities. Such applications
reportedly date back to 1994. It has also been reported that as a consequence of the authorities'
denial of authorization to establish human rights organizations, any defence of human rights can
and is only performed exclusively by opposition parties. The Special Representative is
concerned that these factors do not allow for an open dialogue within the civil society on human
rights issues.
Observations
163. No reply from the Government has been received so far.
ETHIOPIA
Communications sent
164. On 17 May 2001, the Special Representative sent jointly with the Chairman-Rapporteur
of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention an urgent appeal concerning Professor Mesfin
Woldemariam, member of the executive committee and former Secretary-General of the
Ethiopian Human Rights Council (EHRCO), and Dr. Berhanu Nega, the President of the
non-governmental Ethiopian Economic Association and supporter of EHRCO, who were
reportedly detained by the police on 8 May 2001 in Addis Ababa and held without charge in
Makalawi State Prison. According to the information received, both were accused of “inciting
students to violence” during a meeting that was hosted by Addis Ababa University
on 8 April 2001. The authorities alleged that this meeting led to student protests in Addis Ababa
a month earlier, while the information received indicates that the topic of discussion at the
meeting was human rights and academic freedom. Furthermore, it has been reported that, on the
morning of 8 May 2001, the offices of EHRCO in Addis Ababa were placed under guard by
armed police officers, which made it impossible for the staff to carry out their work and which
intimidated visitors. It was reported that when the staff of EHRCO came to the offices
on 9 May 2001, the police informed them that the offices were shut.
165. On 18 September 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on violence against women, sent an urgent appeal regarding the Ethiopian Women Law
Association (EWLA) based in Addis Ababa, which was reportedly forced to suspend its
activities on 31 August 2001. It has been reported that, on 3 September 2001, EWLA received a
decision from the Ministry of Justice which mentioned that EWLA “has been found out acting
beyond its mandate and the Code of Conduct Guidelines” and “is hereby suspended as
of 30 August 2001 until further notice”. It was alleged that this decision was connected to
demonstrations organized by EWLA, in February 2001, in front of the office of Prime Minister
Meles Zenawi and the Parliament, in which some 1,000 women protested violence against
women, calling for stricter laws against rape and sexual abuse and more effective law
enforcement. According to the information received, another factor leading to the Government's
decision was the involvement of EWLA in a recent case concerning a girl, Hermela Wosenyeleh,
who was reportedly continually harassed by a young man and could not get adequate police
protection. According to the information received, as a result of the suspension, all the activities
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 70
of EWLA have been suspended and some 50 of its employees have had to be laid off. All the
casework carried out by EWLA lawyers in the courts has reportedly been interrupted. It has
been further reported that four girls under the care of the association and for whom it was paying
school fees have interrupted their education because its bank account has been frozen.
Communications received
166. By letter dated 25 May 2001, the Government informed the Special Representative that
Professor Mesfin Woldemariam and Dr. Berhanu Nega were under police custody in connection
with their suspected incitement of the Addis Ababa University students to violent action. The
Government stated that the Federal Police had undertaken a thorough investigation and had
discovered that Professor Mesfin Woldemariam and Dr. Berhanu Nega had made inflammatory
statements inciting the students to violent action at a meeting held on 8 April 2001. According
to the Government, the police had asserted that they had solid evidence that the meeting had led
the students to take violent mob action, starting on the day after the meeting and resulting in the
destruction of government and private property, the death of 31 individuals and injury
to 253 persons. The Federal Police had detained Professor Mesfin Woldemariam and
Dr. Berhanu Nega on a court warrant on 8 May 2001 and brought them before the 5th Criminal
Division of the Federal High Court on 9 May 2001. The Government informed the Special
Representative that the Federal High Court had refused their release on bail in order to give the
Federal Police more time to investigate. The Government added that the offices of EHRCO
were searched under a court order in relation to the suspected involvement of Professor Mesfin
Woldemariam and Dr. Berhanu Nega in the instigation of the mob action. According to the
Government, upon the appeal of EHRCO, the order was clarified by the Federal High Court
on 12 May 2001, to the effect that the search and seizure were restricted to material evidence
incriminating the two suspects of the act of instigating the students to take violent action. The
Government assured the Special Representative that no employee of the office or any visitor had
been harassed or intimidated.
Observations
167. The Special Representative thanked the Government for its reply to her
communication dated 17 May 2001. The Special Representative had also been informed that
on 17 October 2001 the Ministry of Justice lifted the suspension imposed on EWLA. The
Special Representative also welcomed the release on bail on 5 June 2001 of Professor
Mesfin Woldemariam and Dr. Berhanu Nega. The Special Representative, remained concerned,
however, with regard to the situation of the two human rights defenders and about the charges on
which they await trial.
GEORGIA
Communication sent
168. On 9 May 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, sent an urgent appeal concerning
Ms. Nana Kakabadze, the director of Former Political Prisoners for Human Rights, a human
rights NGO working on prison conditions in Georgia. It has been reported that, on 4 May 2001,
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 71
Mr. Demiko Devnozashvili, chief of Isolation Ward No. 5, a pre-trial detention facility in Thilisi,
called Ms. Nana Kakabadze and threatened to “extinguish her physically”. It has been
reported that this situation is connected to the publication on 3 May 2001 of an interview with
Ms. Nana Kakabadze in the newspaper “Alia” in which she criticized the overcrowding in
Isolation Ward No. 5 in Tbilisi.
Observations
169. The Special Representative regrets that at the time of the finalization of this report the
Government had not transmitted any reply to her communication.
GUATEMALA
Communications sent
170. On 8 December 2000, the Special Representative transmitted allegations regarding the
following cases.
171. According to the information received, on 1 August 2000, Mr. Celso Balan Argueta, a
representative for Centro de Acción Legal en Derechos Humanos (CALDH) was reportedly
detained, robbed, drugged and left unconscious by two unidentified men. He was reportedly
interrogated for several hours about the exhumation of the mass grave of the victims of murders
at Chipastor, Chimaltenango and, in particular, about the process of identifying those responsible
for these murders. It has been alleged that Mr. Balan's attackers are linked to those responsible
for the murders at Chipastor and that the orders to attack him or to commit the murders may have
come from army personnel at the Chimaltenango military base.
172. It has been reported that, on 4 September 2000, heavily armed men raided the offices of
two human rights organizations, Familiares de Detenidos y Desaparecidos de Guatemala
(FAMDEGUA) and Hijos por la Identidad y la Justicia contra el Olvido y la Jmpunidad (HIJOS)
in Guatemala City and assaulted the staff of both organizations. It has also been reported that the
assailants stayed for an hour, threatening staff members with death. The assailants reportedly
stole the organizations' computers containing records of human rights cases under investigation,
other office equipment and a vehicle. It has been alleged that this act of intimidation was
committed by members of the Guatemalan armed forces and that military intelligence agencies
were also involved.
173. According to information received, on 24 October 2000 five armed men entered the
office of Asociación Mujer Vamos Adelante (AMVA), an organization working for the
promotion of women's rights and against violence against women. It has been reported
that 15 women were reportedly forced into a room and locked in it, and that the attackers
subsequently raped a young woman before leaving. Computers and documents were also stolen.
174. On 24 January 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on the independence
ofjudges and lawyers, sent an urgent appeal regarding Mr. Mynor Melga, a high-profile human
rights lawyer working for the Oficina de Derechos Humanos del Arzobispado de Guatemala
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 72
(ODHAG), who has reportedly received death threats. On 22 December 2000, two unidentified
armed men called at Mr. Mynor Melga's home. Mr. Melga was ordered to the bathroom at
gunpoint. The two men told his wife and his two sons that this was only a warning. It has been
reported that the incident happened only two days after Mynor Melga publicly announced that
ODHAG was preparing to charge retired General Efrain Rios Montt with genocide.
175. On 21 March 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal concerning a
group of unidentified men who, on 12 March 2001, reportedly raided the offices of the
Centro de Estudios, Informacion y Bases para la Acción Social (CEIBAS), stealing equipment,
including the organization's computers. This act of harassment is the third incident suffered by
the organization since February 2000. It has been reported that CEIBAS lodged a complaint
before the Tribunales de Justicia, the Public Prosecutor, the ProcuradurIa de los Derechos
Humanos and the National Civil Police.
176. On 10 May 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions sent an urgent appeal regarding
Mr. Urias Bautista Orozco, chief of the Human Rights Procurator's Auxiliary Office (PDH)
in the department of Solola, as well as other members of the organization, who
reportedly received threatening phone calls warning them to stop investigating the killing of
Mr. Teodoro Saloj Panjoj, who had been taking part in a demonstration about land reform. The
police had apparently refused to pursue the person responsible for the killing. Since then
workers at the office have reportedly been intimidated repeatedly by police and others have
received threatening phone calls. According to the information received, the PDH workers
were being intimidated because they tried to publicize their findings in the case of
Mr. Teodoro Saloj Panjoj and because they are still acting as mediators in the land disputes.
177. On 15 May 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal regarding
Ms. Aura Elean Farfán and Mr. Luis Aldana, members of the Associación of the Familiares de
Detenidos y Desaparecidos de Guatemala (FAMDEGUA). Both were reportedly abducted
on 4 May 2001 by two armed men who took control of their car and drove off. They were
reportedly threatened that they would be killed if they screamed or sought to attract help.
Their identity documents were reportedly inspected and they were questioned about their
work and about FAMDEGUA. Some 45 minutes later, the two unidentified men released
Ms. Aura Elean Farfán and Mr. Luis Aldana in a different part of the city and drove away in
the FAMDEGUA car. On 8 December 2000, the Special Representative transmitted an
allegation to the Government about the raid on the offices shared by FAMDEGUA and HIJOS
on 4 September 2000 by unidentified armed men.
178. On 31 July 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint urgent appeal with
the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding
Mr. Anselmo Roldán, president of the Asociación Justicia y Reconciliacion (AJR), and also
president and legal representative of the Asociación de Defensa de los Derechos Humanos del
Area Ixcán (ADDHAI). Mr. Roldan was reportedly attacked on 22 July 2001 with a knife by a
male resident of the Cuarto Pueblo community, Playa Grande, Ixcán. The attacker had
reportedly repeatedly threatened Mr. Roldan and other witnesses who are filing lawsuits
against Guatemalan military officers for genocide during the civil war. According to the
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 73
information received, the attacker fled to a nearby house belonging to members of the ruling
Frente Republicano Guatemalteco (FRG) party, which is led by retired General RIos Montt, the
current president of Congress. No order for the attacker's arrest has been issued, despite
Mr. Roldán reporting the incident to the authorities, including the police and the local State
prosecutor's office, on the day of the attack. Members of the AJR have reported other incidents,
including surveillance by soldiers dressed in civilian clothes, threats and attempts to break into
the homes of the family members of witnesses.
179. On 15 August 2001, the Special Representative transmitted an allegation letterjointly
with the Special Rapporteur on torture on the basis of new information received regarding the
case of Mr. Celso Balan, which was already transmitted on 8 December 2000. According to the
source, on 1 August 2000, unknown men drove Mr. Celso Balán to the office of Centro de
Acción Legal en Derechos Humanos (CALDH), where he was allegedly beaten and the office
searched. Mr. Celso Balan was forced to swallow a sedative and lost consciousness. He was
found two days later in the local cemetery. The ill-treatment had allegedly caused him neuralgic,
physical, psychological and emotional problems for which he has been under treatment.
According to the doctors, the sedative could have caused paralysis and death.
180. On 30 August 2001, the Special Representative transmitted an urgent appeal concerning
Mr. Fernando Rafael Bancés Escobar, an activist of the organization “Colectivo Gay-Lésbico”
and a member of the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca. On 19 August 2001,
Mr. Fernando Rafael Bancés Escobar and his friends Juan Luis Telon and Franz Alvaro were
reportedly intercepted by a national civil police officer who asked him the reasons why they
were laughing at him. The policeman backed up by other officers reportedly threw
Mr. Fernando Rafael Bancés Escobar on the ground and hit him. Afterwards, they checked his
identity card and left. According to the information received, these facts were reported to the
Oficina de Responsibilidad Profesional of the National Civil Police and Mr. Bancés Escobar was
examined by a forensic doctor, who certified his injuries. It was further reported that no action
was taken by the police to identify those responsible for the violation. This incident was
allegedly connected with the activities of Mr. Fernando Rafael Bancés Escobar for the Colectivo
Gay-Lésbico and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca party.
181. On 25 September 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on the
independence ofjudges and lawyers, sent an urgent appeal regarding alleged threatening phone
calls received by Mr. Waldemar Barrera, Assistant Procurator for Human Rights, in connection
with the investigation by the Procurator General's Office regarding the extrajudicial execution of
ajournalist, Mr. Jorge AlegrIa. It has been reported that Mr. Waldemar Barrera, in charge of the
investigation, reportedly disclosed publicly the names of those responsible for the murder. He
was reportedly threatened by phone and ordered to stop his investigation into the murder and to
refrain from making another public statement. In a press release, the Procurator for Human
Rights, Mr. Julio Arango, reportedly asked the Ministry of the Interior to guarantee
Mr. Waldemar Barrera's safety. The Procurator reportedly stated that Mr. AlegrIa's murder had
been politically motivated and that the authorities of the municipality of Puerto Barrios and
San Tomas de Castilla were responsible for Mr. AlegrIa's murder.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 74
182. On 5 October 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, sent an urgent appeal
concerning threats and intimidation affecting Mr. Hector Dionicio Godinez, Coordinator of
Casa Alianza's legal aid Programme. It has been reported that on 10 September 2001 a car tried
several times to force Mr. Dionicio Godinez off the freeway. On 10 and 25 September 2001,
Mr. Dionicio Godinez reportedly received threatening phone calls at his home and on his cell
phone. In addition, on 26 September 2001, two unidentified men in civilian clothes allegedly
broke into and tried to steal the Casa Alianza vehicle. According to the information received,
this series of threats is connected with the suit brought by Casa Alianza before the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Costa Rica. In this case, Casa Alianza was pressuring
the Government of Guatemala to pay a half a million dollar settlement to the families of five
street children who were tortured and murdered by two Guatemalan policemen in 1990.
183. On 19 October 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal concerning the
alleged intimidation suffered by Ms. Ruth Carrido, coordinator of the Sister Parish Centre, a
church organization which offers assistance and shelter to indigenous peasants. According to the
information received, during a meeting between the indigenous communities and the Centre for
Legal Action in Human Rights held in the Sister Parish Centre from 11 to 13 October 2001,
members of the Centre reportedly noted phone interference, while Ms. Ruth Carrido reportedly
received threatening phone calls in her office and at home. In addition, on 14 October 2001,
Ms. Ruth Carrido found the doors of the office had been opened and confidential documents and
computer materials stolen.
184. On 19 October 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal concerning
Ms. Matilde Leonor Gonzalez Izas, a member of the Centro de Estudios para el Avance de las
Ciencias Sociales (AVANSCO), who has reportedly been kept under surveillance and has
received a number of threatening telephone calls in connection with research and information she
had published on the new mechanisms used by the military to maintain local power in
San Bartolomé Jocotenango in the department of El Quiche and in San Idelfonso Ixhahuacan.
On 2 October 2001, a man reportedly entered Ms. Leonor Gonzalez Izas' house and stole her
lap-top computer containing information on her research on San Bartolomé and San Idelfonso.
On 18 October 2001, she lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor.
185. On 8 November 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions sent an urgent appeal regarding
Mr. Javier Méndez Games, assistant human rights procurator in Coatepeque in Quetzaltenango
department, as well as other members of his office. According to the information received,
on 5 October 2001, unidentified assailants broke into the offices of Mr. Javier Méndez Games in
Coatepeque, Quetzaltenango department. Nothing was reportedly stolen but the office's car was
destroyed. In addition, Mr. Javier Méndez Games reportedly received threatening phone calls.
These threats are reportedly linked to the activities carried out by the office of the human rights
procurator, such as investigating and denouncing corruption in State institutions in
Quetzaltenango and in the national police.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 75
Communications received
186. By letter dated 18 December 2000, the Government of Guatemala informed the Special
Representative about the cases of Asociación Mujer Vamos Adelante (AMVA) and of
Mr. Celso Balan Argueta. Regarding the AMVA case, the Government reported that
information would be sent as soon as possible. Concerning Mr. Balán Argueta, further
information was sent by the Government in a letter dated 12 October 2001 in which the
Government reported that the investigation has been in the hands of prosecution service No. 1 of
the Chimaltenango Public Prosecutor's Office and the criminal investigation service of the
National Civil Police. As for prosecutions, the Government informed the Special Representative
that the perpetrators had not yet been identified. On 11 December 2000, the prosecution service
had pointed out that the file had been provisionally closed on 21 October 2000, as it had not been
possible to identify anyone involved, although photofit pictures had been produced. In addition,
the Government indicated that upon learning of what happened to Mr. Balan, the National Civil
Police had provided him with appropriate protection and no further moves against him had been
reported since then. The file on the case had been provisionally shelved, but if any new
information led to the identification of any assailants, it would be brought to the attention of the
Special Representative.
187. The Government sent a reply on 14 March 2001 regarding the case of Mr. Mynor Melga,
which was transmitted by the Special Representative on 24 January 2001. The Government
stated that the Identity Card Office's report on the fingerprint analysis indicated that they were
all those of Mr. Hugo Antonio Arias Monzón, who has a record of arrest for various criminal
offences. As a result, on 5 February 2001, the Fifth Chamber of the Criminal Court of First
Instance issued a warrant for the arrest of the main suspect on the charge of aggravated robbery.
According to the Government, the Robbery Squad has kept the residences registered in the main
suspect's name under surveillance with a view to serving a warrant. Once it has done so, the
suspect will immediately be brought before the court that issued the warrant so that he may be
charged with the corresponding criminal offence. Specific instructions have been issued to the
Robbery Squad of the Criminal Investigation Service to take all necessary lawful action to arrest
the suspect and thus enable a final report to be established on the case.
188. By letter dated 7 April 2001, the Government of Guatemala informed the Special
Representative concerning the case of the Centro de Estudios, Informacion y Bases
para la Acción Social (CEIBAS), which was transmitted by the Special Representative
on 21 March 2001. On 29 March 2001, Comisión Presidencial Coordinadora de la PolItica del
Ejecutivo en Materia de Derechos Humanos (COPREDEH) officials visited CEIBAS
headquarters and talked to Ms. Yolanda Estreda, the secretary of the organization. She said that
when she had arrived at work on 12 March 2001 she had found that the offices had been raided
and that the intruders had stolen office and computer equipment. The Government further
reported that, on 13 March 2001, a complaint was submitted to the Administrative Centre for
Crime Management. The First Court of Criminal Proceedings and Environmental Offences
transferred the complaint to the Public Prosecutor's Office since it involved a punishable act and
not a habeas corpus action as the petition stated. According to the Government, security
measures were in the hands of Police Station No. 3, which covered the area in which the
headquarters of CEIBAS are located. The CEIBAS staff told COPREDEH officials that they did
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 76
not want bodyguards, patrols of the premises being sufficient. COPREDEH requested both the
Attorney-General and the Director of the National Civil Police to expedite such procedures as
might be necessary to ensure the efficient investigation of the incidents and to prevent any others
that might in any way adversely affect CEIBAS personnel.
189. Por carta de fecha 13 de diciembre de 2001, el Gobierno de Guatemala informó respecto
al caso del Sr. Waldemar Barrera. El Gobierno establecio que el Sr. Waldemar Barrera no ha
presentado denuncia por las amenazas de que fuera objeto ante ningUn órgano y que no desea
que las autoridades le brinden seguridad. No obstante, el Gobierno aseguró que de manera
periodica se realizaban rondas en las cercanIas de la sede de la Auxiliatura Departamental.
190. Por carta de fecha 19 de diciembre de 2001, el Gobierno de Guatemala informó respecto
al caso de la Sra. Matilde Gonzalez Izás. El Gobierno indico que por el momento se están
investigando las placas de los vehiculos que fueron denunciados en este caso. Asimismo, el
Gobierno establecio que en varias oportunidades se ha tenido comunicación, por via telefonica,
para establecer la forma de brindarle la seguridad que es necesaria para proteger la vida e
integridad de la Sra. Gonzalez Izás y de su familia, pero no se ha tenido respuesta alguna, ya que
las reuniones establecidas por via telefonica no se han podido concretar.
191. Por carta fechada 27 de diciembre de 2001, el Gobierno de Guatemala informó respecto
al caso del Sr. Gilberto Gómez Limón. El Gobierno aseguró que la agresión fue consecuencia de
un problema entre particulares y sin trasfondo politico, y que el agresor fue consignado por los
agentes de la Policia Nacional Civil después de ser esposado.
Observations
192. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Guatemala for its detailed replies.
Following her request to visit Guatemala sent on 27 April 2001, an official invitation was
extended to the Special Representative on 17 May 2001. Several proposals as to dates were
exchanged between the Special Representative and the Government. In the end, owing to
unexpected commitments and a heavy schedule, the Special Representative was not in a position
to undertake the visit during 2001. She hopes to visit Guatemala in the course of 2002.
HAITI
Communication sent
193. On 14 November 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions sent an urgent appeal regarding the death
threats allegedly received by the National Coalition for Haitian Rights (NCHR) and the Haitian
Human Rights Organizations Platform (POHDH). According to the information received,
three members of the POHDH, Mr. Pierre Esperance, treasurer and executive director,
Mr. Serge Bordenave, secretary-general, and Mr. Jean Simon Saint-Hubert, executive secretary,
as well as Mr. Vilès Alizar, programme manager of NCHR, were reportedly victims of
intimidation and death threats received either by e-mail, by telephone or in tracts distributed in
the streets. It has been reported that these threats are connected with the publication by the
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 77
NCHR of an open letter to the Superior Council of the Haitian Police criticizing and condemning
its practices, notably its close links with the ruling party, Fanmi Lavalas, and the increasing
violations of human rights in Haiti, such as the harassment ofjournalists, activists and opposition
members.
Communication received
194. By letter dated 23 November 2001, the Government of Haiti informed the Special
Representative that the allegations of death threats received by human rights defenders were
groundless and that the State could not be held responsible. The Government of Haiti reiterated
its willingness to respect human rights and to establish a State of law. It also reaffirmed its
willingness to collaborate with the main United Nations human rights mechanisms, especially
with the special rapporteurs, who were welcome to visit the country so as to check allegations of
human rights violations.
Observations
195. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Haiti for its prompt reply but
remains concerned over the allegations that human rights defenders have received death threats.
HONDURAS
Communication sent
196. On 5 June 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions sent an urgent appeal regarding
Father Pedro Marchetti, a United States citizen who has lived and worked in the northern
region of Aguán for many years, campaigning with the Movimiento Campesino del Aguán
(MCA). According to the information received, a powerful local politician has hired gunmen to
kill the priest. Previously, in October 1998, threats to kill Father Marchetti were made, allegedly
by the same people, after he publicly stated the community's commitment to work to ensure that
those responsible for the murder of a local environmental activist, Mr. Carlos Escaleras, killed
in 1997, were brought to justice. It has also been reported that a State prosecutor has submitted
charges in court against Father Marchetti and the MCA for alleged illegal land appropriation.
Although government ministers previously acknowledged the real threat to Father Marchetti, the
authorities reportedly failed to investigate the allegations properly in order to bring those
responsible to court.
Communications received
197. By letter dated 2 July 2001, the Government of Honduras informed the Special
Representative that Father Marchetti had brought no charge before the competent court.
Nevertheless, at the request of the Office of the Secretary of State for Security, a group of
officers had been instructed to carry out the detailed investigations needed to throw light on the
source of the threats to which Father Marchetti had been subjected. The Government also
indicated that a security plan for the physical protection of Father Marchetti would be put into
effect.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 78
Observations
198. The Special Representative thanks the Government for its reply.
INDIA
Communications sent
199. The Special Representative sent an urgent appeal on 19 January 2001 regarding
Ms. Sharmila, who was reportedly arrested on 6 November 2000 on charges of attempting
to commit suicide while she was undertaking a hunger strike to protest the killing
on 2 November 2000 of 10 civilians in Malom Makha Leikai (Jmphal West district of Manipur)
and the continuing status of the State of Manipur under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act.
200. On 8 March 2001, the Special Representative transmitted an allegation jointly with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regarding Mohammad
Azam Ali, secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC), who was
reportedly killed on 18 February 2001 in Nalgonda town. According to the information
received, the killers are ex-members of an armed group linked to two men who are in custody,
accused of killing another member of APCLC, T. Purushottam. Mohammad Azam Ali was
about to attend a meeting to commemorate the death of Mr. Purushottam when he was killed. It
was alleged that despite repeated appeals, the government of Andhra Pradesh has refused to
order ajudicial inquiry into the killing of T. Purushottam in the light of alleged police
connivance with the killers of both individuals.
201. The Special Representative sent an urgent appeal on 25 July 2001 concerning a police
raid, on 7 July 2001, on the offices of the Bharosa Trust, a local organization for gay men, and of
the liaison office in Lucknow of the Naz Foundation International (NF l ), an international
development agency providing technical support for the promotion of male sexual and
reproductive health in South Asia. The police reportedly seized HIV/AIDS information and
prevention material, and arrested ArifJafar, executive director of the Bharosa Trust in Lucknow,
as well as other Trust members, namely Mohhamad Shadid, Sudhish Kumar Singh,
Parmeshwar Nayar and Pankaj Kumar. They were allegedly detained in Lucknow district jail
and charged with conspiracy to commit unnatural offences. Fears have been expressed that
evidence was planted by the police in the raids, which were conducted subsequent to the arrest
and detention of the workers. If the charges are retained against them, the members of both
organizations would face up to 10 years' imprisonment.
202. The Special Representative sent an urgent appeal on 30 July 2001 regarding the Adivasi
Tribal Land Rights Movement. According to the source, some 250 to 300 Adivasis, mostly
women and children, organized a protest march to the police station in Maharashtra, in western
India, on 25 June 2001. This march took place after a local politician, allegedly accused of
attempting to rape an Adivasi girl, was reportedly released on bail and charged by the police
station in Puntamba village, Kopargaon district, with the lesser offence of molestation. In an
ensuing scuffle involving Ms. Indu Manjare and a local assistant sub-inspector, the police
allegedly opened fire and shot dead two Adivasis leaders, Mr. Pradeep Dushing and
Mr. Indu Manjare, as well as a third, unnamed, Adivasis person. Thirty Adivasis people were
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 79
reportedly injured; 15 marchers were reportedly arrested and charged with the attempted murder
of a policeman and attempted arson. One of these marchers was Mr. John Abraham, another
Adivasi activist leader, who, according to the source, was arrested on 26 June 2001 while
enquiring about his detained wife, Ms. Rina Abraham. According the information received,
the 15 protesters were reportedly released on bail on 9 July.
203. On 14 September 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, sent an urgent appeal concerning
Dr. Gunti Ravi, state joint secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC),
based in Warangal, in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh, and Narra Purushotham Reddy,
executive member of the APCLC. They were reportedly threatened with death by police
officers. According to the information received, the Andhra Pradesh Government and police
have consistently condemned members of the APCLC and other human rights organizations in
the state as acting as a wing of the left-wing armed group, the People's War Group (PWG).
Observations
204. The Special Representative regrets that at the time of the finalization of this report the
Government had not transmitted any reply to her communications. The Special Representative
recalls that, in her communication dated 25 July 2001, she indicated her interest in visiting India
and hopes that the Government will give positive consideration to this request.
INDONESIA
Communications sent
205. On 12 December 2000, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on torture and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, sent an
urgent appeal concerning the murder on 6 December 2000 of Ms. Ernita (22), Mr. Idris (30) and
Mr. Bakhtiar (24), three humanitarian aid volunteers working with the organization
Rehabilitation Action for Torture Victims in Aceh (RATA), while they were transporting a
torture victim from the vicinity of Cot Mat Tahe village, in North Aceh, to a hospital for medical
treatment. According to the source, they were stopped by plainclothes Indonesian security forces
and, while one RATA worker managed to escape, the three others were allegedly lined up on the
road and shot in the head. It was reported that the torture victim accompanying the RATA
volunteers was also killed in this incident. It is believed that the Police Mobile Brigade (Brimob)
and the military (TNT) were involved in the killing.
206. On 23 July 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
torture and the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, sent an
urgent appeal regarding the arrest on 20 July 2001 by the Police Mobile Brigade (Brimob) of the
following persons: Rufriadi, coordinator of the Legal Aid Foundation (LBH); Arie Maulana, an
LBH staff member; Tamrin Ananda, secretary-general of the Front for the Democratic Struggle
of the Aceh People (FPDRA); Hendra, an FPDRA member; Mudal, a member of Students
Solidarity with the People (SMUR); Fazal, a SMUR member; Zamzami, a SMUR member;
Amri Saldin, a SMUR member; Banta, a member of the Coalition of Achenese Students for
Reform (KARMA); Misdawan, a member of Peoples Network for Human Rights (JRP HAM);
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 80
and Oppie, a member of Student Solidarity against Violence (SMAK). Brimob allegedly raided
the offices of the Banda Aceh branch of the Lembaga Bantuan Hukum (LBH), Legal Aid
Foundation, where a meeting was taking place to discuss arrangements for a week-long
campaign against militarism, which had begun on 16 July. During the raid, documents,
photographs, a computer and other equipment were reportedly confiscated.
207. The Special Representative sent an urgent appeal on 23 July 2001 regarding
Mr. Yohanes Bonay, director of the Institute for Human Rights Study and Advocacy (Elsham) in
Papua (Irian Jaya), who allegedly received two death threats by telephone on 18 July 2001 which
were reportedly connected with his human rights activities. It has also been reported that, in
December 2000, Mr. Bonay was summoned for questioning by police because Elsham had
publicized the deaths of students at the hands of the police.
208. On 10 August 2001, the Special Representative transmitted an allegationjointly with the
Special Rapporteur on torture concerning the following cases.
209. Anwar Yusuf, a volunteer with the human rights group Forum for the Attention of
Human Rights (Forum Peduli Hak Asasi Manusia, FPHAM), was reportedly arrested
on 7 February 1999 at his home in East Aceh by men who identified themselves as belonging to
Idi Rayeuk subdistrict Military Command (Koramil). It was reported that at the time of his
arrest, Anwar Yusuf had been investigating an incident that had occurred on 3 February 1999 in
which the military had opened fire on a crowd of unarmed civilians, killing a number of people.
It was reported that he was threatened with death and tortured during his detention in the
East Aceh district Military Command (Kodim). He was released on 10 February 2001.
210. Amrisaldin, a volunteer with an Aceh-based humanitarian organization, Save Emergency
for Aceh (SEFA), was reportedly detained by members of Brimob on 5 September 2000 during a
stop and search operation in Meukek subdistrict, South Aceh. According to the information
received, during his detention he was subjected to interrogation and to nearly five hours of
torture. He was reportedly released the following day, after having been forced to sign a letter in
which he promised not to raise the case publicly.
211. Indra P. Keumala (alias Tin), a volunteer with the Aceh branch of the Commission for
Disappearances and Victims of Violence (Kontras), a non-governmental human rights
organization, and Happy (alias Lalok), a member of the People's Crisis Center (PCC), an
Aceh-based volunteer organization which distributes aid and monitors human rights violations,
were reportedly arrested by the police on 17 July 2001, when they were returning from
Central Aceh where they had been investigating allegations of serious human rights abuses.
They were reportedly released in the evening of 18 July, after being detained and tortured for
around 24 hours.
Communications received
212. By letter dated 13 March 2001, the Government replied to the joint urgent appeal sent
on 12 December 2000. The Government affirmed that the police authority, the Aceh branch
office of the National Commission on Human Rights, and the team monitoring the Humanitarian
Pause for Aceh had carried out separate investigations into the case and listened to the testimony
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 81
of the sole surviving eyewitness, Mr. Nazaruddin Abdul Gani. The Government of Indonesia
informed the Special Representative that the authorities had detained nine suspects - four
civilians and five soldiers. The dossiers of the police investigation had been submitted to the
Prosecutors' Office in Aceh at the end of December 2000 to be processed further. According to
the Government, when the Prosecutors' Office announced its intention to prosecute the suspects
in a joint civil and military court in early January 2001, the plan was strongly opposed by the
National Commission on Human Rights on the grounds that the case constitutes a gross violation
of human rights and should therefore come under the jurisdiction of the human rights court,
which is to be established in the near future. The Government further explained that the National
Commission on Human Rights set up an investigative committee on 9 January 2001 to look into
the case. On 13 February 2001, the Commission sent a letter to the Provincial Office of the
Prosecutor of Aceh requesting the transfer of the dossiers of the police investigation on this case.
The Government assured the Special Representative that the matter of the conflicting
competence and jurisdiction of the judiciary in handling this case is expected to be settled soon.
Observations
213. In connection with the case of the three humanitarian workers of RATA, the Special
Representative fears that the dispute over the conflicting competence and jurisdiction between
Komnas HAM and the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for Aceh in this case may be used to
obstruct the case from being brought to trial. The Special Representative is also concerned over
any possibility of trial of the accused in ajoint civil and military court rather than a civilian
court. In view of the alleged involvement of members of the military in this case, the Special
Representative is concerned that the impartiality of such a tribunal could be undermined. The
Special Representative recalls that in a letter dated 27 April 2001 she indicated her interest in
visiting Indonesia and hopes that the Government will give positive consideration to this request.
IRAN
Communications sent
214. On 11 January 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal jointly with the
Special Rapporteur on the independence ofjudges and lawyers and the Special Representative on
the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning Mr. Nasser Zarafchan, a
human rights defender and lawyer. Mr. Zarafchan was reportedly arrested on 9 December 2000,
released on bail on 14 December and rearrested on 16 December by order of the Judicial
Organisation of Armed Forces. He was reportedly held in Evin prison. According to the
information received, his first arrest followed the publication of an article in an Iranian
newspaper in which he was considered an “anti-revolutionary element that ought to be deprived
of his right to practise his profession as a lawyer”. Mr. Zarafchan's second arrest was allegedly
due to his comments implying that the killings of intellectuals in 1998 were part of a campaign
by death squads aimed at silencing the opposition. Mr. Zarafchan is the second lawyer of the
families of the intellectuals murdered in 1998 against whom legal action has been taken.
215. On 17 October 2001, the Special Representative sent another urgent appeal jointly with
the Special Rapporteur on the independence ofjudges and lawyers and the Special
Representative on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 82
Mr. Nasser Zarafchan. He was reportedly accused of having revealed irregularities in the
sentence issued by a military tribunal in January 2001 concerning the murders of intellectuals
in 1998, namely the incompetence of the military tribunal to try the murderers and the fact that
the persons behind the assassinations had not been prosecuted. The trial of Mr. Zarafchan started
on 16 October 2001 at the Military Tribunal in Tehran.
Observations
216. No reply from the Government has been received so far.
ISRAEL
Communications sent
217. On 1 May 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal jointly with the Special
Rapporteur on torture and the Chairman of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
concerning Adnan al-Hajjar, a human rights lawyer and coordinator of the Legal Aid Unit of the
Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights in the Jabalia refugee camp situated in the Gaza Strip.
According to the information received, he was arrested by the Israeli Defense Forces
on 23 April 2001 and was detained in Ashkelon prison without charge. It was reported that he
was part of a group that left the Gaza Strip on 5 April 2001 to attend a training course on
legislative formulation, organized in Cairo by the Arab Research and Training Centre as part of a
programme for strengthening the capacity of the Palestinian Legislative Council. According to
the information received, on 30 April 2001, Adnan al-Hajjar appeared before the Israeli Military
Court, where the judge extended his arrest for 30 more days for investigatory purposes.
Following a request for his release, it was reported that a representative of the Israeli military
authorities objected, claiming that they had a confidential no-access file of claims against him,
but refused to tell either Adnan al-Hajjar or his lawyer about the nature or contents of the file. It
was alleged that his arrest and detention was connected to his work as a human rights activist and
defence lawyer for Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons.
218. On 1 June 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
torture, sent an urgent appeal regarding Abed al-Rahman al-Abmar, a well-known Palestinian
human rights activist, who works as a field researcher with the Palestinian Human Rights
Monitoring Group (PHRMG), a non-governmental organization working on human rights
violations against Palestinians, regardless of who is responsible, in the West Bank, the
Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. He was reportedly arrested on 24 May 2001 while he was on his
way home from Jerusalem to Deheisheh refugee camp, in the West Bank. In an interview on
Israeli television, he is said to have argued for peaceful coexistence between Jews and
Palestinians on the basis of full equality. According to the information received, he was held
without charge and without access to his family at the Moscobiyya detention centre in Jerusalem.
On 31 May 2001, he is said to have appeared in court without the presence of his lawyer, who
had allegedly not been informed about the hearing.
219. On 14 June 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
torture, sent another urgent appeal concerning Abed al-Rahman al-Ahmar. It was reported that,
at a hearing on 11 June 2001, judges at the Israeli High Court of Justice refused to examine
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 83
marks of shackles on his wrists. During the break in the hearing, prison doctors apparently
agreed the marks were made by shackles, but did not testify. In addition, the judges rejected a
petition filed by two human rights groups, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel
(PCATI) and the PHRMG, calling for a stop to the torture during interrogation, for proper
medical care and clothing to be provided to him and for him to be housed in more humane
conditions.
220. On 6 July 2001, the Special Representative sent another urgent appeal jointly with the
Special Rapporteur on torture and the Chairman of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
concerning Mr. Abed al-Rahman al-Ahmar. According to the most recent information, despite
the fact that there was allegedly no incriminating evidence against Mr. Al-Abmar, the
administrative detention order was reportedly renewed on 30 May 2001 by 20 days and
on 18 June 2001 by 15 days. Two appeals against these extensions were filed, but were rejected
on 5 and 22 June 2001 by the Military Court of Appeals in Beit El, West Bank. According to the
source, Mr. Al-Ahmar was the subject of a six-month administrative detention order, which
reportedly allows the Israeli authorities to detain him without charge or trial until February 2002.
It was reported that he was held in Megiddo prison in Israel.
221. On 17 September 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on torture, sent an urgent appeal concerning Mr. Daoud al-Dir'awi, a lawyer and human rights
activist working at the Ramallah office of the Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizen
Rights. According to the information received, Mr. al-Dir'awi was arrested on 10 September at
the Allendy Bridge crossing point, as he was returning with his wife and baby from a holiday
and crossing into the West Bank from Jordan. Mr. al-Dir'awi's arrest was allegedly motivated
by his activities as a human rights lawyer. He was reportedly taken to Shikma prison, in
Ashkelon and was interrogated by the Israeli General Security Services (GSS).
222. On 26 September 2001, the Special Representative transmitted an allegation regarding
the Israeli authorities' reportedly trying to prevent a certain number of Palestinian human rights
defenders and activists from participating in international conferences and forums. This was the
case for Dr. Eyad El-Sarraj, founder and director of the Gaza Community Mental Health
Program (GCMHP), Commissioner-General of the Palestinian Independent Commission for
Citizens' Rights and winner of the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders in 1998.
On 18 June 2001 the Israeli authorities reportedly denied him a permit to leave the country to go
to Italy to participate in an international workshop. According to the information received, on
the same day, allegedly for security reasons, the Israeli authorities are said to have banned
Dr. El-Sarraj, from leaving Gaza to take part in a television interview with the British
Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The BBC was reportedly told by the Israeli authorities that the
Israel General Security Services “Shabak” had categorized Dr. El-Sarraj as a category 10 high
security risk and that his presence in Israel could compromise national security.
Communications received
223. By letter of 10 January 2002, the Government responded to the urgent appeal sent
on 1 June 2001 regarding Mr. Abed al-Ahmar. The Government asserted that Mr. al-Abmar had
been arrested on 24 May 2001 for investigation into his activities with the Popular Front terrorist
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 84
organization and his involvement in various terror attacks, including shooting incidents against
Israeli soldiers and the murder of Baruch Cohen. The Government added that Mr. al-Ahmar's
petition to the High Court of Justice about his interrogation and the conditions of his detention
had been heard and dismissed by a panel of three judges on 12 June 2001.
Observations
224. The Special Representative thanks the Government for the reply regarding
Mr. Abed al-Ahmar but is awaiting information with regard to the other cases she brought to the
Government's attention.
JAMAICA
Communications sent
225. On 9 August 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion
and expression, sent an urgent appeal regarding Mr. Hilaire Sobers, a journalist writing a weekly
column on human rights in the newspaper Jamaica Observer who is known to be an outspoken
critic of the Government's human rights record. It was reported that, on 7 August 2001, a letter
was delivered to the newspaper's offices which contained a picture of a gunman raping and
shooting Mr. Hilaire Sobers. The letter allegedly made reference to Mr. Hilaire Sobers' human
rights work and to the activities of other human rights journalists, namely Mr. Perkins, a
renowned radio journalist, Mr. Wignal, a journalist working for the Jamaica Observer, and
threatened to kill them. It was also reported that the letter also explicitly mentioned the contact
established by Mr. Hilaire Sobers with Amnesty International and accused him of working with
Mr. Edward Seaga, the leader of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) opposition party. According to
the information received, Mr. Hilaire Sobers reported the letter to the police that day. It is
believed that the author of the letter is allegedly a supporter of the Government, the ruling
People's National Party (PNP).
Observations
226. The Special Representative regrets that at the time of the finalization of this report the
Government had not transmitted any reply to her urgent appeal.
KENYA
Communication sent
227. On 25 October 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
torture, sent an urgent appeal regarding the following members and supporters of Release
Political Prisoners (RPP), a human rights activist organization which mainly lobbies for the
release of political prisoners. Among the arrested members were Kivutha Kibwana,
Mungai Kibe, Ng'ang'a Waweru, George Mutua, Kiilu, Stephen Musau, Peter Wambua,
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 85
Johnstone Nyamu, Mercy Nyambura Kariuki, Peter Mutemi, Benson Mutiso, Aloise Muia,
Mbara Kambara Kariuki, Kibuku Kihura, Mukia Kamau, Githii Mweru, Daniel Muoti,
Njoroge Wanguthi, Rahab Wairuri, Julius Mwaura, Kimani Waweru, Francis Njenga,
Martin Mukeku, Francis Mutuku, Charles Nthanga, Gitau Wanguthi, Waweru Kariuki,
Thungu Wakaba, Peter Nguma, Kennedy Kimeu, Julius Kariuki, Gathoni Kamau,
Samuel Gikundi, Waruiru Mungai, Solomon Waithaka, George Ngige, Haron Keli,
Joseph Muoki, Gathoga Njoroge, Munyae Mulinge Kioko, Theophilas Kiilu, Simon Mburu,
Elijah Ochieng Solomon, William Mbuvi, Eric Mulevu, Silvanus Kikihu, Karori Njunge,
George Mungi, Moses Mbugua, Kimani Ndegwa, Benjamin Muhesuni, Moses Karori,
Kamonje Manje, Owino Amina, Nyongessa Omboko, Gitau Kung'u, Tony Ndolo,
Orina Nyamwamu, Peter Mama, Joseph Bonzo, Tirop Kitur, Odhiambo Oyoko,
Mwendwa Kibwana, Njoki Kamau, Henry Maiyo, Stephen Waweru, Nyamberi Bosire,
Munga Gathogo, Mwangi Kimbathi, Wambua Kituku, Daniel Mathias Kingoo, Boaz Waruku. It
was reported that they were arrested at the RPP premises in Nairobi during a peaceful celebration
to mark Mau Mau Day (officially called Kenyatta Day), which commemorates the 1952 uprising
of the Mau Mau against British rule. The police appear to have used excessive force to break up
the gathering. All were reportedly brought before the Chief Magistrate at the High Court
on 22 October 2001 to answer charges of “unlawful assembly”. Since they all refused to enter a
plea, they were recorded as pleading “not guilty”. Only five of the detainees have reportedly
been able to gather the sum required to post bail. The bond has been set at 50,000 Kenyan
shillings, which is believed to be more than most of the persons arrested, mainly students or
youths, can afford. Members of the RPP are said to face regular harassment and intimidation
from the authorities because of their work in defence of human rights.
Observations
228. The Special Representative is awaiting a reply from the Government.
KYRGYZSTAN
Communications sent
229. On 25 January 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal concerning the
cases of Albert Korgoldoev, Ravshan Garipov and Ramazan Dyryldaev. It was reported that,
on 6 December 2000, officers of the Department of the Interior in Jalal-Abad attempted to detain
Mr. Albert Korgoldoev, a coordinator for the Kyrgyz Committee for Human Rights (KCHR) for
the Jalal-Abad region, based on a fabricated complaint drawn up by an affiliate of the Coalition
of Non-Commercial Organizations. According to the source, Nouoken Kasiev, the State
Secretary of the Kyrgyz Republic, created the Coalition of Non-Commercial Organizations on
the eve of the presidential elections in order to discredit independent journalists,
opposition-related observers and independent non-governmental organizations. It was also
reported that criminal charges of hooliganism under article 234, part 2, point 1.4 of the Kyrgyz
Criminal Code were allegedly pending against Mr. Korgoldoev and that he was in hiding in
order to avoid being arrested. It was also alleged that Ravshan Garipov, the director of the
Kara-Suy Human Rights Centre “Provosudie Istina”, was arrested on 21 November 2000 and
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 86
detained in Kara-Suy ROVD (district police station). According to the source, Mr. Garipov has
been active in cross-border relations with Uzbekistan to stop the destruction of a local historical
site and has investigated allegations of corruption in the privatization of the Kara-Suy bazaar. It
was also reported that Mr. Garipov is an active member of the Coalition of Non-Governmental
Organizations for Democracy and Civil Society, and has served as and trained non-partisan
election observers. According to the information received, Mr. Gapirov was charged with
hooliganism under article 234 of the Kyrgyz Criminal Code and his trial was set to begin
on 26 January 2001. The communication also raised the case of Ramazan Dyryldaev, the
chairman of the Kyrg Committee for Human Rights (KCHR), and other KCHR members who
have been in exile since July 2000. According to the source, government actions such as the
sealing of the committee's office and the seizure of its bank accounts prevent the members of the
KCHR from continuing their work in Kyrgyzstan. Furthermore, it was alleged that the Kyrgyz
authorities have not yet properly dismissed outstanding charges against Ramazan Dyryldaev and
have made no arrangements to ensure his safe return from exile so that he may carry out his
work as a human rights defender in Kyrgyzstan.
230. On 18 June 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal jointly with the
Special Rapporteur on torture regarding Adymamat Kadyrbekov, a member of the KCHR. He
was reportedly stopped in the street and subjected to ill-treatment by members of the
Governmental Auto Inspection (GAl) in Jalal-Abad, on 12 June 2001. It was alleged that as he
showed his KCHR membership card, one of the militiamen said, “I am sick of all these law
defenders”. He was subsequently handcuffed and put into a car, where he is believed to have
been beaten and to have defended himself He was reportedly transferred to the City Department
of Internal Affairs and the investigator is said to have opened a criminal case against him for
“use of violence in resisting public officials”, for which he could risk up to five years'
imprisonment. Mr. Kadyrbekov was set free, but it was alleged that he remained under the
control of the militia.
231. On 30 August 2001, the Special Representative transmitted an allegation jointly with the
Special Rapporteur on torture regarding Almaz Dyryldaev and Gulhan Borubaeva, both
members of the KCHR. They were reportedly subjected to ill-treatment by police officers
on 20 July 2000. According to the information received, about 20 police officers surrounded the
KCHR office on Ivanitsin Street (Bishkek) and detained Almaz Dyryldaev under the orders of an
investigator of Pervomai ROVD. It was reported that Almaz Dyryldaev was beaten during
interrogation at the ROVD. As a result, upon release, he went into hiding. Gulhan Borubaeva
was said to have remained held in the office of the KCHR without food for four days until the
office was unsealed and she was allowed to return home.
Observations
232. The Special Representative would like to refer to the separate report she has submitted to
the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/2002/106/Add. 1) on the visit to Kyrgyzstan she
undertook from 30 July to 4 August 2001.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 87
MALAYSIA
Communications sent
233. On 3 May 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
torture and the Chairman of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, sent an urgent appeal
concerning Badaruddin Ismail, a member of the secretariat of the human rights organization
Suara Rakyat Malaysi (Suaram), Voice of the Malaysian People. The Malaysian police
reportedly arrested him on 26 April 2001 under the Internal Security Act (ISA). According to
the information received, Badaruddin Ismail was arrested without charge and was held
incommunicado in an unknown location. It was alleged that Badaruddin Ismail was arrested and
detained in connection with his work assisting the families of detainees and documenting police
brutality.
234. On 17 July 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal jointly with the
Special Rapporteur on torture, the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression regarding
Mr. Mohamad Fuad Mohd Jkhwan, president of the Student Representative Council of
University Malaya. According to the information received, he was reportedly arrested in
Kuala Lumpur on 6 July 2001 under the Internal Security Act (ISA). Earlier, a student leader
from the Institute Kemahiran Mara, Mr. Khairul Anuar Ahmad Zainuddin, was allegedly arrested
under this Act on 5 July 2001 at the Dang Wangi police station. The Inspector General of
Police, Norian Mai, was quoted in a report as saying that Mr. Khairul Anuar had been arrested in
connection with activities posing a threat to the national security and on suspicion of having set
fire to the Tunku Canselor Hall of University Malaya on 2 July. These arrests of student
activists under the ISA allegedly followed a recent police raid on a student movement supporting
political reforms and the abolition of the ISA in front of the National Mosque on 8 June 2001. It
was also reported that 41 persons, including three teenagers, were arrested and held at the
Taiping police station for illegal assembly on 15 July 2001, following a demonstration
(“Konvoy Perdana”) organized to support family members of six political activists allegedly
detained under the ISA without trial for two years, Tina Chua, Mohamad Eyam Mohd.Nor,
Saari Sungib, Hishamuddin Rais, Llokman Adam and Badaruddin Ismail. The 41 detainees were
all released, but 37 were released on police bail amounting to RM 1,000 each.
Communications received
235. In a reply dated 28 August 2001, the Government of Malaysia informed the Special
Representative that Mr. Badaruddin Ismall had been taken into custody in order to assist the
Royal Malaysian Police in their investigations pertaining to credible threats to the public order
and internal security of Malaysia. The Government added that Mr. Badaruddin Ismall was
among those involved in organizing illegal nationwide street demonstrations that would result in
public discord and unrest, detrimental to the domestic harmony, stability and internal security of
Malaysia. The Government assured the Special Representative that due process of law has
been followed in the arrest and detention and that the Royal Malaysian Police had released
Mr. Badaruddin upon completion of the investigations. The Government added that family
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 88
members had been allowed to visit the detainee on several occasions and that the chairman and
four other panel members of SUHAKAM, the Malaysian Human Rights Commission, had been
given unhindered access to all detainees on 29 May 2001. The Government stated that so far,
there had been no allegations of torture or ill-treatment of the detainee arising from such visits.
236. On 28 August 2001, the Government of Malaysia replied to the urgent appeal sent by the
Special Representative on 17 July 2001. The Government informed the Special Representative
that the Royal Malaysian Police took into custody Mr. Khairul Anuar Ahmad Zainuddin and
Mr. Mohamad Fuad Mohd Jkhwan on 5 and 6 July 2001 respectively, to assist in their
investigation pertaining to credible threats to the public order and internal security of Malaysia.
The arrests were made in accordance with Section 73 (1) of the 1960 Internal Security Act (ISA)
of Malaysia. The Government affirmed that the two men were released unconditionally
on 16 and 28 July 2001, respectively and while in custody had access to their respective
relatives. There had been no allegation of torture or ill-treatment arising from such arrests.
Observations
237. The Special Representative thanks the Government for its replies and cooperation. The
Special Representative welcomes the release on 5 June 2001 of Mr. Badaruddin Ismall, as well
as the release of Mr. Mohamad Fuad Mohd Ikhwan on 16 July 2001 and of Mr. Khairul Anuar
Ahmad Zainuddin on 28 July 2001. She is, however, concerned that the Internal Security Act
(ISA) allows the police to detain incommunicado and without a warrant any person deemed a
threat to the national security or economic life of Malaysia for up to 60 days of investigation.
Under the ISA, the Minister of Home Affairs may extend the period of detention for an initial
period of up to two years without reference to the courts and the Prime Minister can issue a
further detention order for up to another two years, again without reference to the courts, and this
period is renewable indefinitely. The Special Representative remains disturbed at the use of the
ISA against human rights defenders and considers such use to be a potential threat to activities
for the promotion, protection and implementation of human rights. Furthermore, the Special
Representative recalls that, in a letter dated 25 July 2001, she indicated her interest in visiting
Malaysia and hopes that the Government will give positive consideration to this request.
MAURITANIA
Communication envoyée
238. Le 27 aoüt 2001, la Représentante spéciale a envoyé au Gouvernement mauritanien une
allegation concernant Mme AIssata Satiguy, membre du bureau exCcutif de l'Association
mauritanienne des droits de l'homme (AMDH). M Satiguy aurait etC licenci Ce le S juin 2001
par la Caisse de sCcuritC sociale de Mauritanie oU elle travaillait depuis 15 ans, pour le motif
“d'abandon de poste”. Cette decision ne lui aurait etC notifiCe que le 18 juillet 2001 et
Mme Satiguy en aurait aussitôt saisi l'Inspection du travail. D'après les sources, cc licenciement
serait lie aux activitCs de Mme Satiguy en faveur de la promotion et de la defense des droits de
l'homme. D'après les informations reçues, les pressions exercCes a l'encontre de Mme Satiguy se
seraient accrues en 2001 en raison de son implication dans la preparation de la Conference
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 89
mondiale contre le racisme a Durban. Scion ies informations reçues, en avrii 2001, iors de sa
participation a ia dernière session de ia Commission africaine des droits de i'homme et des
peupies a Tripoh, M' Satiguy aurait été pubhquement menacée par ie Consui générai de
Mauritanie. Suite a cet événement, sa famiiie aurait égaiement fait i'objet de pressions.
Communications received
239. By ietter of 20 September 2001 the Government informed the Speciai Representative that
the case of Ms. AIssata Satiguy Sy was an ordinary iaw matter, which has absoiuteiy nothing to
do with Ms. Sy's activities reiating to pohtics, associations or the “defence of human rights”.
Ms. Aissata Satiguy Sy, an empioyee of the Nationai Sociai Security Office (CNSS), was on
ieave of absence for the period from 1 Aprii to 5 May 2001 and was due to take up her duties
again on 6 May 2001. The Government further expiained that 26 days after the end of the
ieave of absence and in the absence of any written expianation for this dereiiction of duty, the
personnei director decided to appiy the ruies: a message serving formai notice on the person
concerned that she must return to work within 72 hours was broadcast on nationai radio
on 31 May. As the person concerned did not return to her job or provide any expianation about
her situation, the CNSS took due note, on 5 June 2001, of the breach of Ms. Sy's empioyment
contract. The Government assured the Speciai Representative that Mauritania was a State
governed by the ruie of iaw, where human rights and fundamentai freedoms were respected and
where there were no “serious human rights vioiations” to be denounced. The Government
specified that no pressure of any kind had ever been put on Ms. Satiguy Sy, who had never
missed a meeting she wished to attend whiie she was a pubiic empioyee, and that the recordings
of the meeting at which the Consui Generai reacted to Ms. Satiguy Sy's statement were avaiiabie
for consuitation at the office of the African Commission.
Observations
240. The Speciai Representative thanks the Government for its repiy.
MEXICO
Communications sent
Urgent appeals
241. On 26 June 2001, the Speciai Representative sent an urgent appeai regarding the case of
Sin Fronteras TAP, an organization dedicated to the promotion and defence of the rights of
migrants and refugees. According to the information received, on 15 June 2001 an unidentified
man stoic the main computer of the administrative and sociai section of the organization, and a
printer. The computer reportediy contained important and confidentiai information that if used
couid put in danger the iives of those concerned. It was further reported that the man knew about
the organization's iocation, the names of the various empioyees and the piaces where the
computer materiai was kept.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 90
242. On 23 July 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
torture, sent an urgent appeal regarding Mr. Gerardo Cabrera Gonzalez, a member of the
Organización de Campesinos Ecologistas de la Sierra de Petetlán y Coyuca de Catalán (OCESP).
The organization campaigns to stop the logging operations of local groups, backed-up by
military or paramilitary groups, that are threatening forests in the State of Guerrero. According
to the information received, Mr. Cabrera Gonzalez was arrested on 14 July 2001 by
the 19th Infantry Battalion in the community of Banco Nuevo, Petetlan municipality. After his
arrest, he was reportedly taken to Petetlan and then transferred to Acapulco civil prison and
charged with illegal possession of arms. Fears have been expressed that these acts are related to
Mr. Cabrera Gonzalez's activities with OCESP and that he is at risk of being tortured or
ill-treated while in detention.
243. On 31 August 2001, the Special Representative transmitted a joint urgent appeal
with the Special Rapporteur on torture regarding the case of General José Francisco Gallardo
Rodriguez. According to the information received, General Gallardo has been held in detention
since 9 November 1993 after the publication of an article expressing the need to create a military
ombudsman in Mexico in relation with human rights violations committed by members of the
national armed forces. General Gallardo was subsequently accused of defamation, calumny and
abuses against the army and sentenced to 28 years' imprisonment. The Secretary for National
Defence stripped him of his military rank. It has been further reported that, on 28 August 2001,
General Gallardo was transferred to the punitive cell inside Neza-Bordo prison where the
conditions of detention are reportedly cruel, inhuman and degrading. It has also been reported
that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of the Organization of
American States acknowledged that the rights of General Gallardo to freedom, judicial
guarantees and to the protection of his honour and dignity have been violated. IACHR has
recommended that General Gallardo be released immediately and that all necessary measures be
taken to end the campaign of persecution, defamation and harassment against him. In addition,
the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has emitted an opinion (No. 28/1998) recognizing
that the deprivation of General Gallardo's liberty was illegal.
244. On 19 October 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal concerning
Ms. Marina Patricia Jiménez Ramirez, director of the human rights organization Centro Fray
Bartolomé de las Casas, in San Cristobal de las Casas, State of Chiapas. According to the
information received, Ms. Jiménez Ramirez has been kept under surveillance by two
unknown men who reportedly falsified their identity. It was reported that among other incidents,
on 17 September 2001, employees of the travel agency “Santa Ana Tours” reportedly declared
that two men, both claiming to be members of the Centro, visited the agency asking for detailed
information on the visit Ms. Jiménez Ramirez planned to take to Guatemala in November 2001.
245. On 23 October 2001, the Special Representative sent ajoint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur
on torture regarding the murder on 19 October 2001 of Ms. Digna Ochoa y Placido, a human
rights defender and member of the Centro de Derechos Humanos “Miguel Agustin Pro Juarez”
(PRODH) in Mexico. According to the information received, Ms. Digna Ochoa was found dead
in a legal office in the centre of Mexico City. The killers reportedly left a death threat warning
other human rights defenders from the PRODH, that they would meet a similar fate if they
continued their human rights work. Fears have been expressed that human rights lawyers
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 91
Ms. Pilar Noriega and Ms. Barbara Zamora, who worked with Ms. Digna Ochoa on very
high-profile cases are at particular risk. It has been reported that Ms. Digna Ochoa had
reportedly been threatened with death and attacked many times since 1995. Although the
authorities provided police protection for Ms. Digna Ochoa and other PRODH members, it has
been reported that they failed in their responsibility to investigate properly the aggression and
threats, thus creating a climate of impunity leading to Ms. Digna Ochoa's murder and other
threats against her colleagues.
246. On 24 October 2001, the Special Representative, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Rapporteur
on the independence of judges and lawyers issued a press statement to express their deep
sadness and outrage over the murder on 19 October 2001 of renowned human rights lawyer
Digna Ochoa y Plácido in Mexico City. They stated that it demonstrated the vulnerability of
human rights defenders and underlined the need for strengthening measures for their protection.
247. On 7 November 2001, the Special Representative sent a joint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur
on torture regarding alleged death threats against human rights defenders, members of the Red
Nacional Mexicana de Organismos Civiles de Derechos Humanos “Todos los Derechos para
Todos”. According to the information received, on 27 October 2001, the offices of Periodico
Reforma in Mexico City received a phone call claiming the murder of Digna Ochoa and
containing death threats and schemes to execute the following persons: Mr. Juan Antonio Vega,
a former member of the international office of Accion de los Cristianos para la abolicion de la
Tortura and technical secretary of the Red Nacional “Todos los Derechos para Todos”,
Mr. Miguel Sarre, a member of the “Comité para la Humanización de las Prácticas
Incriminatorias”, Mr. Fernando Ruiz, a member of the Consejo para la Ley y los Derechos,
Mr. Sergio Aguayo, a member of the Academia Mexicana de Derechos Humanos”,
Mr. Edgar Cortez, a member of the Centro de Derechos Humanos Miguel Agustin Pro Juárez.
In addition, the threats reportedly included demands for the remittance of six million pesos for
each person.
248. On 28 November 2001, the Special Representative sent ajoint urgent appeal with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur
on the situation of indigenous people's human rights and fundamental freedoms regarding the
death threats allegedly sent by e-mail on 1 November 2001 to Mr. Aldo Gonzalez and
Ms. Melina Hérnandez Sosa, members of the Union de Organizaciones de la Sierra de Oaxaca
(UNOSJO). These facts are reportedly connected with the work of UNOSJO for the promotion
and defence of indigenous rights in the Sierra Juarez region in Oaxaca State.
Allegation letters
249. On 26 September 2001, the Special Representative transmitted a communication
regarding the following cases.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 92
250. On 11 October 1999, Maria Estela Garcia RamIrez and Nestora Ramirez, members of the
Union de Pueblos Contra la Represión en la Region Loxicha, were reportedly harassed and
intimidated by the police while providing help to families in difficulty in the Loxicha region. On
several occasions, they were both followed by the police while exercising their activities. In
some cases, they have reportedly been subjected to force.
251. According to the source, Mr. Juan Lopez Villanueva, an attorney in the Legal
Department of the Human Rights Centre “Fray Bartolomé de las Casas” at San Cristobal
de las Casas, Chiapas, received threats by e-mail. According to the information received,
on 19 January 2000 a complaint concerning these death threats was filed with the Federal
Ministry of Public Affairs, followed by a second complaint filed with the State Commission
for Human Rights in January 2000.
252. Mr. Isaias Martinez Gervacio, a member of the Asociación de Familiares de
Detenidos Desaparecidos y Victimas de Violaciones a los Derechos Humanos en Mexico
(AFADEM-FEDERAM), State of Guerrero, was reportedly trailed by an unknown armed person
on 2 March 2000. On the same day, a young person, purporting to be an agent of the Ministry of
Public Affairs, presented himself at Mr. Martinez Gervacio's house without showing any official
identification and asked to see his son, who had disappeared in March 1978. It was further
reported that these events took place after Mr. Martinez Gervacio had taken part in a press
conference organized on 1 March 2000 by the AFADEM Executive Committee on the serious
and systematic human rights violations and the situation of impunity in the State of Guerrero, in
particular in the region of Atoyac. Mr. Martinez Gervacio presented himself to the Commander
of the Police Prevention Department, Mr. Neftali Ponce Velez, but reportedly no protection has
been made available to him.
253. Information has been requested by the Special Representative concerning the murder
on 15 April 2000 of Mr. José Luis Rodriguez, as well as the murders on 20 April 2000 of
Mr. José Martinez Ramón and Mr. Felipe Nava Gomez, both members of the Organización
Campesina de la Sierra del Sur (OCSS). She also requested information about Mr. Marco
Antonio Abadicio Mayo, the leader of the OCSS, in Atoyaquillo, State of Guerrero, who
was reportedly caught in a fusillade on 19 July 2000 on his way home. It was reported that
his aggressors might belong to paramilitary groups. Previously, on 12 January 2000,
Mr. Abadicio Mayo was reportedly threatened, arrested and tortured for 12 hours by
members of the army and afterwards released without charges. Mr. Abadicio Mayo is
reportedly the victim of continuous threats and harassment, especially by persons from outside
the community who have been seen prowling around his house at night. It was further reported
that Mr. Marcos Tones Campos, leader of the OCSS, was murdered on 4 July 2001 in the
municipality of Coynca de Benitez, State of Guerrero. Mr. Marcos Tones Campos had
participated, since 28 June 2001, in the roadblocks and in the Planton (permanent strike) by the
OCSS outside the town hall of the municipality to request a meeting with the secretary general of
the state government. The Public Prosecutor has reportedly initiated an investigation in order to
identify those responsible.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 93
254. According to the information received, Professor Raül Gatica Bautista, leader of the
Popular Indigenous Council of Oaxaca (CIPO) “Ricardo Flores Magón” and his 17-year-old son
were both insulted, threatened with death and beaten on 16 April 2000 by six armed individuals
led by a federal agent. It was further reported that several policemen of San Isidro Monjes,
municipality of Xoxocotlan, managed to stop the attackers.
255. Mr. Maurilio Santiago Reyes, an attorney and defender of Indians' rights and Ms. Maria
del Pilar Marroquin, his employee, allegedly received a number of threatening phone calls
on 10 May 2000. It was reported that, on 9 May 2000, both had noticed a van without
registration plates driving around Mr. Maurilio Santiago Reyes's home at Tlaxiaco, Oaxaca.
These threats were reportedly connected with the complaints that both had filed with a criminal
court against civil servants for violations of the rights of indigenous people.
256. According to the information received, Mr. Jaime Cuevas Mendoza, member of the
Enlace Comunicación y Capacitación, based in Ocosingo, State of Chiapas, was knocked down
by a car on 12 June 2001 outside the house of Mr. Antonio Paoli Bolio, coordinator of the
Comité de Derechos Humanos Fray Pedro Lorenzo de la Nada. The police reportedly chased the
person responsible, but failed to arrest him or her.
257. Mr. Freddy Secundino Sanchez, ajournalist, was reportedly abducted and later released
in June 2000 in connection with articles he had published in the political review Epoca.
According to the information received, those responsible for abducting him could be agents of
the judiciary police. It was reported that three weeks later an unidentified man made a telephone
call to the journalist and told him that he would die. According to the source, Mr. Freddy
Secundino Sanchez reported the facts to the authorities.
258. Mr. Placido Camargo Ruiz, a primary school teacher and militant in the educational
sector, and a member of Section X of the National Educational Workers' Union (SNTE), was
reportedly the victim of enforced disappearance on 16 June 2000 on his way to work in the
Federal District of Mexico. He has not been found yet. It was also reported that Mr. Placido
Camargo Ruiz's disappearance was the work of a paramilitary group, or federal police
detectives, in reprisal for his activities during the May-June 2000 teachers' strike.
259. On 19 June 2000, a large number of criminal investigations officers and local police of
Rio Bravo, Tamaulipas and Reynosa reportedly entered violently the offices of the Duro Bags
Manufacturing Company at Rio Bravo, Tamaulipas. According to the information received,
employees had given notice of a strike intended to improve their working conditions, obtain the
respect of their individual and collective rights, including their freedom of association, and gain
recognition of the trade union management, which had been refused by the employers. A few
workers were detained and afterwards freed against the payment of a global bail of USS 2,000.
The Special Representative was also informed of the presumed enforced disappearance of
Mr. Eliud Amaguer, the leader of the Duro Bags Manufacturing employees, when on his way
between Rio Bravo, State of Tamaulipas, and Monterey, State of Nuevo Leon.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 94
260. Mr. Gerardo Cabrera Gonzalez, a member of the Organización de Campesinos
Ecologistas de la Sierra de Petetlan y Coyuca de Catalán (OCESP), which is campaigning to stop
forest exploitation, was reportedly detained on 14 July 2001 by members of the XIX infantry
battalion. It was further reported that he was transferred to the civil prison of Acapulco and
accused of illegal arms possession.
261. According to the information received, on 3 August 2001 Ms. AngClica Ayala Ortiz,
coordinator at the Liga Mexicana por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (LIMEDDH) at
Oaxaca, noted that unknown persons had reportedly entered her house illegally and gone through
her archives and materials containing information about the work of the organization. It was
reported that these events took place a few days before the LIMEDDH was due to present its
annual report on the state of health of native Zapotec prisoners from the region of Loxichas in
the Ixcotel and Elta penitential centres.
262. Mr. AndrCs Rubio Salvidar, an historian, and Mr. Rey Miguel Hernandez, ajournalist,
both coordinators and members of the Coordinating Committee for the Defence of Human
Rights in Costa Chica, State of Guerrerro, reportedly received a threatening message in early
September 2000 from the local commander of the Guerrerro Criminal Investigation Department.
These threats are reportedly linked to investigations carried out by the Committee, and the
publication of an article by Mr. Rey Miguel Hernández based on denunciations received in
December 1999 from indigenous Mixteca from the community of La Concordia, municipality of
Ayutla de los Libres, State of Guerrero.
263. Dr. Adrian Ramirez Lopez, president of LIMEDDH and vice-president of FIDH, and
Sara Rico RamIrez, head of the Victim Legal Support System, were reportedly summoned
on 21 September 2000 and on 24 October 2000 by the General Military Justice Tribunal to
appear on 6 October 2000 for ministerial inquiries. These summonses were reportedly linked to
their declarations as witnesses with regard to two urgent actions filed by LIMEDDH in response
to appeals by the Centro de Derechos Humanos “Fray BartolomC de las Casas”.
264. On 26 September 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint communication
with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression requesting information
regarding Margil Guerra and Ciro Rodriguez, two journalists with the Mexican Television
Televisa, and Mauro Cruz, a member of the Centro de Estudios Fronterizos y Promoción de los
Derechos Humanos (CEFPROHAC), who were reportedly harassed on 31 March 2001 by
soldiers in anti-drug raids on two communities in Tamaulipas State. It was reported that
Margil Guerra, Ciro Rodriguez and Mauro Cruz had attempted to observe the raids in
Tamaulipas State. Twenty persons, including one minor, were reportedly detained after
some 300 soldiers entered the village of Guardado de Abajo, in Camargo municipality, and the
district of Fonhapo, in Miguel Aleman municipality without showing search warrants.
265. On 26 September 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint communication
with the Special Rapporteur on torture on the following cases. On 2 May 1999, Rodolfo Montiel
Flores and Teodoro Cabrera GarcIa, environmental activists in Pizotla, Guerrero, members of the
Organización de Campesinos Ecologistas de la Sierra de Petatlan y Coyuca de Catalan (OCESP),
were reportedly held in incommunicado detention, and tortured physically and psychologically
by members of the army after participating in a peaceful demonstration protesting against
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 95
operations threatening forests in the State of Guerrero. The XXI Circuit Court sentenced
Mr. Teodoro Cabrera Garcia to 10 years' imprisonment and Mr. Rodolfo Montiel Flores
to 6 years and 8 months for offences relating to drugs and arms. Soldiers reportedly forced
the two activists to sign confessions accepted by the courts.
266. In October 2000, Mr. Hector Perez Cordova was reportedly detained in Topo Chico
prison in Nuevo Leon State and ill-treated after participating in a peaceful demonstration
organized by human rights defenders in front of the prison, in the framework of Amnesty
International's world campaign against torture. It was reported that Mr. Hector Perez Cordova
was held responsible for this event. While in detention, he was reportedly naked, put in a cell for
seven days and deprived of food and medicine.
267. On 26 September 2001, the Special Representative transmitted ajoint communication
with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions requesting
information regarding the murder on 1 March 2001 by unidentified men of Mr. Francisco de la
Cruz Mesino, representative of the Organización Campesina de la Sierra del Sur (OCSS) in Agua
community in Sierra de Atoyac. According to the information received, although Mr. de la Cruz
Mesino's home was situated in front of the headquarters of the Policia Motorizada, no police
officer was there until half an hour after. It was reported that the reason for the murder was that
Mr. de la Cruz Mesino was the representative of his community before the OSCC.
Communications received
268. By letters dated 23 and 26 October 2001 and 9 November 2001, the Government of
Mexico provided information to the Special Representative about the case of Ms. Digna Ochoa y
Plácido, which was transmitted by the Special Representative on 23 October 2001. The
Government of Mexico informed the Special Representative about the decision and commitment
of its national authorities to investigate this crime fully and to bring those responsible to justice.
It further indicated that it would keep the Special Representative informed on the progress of the
inquiry. In addition, the Government of Mexico gave further information about the
implementation of the provisional measures of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
following the murder of Ms. Digna Ochoa y Plácido, of the precautionary measures called for by
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights after the threats made against five human
rights defenders, and about the progress reported by the Office of the Procurator General of the
Federal District concerning the investigation into the murder.
269. By letter dated 9 November 2001, the Government of Mexico provided information about
the case of Mr. Gerardo Cabrera Gonzalez, which was transmitted by the Special Representative
on 23 July 2001. The Government of Mexico asserted that, on 31 July 2001, the National
Commission on Human Rights (CNDH) had started investigating the case of the inhabitants of
the community El Rincón del Refugio, including the case of Mr. Gerardo Cabrera Gonzalez, a
member of the Organización de Campesinos Ecologistas de la Sierra de Petetlán y Coyuca de
Catalan (OCESO). The Government further indicated that it would keep the Special
Representative informed.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 96
270. Por cartas de fecha 13 de noviembre y 3 de diciembre de 2001, ci Gobierno de Mexico
informo respecto a los casos de Rodoifo Montiel Fiores, Teodoro Cabrera GarcIa y Hector Perez
Cordova enviados por la Representante Especial ci 26 de septiembre de 2001. El Gobierno
indico que con fecha 8 de noviembre de 2001 ci Presidente de Mexico dicto las medidas
necesarias para la excarceiacion de los nombrados, la cual fue ejecutada por las autoridades
competentes. El Gobierno seflaio que los nombrados fueron custodiados por la Policia Federal
Preventiva desde su excarceiacion hasta ci 10 de noviembre de 2001, debido ala solicitud de
suspension temporal presentada por parte de su abogado, miembro dci Centro de Derecho
Humanos Miguel AgustIn Pro Juárez. Respecto al caso de Hector Perez Cordova, la Secretaria
General de Gobierno dci estado de Nuevo Leon manifesto que la denuncia dci nombrado era
faisa, debido a que ningUn interno ha sido objeto de maitrato aiguno por parte de elementos de
custodia dci Centro Preventivo de Readaptacion Social Topo Chico, donde ci nombrado se
encuentra internado. Por otro lado, ci Gobierno seflaio que en todo ci tiempo que se ic aphco la
medida correctiva al interno se ic suministraron todos sus alimentos, asI como los medicamentos
que tiene prescritos.
271. Por carta de fecha 13 de noviembre de 2001, ci gobierno de Mexico informo respecto al
caso de la organización Sin Fronteras TAP enviado por la Representante Especial ci 26 de junio
de 2001. El gobierno indico que la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos y la Comisión de
Derechos Humanos dci Distrito Federal no tienen registrada queja aiguna respecto de los hechos
cometidos en agravio de la organización. El gobierno estabiecio que la ProcuradurIa General de
Justicia dci Distrito Federal ha manifestado la necesidad de exhortar al representante legal de la
organización a efecto de que comparezca ante la Representación y pueda dar inicio a la
indagatoria que corresponda.
272. By letter dated 16 November 2001, the Government of Mexico provided information
to the Special Representative about the cases of Mr Juan Antonio Vega, Miguel Sane,
Fernando Ruiz, Sergio Aguayo and Edgar Cortez, which were transmitted by the Special
Representative on 7 November 2001. The Government of Mexico asserted that the
Secretaria de Gobernacion had got in touch with each of the above-mentioned persons and
that since 1 November 2001 the ProcuradorIa General de la Repübhca had granted protection
with escorts to all of them. Regarding Mr. Edgar CortCz, despite the proposals made by the
Secretaria de Gobernacion to provide him with a guard, he had reportedly publicly denied that he
received such protection. The Government further reported that the investigations into the
threats had started on 1 November 2001, under the control of the ProcuradorIa General de la
Repübhca.
273. Por cartas de fecha 16 de noviembre, 20 y 21 de diciembre de 2001, ci gobierno de
Mexico informo respecto al caso de la Sra. Marina Patricia JimCnez Ramirez enviado por la
Representante Especial ci 19 de octubre de 2001. El Gobierno indico que la Comisión Estatal de
Derechos Humanos de Chiapas decreto medidas cautelares en favor de la Sra. JimCnez Ramirez.
SegUn ci gobierno, ci 18 de octubre de 2001, ci agente dci Ministerio Pübhco sohcito
impiementar dichas medidas y las transmitió al Secretario de Gobierno de Chiapas, al Secretario
de Seguridad Pübiica, al Jefe de Zona de la Policia y al Procurador General de Justicia dci
Estado. Como parte de las medidas impiementadas, se han realizado patruilajes y se cuenta con
una presencia pohciaca en las inmediaciones dci Centro de Derechos Humanos Fray Bartolome
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 97
de las Casas. Asimismo, ci gobierno establecio que se coloco un circuito cerrado para vigilar
tanto las instalaciones como las afueras de la organización. Se entregó también a dicho centro un
automovil blindado. Por ültimo, se instalara en proximas fechas un sistema de alarmas en ci
hogar de la Sra. Jiménez RamIrez.
274. By letter dated 30 November 2001, the Government of Mexico informed the Special
Representative about the case of Mr. Francisco Gallardo Rodriguez, which was transmitted by
the Special Representative on 31 August 2001. The Government reported that General Gallardo
had been prosecuted and sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment and 10 years' disqualification for
embezzlement, and to 14 years and 8 months' imprisonment and 10 years' disqualification from
taking up any position, post or assignment in the Mexican army for destruction, offence and
embezzlement. Both sentences had been upheld without accumulation by the military courts of
appeal. On 19 February 2001, an appeal of”amparo indirecto” was lodged before the federal
courts, requesting the implementation of the recommendations of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights, especially the one relating to the release of General Gallardo. The appeal of
amparo has been accepted and is currently under consideration. On 23 July 2001, the
Inter-American Court requested information regarding the suitability and the author of the
precautionary measures in favour of General José Francisco Gallardo based on his transfer to
another cell within the Reclusorio de Neza de Bordo, which was reportedly interpreted as a
punishment measure. The prison authorities authorized the return of General Gallardo in order
to protect his safety and physical integrity. According to the Government, on 5 November 2001
memoranda were sent to the competent authorities requesting them to implement the
precautionary measures requested by the Inter-American Commission and to report on the
progress made. Finally, the Government stated that in the present case domestic remedies had
not yet been exhausted.
275. By letter dated 3 December 2001, the Government of Mexico informed the Special
Representative about the case of Mr. Francisco de la Cruz Mesino, which was transmitted by the
Special Representative on 26 September 2001. According to the Government, the facts as
reported in the communication are different from those reported in the declarations made by
Mr. Dc la Cruz Mesino's relatives, who stated that he had been injured by firearms near his
home and then taken by his relatives to the general hospital in Atoyac, where he died of his
injuries. In addition, the Government informed the Special Representative that the place where
the murder had taken place was far from being near to Coyuca de Benitez city. The victim's
brother has lodged a complaint before the Ministerio Püblico based in the Distrito Judicial of
Galeana, in Atoyac de Alvarez, Guerrero. An investigation is currently under way. According
to the Government, the identity of those responsible is still unknown and no civil servant was
reportedly involved in these acts.
276. Por carta de fecha 3 de diciembre de 2001, ci Gobierno de Mexico respondio ala
comunicación enviada por la Representante Especial ci 26 de agosto de 2001. Respecto a los
casos de la Sra. Maria Estela Garcia Ramirez y de la Sra. NCstora Ramirez, ci Gobierno indico
que segUn la Procuraduria General de Justicia del Estado de Oaxaca, de las investigaciones
realizadas se conciuye que en dichos actos de molestia no participaron elementos de ninguna
corporación policiaca del Estado. Sin embargo, la Comisión Estatal de Derechos Humanos de
Oaxaca formuio a la Procuraduria estatal una medida cautelar respecto al pianteamiento de
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 98
Maria Estela Garcia RamIrez, motivo por ci cual, se instruyó a! Director de la Policia Estatal
para que evitara cuaiquier acto de molestia contra la nombrada, a pesar de que las victimas no
presentaron denuncia aiguna.
277. Respecto a! caso de Juan Lopez Vilianueva, ci Gobierno afirmo que los hechos
resumidos en la denuncia son exactos, y que su investigación se inició, a través de la denuncia
presentada por ci nombrado ci 19 de enero de 2000, pore! delito de amenazas cometido en su
agravio en contra de Hector Carrasquedo y quienes resu!taran responsab!es. Dicha investigación
se encontraba a cargo dci Titular de la Mesa de Trámite Nümero Cuatro, adscrita a la
Subprocuraduria Regional de Zona Altos, quien, con fecha 31 de mayo 2000, determino enviar la
indagatoria a legajo de reserva por faita de datos en la prosecución de la pesquisa, situación que
fue confirmada pore! actual fiscal por medio dci oficio de fecha 12 de octubre de 2001.
Asimismo, la Comisión Estatal de Derechos Humanos emitió, con fecha 6 de noviembre
de 2001, una recomendacion donde solicitaba ala Procuraduria General de la Justicia dci Estado
la extracción de reserva en la averiguación previa, entre otras medidas, con motivo de la queja
interpuesta por ci Presidente de la Liga Mexicana por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos, por
actos cometidos en contra de Juan Lopez Vilianueva. Como consecuencia, la Procuraduria de
Justicia dci Estado giró instrucciones a! Subprocurador de Justicia donde se encontraba radicada
la causa para ci cumplimiento de lo requerido, asi como tambiCn se dio conocimiento a la
Contraloria General dci Estado.
278. Respecto a! caso de Isaias Martinez Gervacio, ci Gobierno informo de que no se
encuentra registrada ninguna denuncia ante ci Ministerio Pübiico dci Distrito Judicial de Gaicana
en Atoyac de Alvarez (Guerrero).
279. Respecto a! caso de Antonio Abadicio Mayo, ci Gobierno respondio que se inició con
fecha 22 de Julio de 2000 la averiguación previa por ci dehto de homicidio en grado de tentativa
cometido en agravio dci nombrado y en contra de Filomeno Refugio Zambrano y
Deifino Vicario Fiores. El Gobierno indico que ta! como surge dci iibro general de
consignaciones de la Procuraduria General de Justicia de Guerrero, ci caso se remitió a! Juez de
Primera Instancia dci ramo penal en turno con ponencia de ejercicio de la acción penal y de la
reparación dci daflo en contra de las personas mencionadas como probabies responsabies
de la comisión dci dehto de homicidio en grado de tentativa cometido en agravio de
Antonio Abadicio Mayo. Asimismo, ci Gobierno seflaio que ci proceso se encuentra en etapa de
instrucción.
280. Respecto a! caso de Marcos Tones Campos, ci Gobierno respondio que ci nombrado era
integrante de la Organización Campesina de la Sierra dci Sur (OCSS) y que ci mismo fue
privado de su vida ci 3 dejuiio de 2001. La Procuraduria Estata! inició la indagatoria instruida
por ci deiito de homicidio por arma de fuego en agravio dci nombrado, en contra de quiCn o
quiCnes resuitaran probabies responsabies de su homicidio, quienes han sido identificados por la
Poiicia Judicial con fecha de 20 de octubre de 2001. El Gobierno indico que dicha averiguación
previa se encontraba en integración.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 99
281. Respecto a! caso de Raül Gatica Bautista, ci Gobierno respondio que a raIz de la
denuncia del nombrado y de Inti Ximeni Gatica MarIinez, se dio inicio a la averiguación previa a
cargo del Juez Sexto de lo Penal del Distrito Judicial del Centro (Oaxaca), y que se encuentra en
etapa de instrucción. El Gobierno manifesto que de acuerdo con ci informe del Ministerio
Püblico, no se desprende que aiguna autoridad o servidor pübiico haya participado en los hechos
delictuosos en contra de los nombrados.
282. Respecto a los casos de Maurillo Santiago Reyes y Maria del Pilar Marroquin
Urrestarazu, ci Gobierno respondio que ante ci Ministerio Pübhco de Tiaxiaco (Oaxaca), se
inició la averiguación previa en contra de quien resuitaran probabies responsabies de la comisión
dci delito de amenazas, en agravio de los nombrados y de Macedonio Moisés Cruz Sanchez.
Esta averiguación fue reservada con fecha 19 de diciembre de 2000 por no existir elementos
suficientes para estabiecer quién o quiénes fueron los responsabies dci delito denunciado.
El Gobierno manifesto que no se desprende de la investigaciOn en curso que en los hechos
delictuosos haya participado aiguna autoridad o servidor pübiico en contra de los nombrados.
283. Respecto a! caso de Jaime Cuevas Mendoza, ci Gobierno indico que ci nombrado fue
atropeilado por un coche ci 10 dejunio de 2001 enfrente de la casa de Antonio Paoh Boiio. La
averiguaciOn previa se iniciO ci 11 de junio de 2000 en contra de quienes resuitaran responsabies
por la comisiOn dci dehto de lesiones y la misma se encuentra en curso sin que se haya podido
hasta ci momento identificar los responsabies de los hechos.
284. Respecto a! caso de Freddy Secundino Sanchez, ci Gobierno informO de que de acuerdo
con la Procuraduria de Justicia dci Distrito Federal, una averiguaciOn previa fue iniciada ci 22 de
enero de 2001 con motivo de la denuncia presentada por la victima ante la Unidad de
InvestigaciOn N° 19 de la Fiscaha de SupervisiOn y CoordinaciOn de Averiguaciones Previas de
la Zona Oriente. Dicha averiguaciOn previa continua en trámite para determinar los nombres de
los responsabies de los hechos denunciados.
285. Respecto a! caso de Piácido Camargo Ruiz, ci Gobierno respondiO que a raiz de los
hechos denunciados por la famiha dci nombrado, se iniciO una investigaciOn previa ante la
Agencia 15 a dci Ministerio Pübhco. Esta investigaciOn se encuentra en procedimiento de
integraciOn a cargo de la Fiscaha de la Seguridad de las Personas e Instituciones. Dicha fiscalia
determinO que no habia elementos suficientes ni ningUn otro medio de prueba para considerar
que la desapariciOn dci nombrado se tratara de una privaciOn ilegal de la libertad, por lo cual
turnO ci presente asunto a! Centro de Apoyo a Personas Extraviadas o Ausentes para continuar
con la büsqueda de la persona referida. Por otro lado, ci Gobierno manifesto que no surge de las
deciaraciones de la denunciante, ni de los testigos, que Piácido Camargo Ruiz haya desaparecido
forzosamente ci dia 16 de junio de 2000, ni tampoco han seflalado como responsabies de la
desapariciOn a ningün grupo paramilitar o agentes de la Policia Judicial Federal, y que no existe
indicio aiguno de que su desapariciOn se deba a las actividades que ci nombrado tuvo durante ci
paro laboral efectuado por los educadores entre mayo yjunio de 2000. El Gobierno seflaiO que
tanto la denunciante como otras personas han recibido ilamadas via teiefOnica en las cuales ics
manifestaron que Piácido Camargo Ruiz se encontraba bien y que aparentemente se encontraba
viviendo con otra mujer distinta a su esposa, hecho que hasta ci momento no se ha podido
asegurar.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 100
286. Respecto a! caso de Duro Bags Manufacturing, la ProcuradurIa General de la Repüblica
del Estado de Tamaulipas informo de que el 19 de Junio de 2000 se practicó una inspección
ocular y se procedio a la detencion de las personas que se encontraban bloqueando la entrada de
dicha empresa por existir flagrancia de delito, quienes fueron consignadas ante el Juez penal
del 13° distrito Judicial en la ciudad de Tamaulipas, quien les otorgó la libertad mediante fianza
el dIa 23 de Junio de 2000. Con fecha 28 de diciembre de 2000, se dicto sobreseimiento del
proceso penal. Asimismo, el Gobierno indico que la actuación de la fuerza püblica ha sido
apegada a derecho.
287. Respecto a! caso de Gerardo Cabrera Gonzalez, la ProcuradurIa General de la Repüblica
informo de que con fecha 14 deJulio de 2001 el nombrado fue puesto a disposicion de la
Agencia Tilnica del Ministerio Püblico de la Federacion, con sede en Zihuatanejo (Guerrero), por
el delito de violacion de la Ley federal de armas de fuego de uso exclusivo del ejercito, armada y
fuerza aérea, lo que motivó el inicio de la averiguación previa, misma que fue consignada a!
Juzgado Tercero de Distrito en el Estado, dictandose auto de formal prisión el 16 de Julio
de 2001.
288. Respecto a! caso de Angélica Ayala Ortiz, el Gobierno respondio que a raIz de la
denuncia presentada por la nombrada con fecha 4 de agosto de 2000, se inició la averiguación
previa en contra de quien o quienes resultaran probables responsables de la comisión del delito
de robo calificado en su perJuicio, ante la ProcuradurIa General de Justicia del Estado de Oaxaca,
la cual fue reservada con fecha 22 de enero de 2001. El Gobierno manifesto que de dicha
investigación no se desprende que alguna autoridad o servidor püblico haya tenido
responsabilidad en los hechos referidos, ni tampoco se tiene la certeza de quién o quiénes hayan
sido los probables responsables.
289. Respecto a los casos de Andrés Rubio Sandivary y Rey Miguel Hernández, la
ProcuradurIa General de Justicia del Estado de Guerrero informo de que no existe denuncia
interpuesta con motivo de los hechos expuestos en el presente caso.
290. Respecto a los casos de Adrian RamIrez Lopez y Sara Rico RamIrez, el Gobierno
respondio que se inició la averiguación previa que fue determinada con propuesta de archivo
definitivo clii de octubre de 2001, en virtud de no haberse acreditado la infraccion ala
disciplina militar, y actualmente se encuentra en estudio y opinion con el segundo agente
adscrito de la ProcuradurIa General de Justicia Militar. Asimismo, la ProcuradurIa General de
Justicia Militar informo que los citados acudieron a la diligencia de forma voluntaria y
ratificaron su denuncia. Sin embargo, declararon que no les constaban los hechos, toda vez que
ellos ünicamente eran transmisores de la informacion proporcionada por el Centro de Derechos
Humanos Fray Bartolomé de las Casas y Enlace Civil, A.C.
291. Por carta fechada el 3 de diciembre de 2001, el Gobierno de Mexico informo respecto a
los casos de Margil Guerra, Ciro Rodriguez y Mauro Cruz, enviados por la Representante
EspecialJunto cone! Relator Especial sobre el derecho ala libertad de opinion y de expresión
el 26 de septiembre de 2001. El Gobierno respondio que la Procuraduria General de Justicia
Militar no tiene registro de ninguna denuncia interpuesta con motivo de los hechos del presente
caso, y seflalo que está dispuesto a investigar y dar seguimiento a! caso una vez que se presenten
las denuncias correspondientes.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 101
292. Por carta de fecha 18 de diciembre de 2001, ci Gobierno de Mexico informo respecto a
los casos de Melina Hernández y de Aido Gonzalez. El gobierno estabiecio que la ProcuradurIa
General de Justicia del Estado de Oaxaca se encuentra investigando los hechos. Por otra parte, ci
Gobierno indico que están siendo acordadas con las autoridades competentes las medidas
cautelares con ci fin de proteger la vida e integridad fIsica de los nombrados.
293. Por carta de fecha 10 de enero de 2002, ci Gobierno de Mexico remitió informacion en
torno a la situación de Manuel y Juan Gómez Hernandez, asI como de la comunidad indIgena de
la colonia Los Angeles en Chiapas. El Gobierno estabiecio que la Comisión Estatal de Derechos
Humanos de Chiapas decreto medidas cautelares a favor de las personas mencionadas y dirigio
estas medidas a la ProcuradurIa General de Justicia del Estado. En ci informe rendido por la
PoiicIa Judicial del Estado con reiacion al cumplimiento de las medidas cautelares, se seflala que
se han efectuado patruilajes de vigilancia en los airededores de la colonia de Los Angeles, asI
como de permanencia discreta para vigilar la zona.
Observations
294. The Special Representative is grateful to the Government of Mexico for its detailed
replies to her communications. She further welcomes the commitment made by the authorities to
the protection of human rights defenders. In this connection, the Special Representative urges
the Government to comply with its obligations investigate fully the murder of Ms. Digna Ochoa
and to bring those responsible to justice. She further calls upon the authorities to order the
immediate release of General José Francisco Gailardo as recommended by the Inter-American
Commission of Human Rights. In a letter dated 14 November 2001, the Special Representative
thanked the Government for the invitation extended to her on 31 October 2001. She hopes to
undertake this visit in the near future.
MOROCCO
Communications envoyées
295. Le 3 avrii 2001, la ReprCsentante speciale a adresse au Gouvernement un appel urgent
concernant M. Abderrahmane Benameur, Président de i'Association marocaine des droits de
i'homme (AMDH), M Amine Abdeihamid, Vice-Presidente de i'AMDH, M. Lahcen Khattar,
membre du bureau central de i'AMDH, de même que 33 autres personnes, qui auraient été
incuipes suite a une manifestation pacifique, organisée a i'occasion du cinquante-deuxième
anniversaire de la Declaration universeile des droits de i'homme, devant le Pariement du Maroc
a Rabat le 9 decembre 2000. La manifestation aurait été organisée afin d'exiger que ceux qui
avaient commis des violations des droits de i'homme soientjugés. Les 36 personnes auraient
comparu devant la Cour de premiere instance le 28 fevrier 2001 pour repondre aux accusations
de manifester sans autorisation. D'aprCs les informations reçues, les individus susmentionnés
seraient passibies de peines ailant jusqu'à trois ans d'emprisonnement. Cet appel urgent
concernait egaiement M. Noumri Brahim, ex-disparu sabraoui, et M. Eihamed Mabmoud,
deux militants du Forum vérité etjustice - section Sahara, qui auraient été interpeiles par la
police marocaine le 24 mars 2001 dans la zone internationale de i'aeroport de Casablanca. Scion
les informations reçues, us se seraient apprêtés a prendre i'avion pour GenCve pour assister a la
cinquante-septiCme session de la Commission des droits de i'homme. Au cours de cette
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 102
interpellation, la police marocaine aurait saisi leurs passeports, ainsi que les documents,
vidéocassettes et disquettes qu'ils souhaitaient presenter a la Commission des droits de l'homme.
Ils auraient etC relachCs quelques heures plus tard et auraient passé la nuit dans l'enceinte de
l'aCroport. En dCpit du fait que leurs passeports leur auraient etC restituCs le lendemain,
MM. Noumri et Elhamed se seraient vu interdire de quitter le territoire marocain, sur instruction
de la Direction gCnCrale de la SüretC nationale.
296. Le 2 novembre 2001, la ReprCsentante spCciale a envoyé une allegation au
Gouvernement marocain concernant le capitaine Mustapha Adib qui aurait etC condamné, en
février 2000, a cinq ans d'emprisonnement et ala radiation de l'armCe par le Tribunal permanent
des Forces armées royales. Ii aurait dénoncé des faits de corruption s'Ctant produits a l'intCrieur
de l'armCe et en aurait fait part aujournaliste duMonde, Jean-Pierre Tuquoi, en 1999.
Le 24juin 2000, cette decision aurait etC cassCe par la Cour supreme, qui aurait renvoyé l'affaire
pour un nouveau jugement au fond. Le 6 octobre 2000, le deuxième jugement du Tribunal
permanent des Forces armées royales aurait etC rendu a l'encontre de M. Adib, le condamnant a
deux ans et demi d'emprisonnement eta sa radiation de l'armCe pour <
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 103
Human Rights Day, which would have been in accordance with the responsibility of the State
under article 2 of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and
Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms.
NEPAL
Communication sent
299. On 22 November 2001, the Special Representative, together with the
Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, sent an urgent appeal
regarding Mr. S. K. Pradhan, Secretary-General of the Peoples Forum for Human Rights and
Democracy (PFHRD), an organization based in Nepal. According to the information received,
policemen in plainclothes reportedly arrested Mr. Pradhan without a warrant on
19 September 2001 at his home in Kathmandu. It was reported that he was charged with
involvement in the murder of Mr. R.K. Budhathoki, Chairman of the Bhutan Peoples' Party
(BPP), on 9 September 2001. According to the information received, Mr. 5K. Pradhan was
arrested on the basis of written complaints made by Mr. Balaram, BPP Secretary-General, in the
absence of any evidence of his involvement in the crime. In addition, at the time of the murder,
Mr. 5K. Pradhan was allegedly in Katbmandu as he had just returned from South Africa where
he attended the World Conference against Racism. Mr. 5K. Pradhan has been actively
associated with the movement for human rights and democracy in Bhutan and has denounced the
situation of Bhutanese people and refugees in almost all United Nations forums and world
conferences.
Observations
300. No reply from the Government has been received so far.
NICARAGUA
Urgent appeal
301. On 23 May 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, sent an urgent appeal regarding the case of
Ms. Vilma Nuflez de Escorcia, President of the Centro NicaragUense de Derechos Humanos
(CENIDH), and other members of the same organization. According to the information
received, Mr. José Marenco Cardenal, a member of the Government has reportedly claimed that
Ms. Vilma Nuflez de Escorcia and CENIDH have links with the illegal armed group Frente
Unido Andrés Castro (FUAC). It was further reported that, on 8 May 2001, when the
Government handed over evidence in court, the Fiscal General officially dismissed the
Government's claims as unfounded. Despite this, the Government has not retracted its claims
and is continuing its smear campaign against CENIDH. Ms. Vilma Nuflez de Escorcia has also
reportedly been threatened and harassed by anonymous phone calls and letters, and repeated
rumours of plots to kill her. It was also reported that newspapers and radio stations have said
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 104
“her death might be the answer to the unrest in northern Nicaragua”. In December 2000, the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights reportedly asked the Nicaraguan authorities to
provide protection for Ms. Vilma Nuflez de Escorcia and CENIDH. According to the
information received, they have been given police protection, but the police investigation into
the campaign of death threats has apparently been inadequate.
Observations
302. The Special Representative awaits a reply from the Government.
PALESTINE
Communication sent
303. On 3 September 2001 the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on torture, transmitted an allegation regarding information according to which the Ramallah
Police Commander justified the beating of detainees during a discussion on 7 August 2000 with
the Director-General of the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and
Environment (LAW), Khader Shkirat. When the Director of LAW responded by saying that this
violated Palestinian law, the Police Commander allegedly threatened him and told him that he
would detain him. He then reportedly asked his guards to take Khader Shkirat out of the police
headquarters by force. Later on in August, the Chief of the Palestinian Police Service reportedly
issued an order to heads of police districts and detention centres, prohibiting members of LAW
from visiting prisons, detention centres, police command centres, and police locations on
grounds of Khader Shkirat's “continuous attacks on the Authority”. A High Court petition is
said to have been lodged challenging the order.
Observations
304. No reply has been received so far.
PERU
Communication sent
305. On 6 June 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special
Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, sent an urgent appeal regarding the case
of Jenard Lee Rivera San Roque's relatives and neighbours in San Bartolomé, Lima department.
According to the information received, Jenard Lee Rivera San Roque died on 9 May 2001 while
in detention in Cruz Blanca. It was reported that his body showed evidence of torture. The
following day, Jenard Lee Rivera San Roque's relatives organized, jointly with neighbours in
San Roque, a demonstration in front of the Cruz Blanca police station to protest the killing.
During the protest, the police reportedly took photographs of the demonstrators and afterwards
asked questions about them. It was reported that, on 19 May 2001, Ms. Gina Requejo, the
lawyer of the victim's relatives, reportedly received a phone call from an anonymous caller,
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 105
who said “do not search anymore, investigate anymore”. It was further reported that such
intimidation was aimed at dissuading the relatives and their lawyer, as well as the other
demonstrators, from bringing to justice those responsible for the torture and killing of Jenard Lee
Rivera San Roque. Fears have been expressed for their safety.
Communications received
306. By letter dated 28 September 2001, the Government of Peru informed the Special
Representative that an investigation was being conducted into the complaint submitted by
Ms. Migda Mirtha Rivera San Roque through the Human Rights Committee that a crime against
humanity by means of torture followed by death had been committed by Lieutenant Julio César
Oliva Cuneo and others. This complaint was brought before Dr. Ricardo A. Gómez Hurtado,
provincial prosecutor in the First Provincial Criminal Prosecutor's Office in Huaura, Lima, and
a decision is pending. The Government further indicated that since the Public Prosecutor's
Department was conducting the criminal proceedings, its decision would be binding and it was
therefore not possible to provide further information on this case. In addition, the Government
reported that the Ministry of the Interior had brought administrative-disciplinary proceedings in
the Second National Police Judicial Division against Officer Julio Castro Reyes and Officer
Mario Mayta Yupanqui, members of the Vehicular Robbery Investigation Section of the Huacho
Road Traffic Safety Division, for alleged commission of the offence of disobedience.
Observations
307. The Special Representative thanks the Government for its reply. She would be grateful
to the Peruvian Government to be kept informed of the measures taken to address the harassment
and intimidation suffered by the lawyer of Jenard Lee Rivera San Roque and his family.
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Communication sent
308. On 2 November 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on freedom of opinion and expression, sent an urgent appeal regarding Mr. Dan Byuong-ho,
president of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU). According to the information
received, the authorities issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Dan Byuong-ho in June 2001 for
leading the KCTU campaign for workers' rights in 2001. It was also reported that
Mr. Dan Byuong-ho had previously been imprisoned in connection with his efforts to promote
basic labour standards, but was released in August 1999 as a part of the general presidential
amnesty. At that time, he still reportedly had two months and four days left of his sentence. It
was further reported that an agreement was reached between the KCTU and the Government
on 2 August 2001, according to which Mr. Dan Byuong-ho would return to prison to serve his
remaining time and the authorities would stop bringing new charges against him in relation with
the KCTU campaign in 2001. It was also reported that, on 28 September 2001, a few days
before Mr. Dan Byuong-ho's release on 3 October 2001, the authorities issued a new arrest
warrant, enabling them further to hold him in detention for investigation and trial. Since then,
Mr. Dan Byuong-ho has reportedly been in prison and the authorities have allegedly denied that
an agreement between the Government and the KCTU ever existed.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 106
Communications received
309. By letter dated 21 December 2001 the Government informed the Special Representative
that Mr. Dan had been arrested and imprisoned on a charge of leading illegal labour-related
activities and had later been granted general amnesty and released in August 1999. The
Government stated that, from December 1999 to July 2001, Mr. Dan continued to lead more
than 10 illegal strikes and violent demonstrations. Holding Mr. Dan accountable for the
aforementioned acts, the government authorities repealed the suspension of execution previously
granted to him and he returned to prison to serve his remaining sentence. The Government
assured the Special Representative that it had never agreed to stop bringing new charges against
Mr. Dan in connection with the KCTU campaign in 2001. The Government stated that the
strikes and demonstrations led by Mr. Dan had proved to be politically motivated and organized
with the aim of undermining economic restructuring.
Observations
310. The Special Representative thanks the Government for its reply.
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Communications sent
311. On 5 June 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
torture, sent an urgent appeal concerning Dik Alterimov, a Chechen human rights activist and
former Minister for Tourism and Sport and Vice President of the Chechen Republic with
responsibility for social and humanitarian issues. He was reportedly arrested by Russian federal
forces on 24 May 2001 in Grozny. The official reason for his arrest is said to be his alleged
participation in activities of Chechen armed groups. It is nevertheless believed that he was held
solely for his involvement in human rights activities in favour of victims of the armed conflict in
Checbnya, since he is known to oppose the tactics adopted by Chechen armed groups and to
have criticized the activities of Islamic fundamentalist groups in Chechnya.
312. On 10 August 2001, the Special Representative, jointly with the Special Rapporteur on
torture, transmitted an allegation regarding Sergei Grigoryants, the head of the Glasnost
Foundation, an organization involved in the defence of human rights. He was reportedly kicked
by masked men who entered the offices of the Foundation located in a residential building on
Tsvetnoi Bulvar, in central Moscow, on 29 August 2000. According to the information
received, 10 commandos and a police lieutenant, who was believed to have identified himself as
being from the 18th precinct, at gunpoint ordered everyone present in the Foundation's office,
i.e., about 12 persons, including a 10-year-old girl, to lie face down on the floor with their hands
behind their heads. It was believed that this incident is related to the work of the Foundation.
313. On 30 October 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion
and expression, sent an urgent appeal concerning Ms. Anna Politkovskaia, a Russian journalist
for the weekly newspaper Novaya gazeta who was reportedly forced to flee from Russia and take
refuge in Austria. Ms. Politkovskaia is a renowned journalist who has published many articles
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 107
denouncing human rights violations committed by Russian forces in Chechnya, for which she
received the Amnesty International Human Rights Prize forjournalists in April 2001. According
to the information received, Ms Politkovskaia received several death threats following the
publication on 10 September 2001 of an article about Serguei Lapin, a Russian official whom
Ms. Politkovskaia accused of having committed exactions against Chechen civilians. Ms.
Politkovskaia is said to have received c-mails on 15 September and 10 October 2001 mentioning
that Officer Lapin would come to Moscow to get his revenge on the journalist.
314. On 12 November 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal, jointly
with the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, regarding
Mr. Jmran Elsheyev, a human rights defender and a leader of the Russo-Chechen Friendship
Society, who was reportedly arrested on 13 October 2001, near Karabulak, Ingushetia, by the
Federal (Russian) authorities (FSB) after having had contacts with researchers from the
Norwegian Helsinki Committee (NHC). According to the information received, he was taken to
Grozny and was detained in a FSB facility (Leninskij RVD); no formal charges have been made
public against him. The Russo-Chechen Friendship Society is a humanitarian organization that
deals with the situation of internally displaced persons from the war in Chechnya. It has been
reported that the NHC met several times with the Friendship Society during its visit to Ingushetia
from 30 September to 5 October 2001. The Friendship Society reportedly assisted the
Committee's visits to a number of so-called spontaneous settlements. According to the
information received, Mr. Elsheyev and his colleagues told the NHC on 4 October 2001 that they
had received a visit from the FSB the evening before and had been warned against meeting with
“those foreigners”.
Communications received
315. By letter dated 27 July 2001, the Government responded to the urgent appeal sent
on 5 June 2001 concerning the case of Dik Alterimov. The Government assured the Special
Representative that the Office of the Procurator General of the Russian Federation, the Office of
the Procurator of the Chechen Republic and the Grozny City Procurator had checked the claims
made in the communication regarding the allegedly unlawful detention and disappearance of
Mr. D. Altemirov. The Government informed the Special Representative that Mr. Altemirov
was indeed arrested in Grozny on 24 May 2001 on suspicion of involvement with an illegal
armed formation (pursuant to the Federal Anti-Terrorism Act of 25 July 1998). He was released
upon completion of relevant checks and was never subjected to any kind of physical violence or
psychological pressure. He had no complaints about his conditions of detention and had made a
written statement to that effect. Mr. Altemirov was currently living at home in Grozny.
316. By letter dated 26 September 2001, the Government responded to the allegation
transmitted on 10 August 2001 regarding Mr. Grigoryants, the head of the Glasnost Foundation.
The Government informed the Special Representative that it had provisionally been established
that the Meshchansky District Internal Affairs Department of the Internal Affairs Directorate of
the Moscow Central Administrative District had received a collective communication from
residents of Building 5, 22 Tsvetnoy Bulvar, Moscow, concerning the illegal use as offices of
three rooms in communal apartment No. 40 in the same building. The said apartment, which
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 108
comprises four rooms, is municipally owned. Mr. MI. Arshinov was registered as living in one
of the rooms; the others are unoccupied. In the course of an inspection on 27 July 2000, it was
discovered that the sealed rooms had been opened and were illegally being used as offices by the
Glasnost Foundation. On 28 August 2000, following a meeting of the heads of the Sretenka
District Operating Board, Internal Affairs Department officers inspected without violence
apartment No. 40 and checked the identity papers of the people whom they found there. It was
discovered that Mr. 5.1. Grigoryants had without permission installed office equipment, copying
machines, telephones and faxes in the three unoccupied rooms. The Government informed the
Special Representative that Mr. SI. Grigoryants had already submitted a similar complaint under
the 1503 procedure.
317. By letter dated 7 December 2001 the Government responded to the urgent appeal sent
on 30 October 2001 regarding Ms. Anna Politkovskaia. The Government informed the
Special Representative that on 11 and 15 October 2001 anonymous threats addressed to
Ms. Politkovskaya were indeed c-mailed to the editorial office of the weekly newspaper
Novaya gazeta. The Moscow Central Department of Internal Affairs had taken steps to identify
the authors of the threats and to document any subsequent threats c-mailed to the editorial office
of Novaya gazeta. The Government stated that verification of the information was being
supervised by the Central Criminal Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
and would be completed when Ms. Politkovskaya returned from abroad. The Government
specified that Ms. Politkovskaya herself had not notified the procuratorial agencies, the Federal
Ministry of Internal Affairs or its local branches of any threats. The Government added that the
allegation that she had been forced to seek political asylum outside the Russian Federation had
not been corroborated by the editorial office. The Government assured the Special
Representative that no one had prevented Ms. Politkovskaya from publishing articles on the
situation in the Chechen Republic, even though the facts presented in her articles had not been
objectively corroborated when checked.
318. By letter dated 20 December 2001 the Government responded to the urgent appeal sent
on 12 November 2001 regarding Mr. Imran Elsheyev. The Government informed the Special
Representative that an investigation had been undertaken and nothing was found to support the
allegation that Mr. Ezheev was detained or arrested by units of the Russian Federal Security
Service, local security agencies, military security units or staff operating in the territory of the
Republic of Ingushetia and the Chechen Republic. The Government added that the investigation
had established that Mr. Ezheev was detained on 13 October 2001 by internal affairs officers in
the village of Yandar in the Republic of Ingushetia of the Russian Federation. He was detained
pursuant to a request from the Aktobe Oblast Internal Affairs Authority in the Republic of
Kazakhstan. The Government affirmed that information was received on 9 November 2001
from the Aktobe Oblast Internal Affairs Authority in Kazakhstan indicating that the offence
committed by Mr. Ezheev was subject to an amnesty to mark the tenth anniversary of the
adoption of the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Whereupon,
pursuant to a decision of the Acting Procurator of the Chechen Republic of the
Russian Federation, Mr. Ezheev was released from custody. Nothing was found to support
the allegations made in the inquiry that Mr. Ezheev was arrested on account of human rights
activities.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 109
Observations
319. The Special Representative thanks the Government for its replies. She was informed that
on 20 November 2001, Mr. Jmran Elsheyev (urgent appeal dated 12 November 2001) was
released by the Prosecutor General of the Chechen Republic, Mr. V. Chernov, who offered an
official apology for this illegal detention. The Special Representative remains concerned about
the situation of Ms. Anna Politkovskaia and wishes to be kept informed of further developments.
RWANDA
Communication envoyée
320. Le 4 mai 2001, la Représentante spéciale a envoyé un appel urgent concernant
Théobald Rwaka, ancien Ministre de l'intérieur et fondateur de l'organisation
non gouvernementale LIPRODHOR, qui serait porte disparu depuis le vendredi 27 avril 2001.
Ii aurait quittC son domicile a Kigali vers 18 heures a bord d'un vChicule non identiflC ala suite
d'un appel tClCphonique. Depuis, sa famille et ses collègues seraient sans nouvelles de lui. Selon
les informations reçues, ThCobald Rwaka aurait etC dCmis de ses fonctions de Ministre de
l'intCrieur le 16 mars 2001, après avoir etC accuse de communiquer des informations aux
organisations non gouvernementales de defense des droits de l'homme. Des craintes ont etC
exprimCes quant au fait que sa disparition soit liCe son engagement en faveur des droits de
l'homme.
Observations
321. La ReprCsentante spCciale regrette qu'aucune rCponse du Gouvernement ne lui soit
parvenue.
SINGAPORE
322. In a communication dated 25 July 2001, the Special Representative requested the
Government to extend an invitation to her to carry out an official visit to Singapore. No reply
has been received so far.
SRI LANKA
Communication sent
323. The Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on torture, sent an
urgent appeal on 2 August 2001 and an allegation on 30 August 2001 concerning the arrest
of Thivyan Krisnasamy, a student of the Science Faculty at the University of Jaffna and former
secretary of the Jaffna University Students Union. The army reportedly arrested him
on 2 July 2001, in Inuvil. According to the information received, Mr. Krisnasamy has also been
heavily involved in the “Tamil Upsurge” movement, a non-violent movement that is protesting
against the State armed forces, demanding self-determination for the Tamils and calling for an
end to the current conflict. Since 1996, Mr. Krisnasamy has also reportedly been active in
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 110
protesting against large-scale disappearances in Jaffna and violations committed by the
Sri Lankan armed forces, such as sexual violations of Tamil women. It is believed that his arrest
was connected with these activities. According to the information received, he was accused of
being a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and of conducting “subversive
activity”. It is believed that Mr. Krisnasamy has been tortured during his detention, in order to
get him to make a false confession that he is involved with the LTTE, which can then be used
against him as evidence in a trial.
Communications received
324. On 6 December 2001, the Government informed the Special Representative that
on 2 July 2001, following the receipt of information that a group of LTTE cadres, posing as
civilians, were moving around in the area of Uralu in the Jaffna Peninsula, a team of army
personnel had been deployed to conduct search operations. Mr. Krisnasamy was arrested while
trying to escape after the team had ordered him to stop and was then detained under the
provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The Government stated that he was in possession
of an automatic weapon and that consequent to detailed interrogation some detonators and
ammunition were found in a little safe house in Urumbirai. The Government added that the
investigations revealed that the suspect had been in charge of LTTE activity within the Jaffna
University. The Government also stated that upon consideration of the investigation material,
the Attorney-General had indicted the suspect in the High Court of Jaffna and filed three cases
against him under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1979.
325. On 13 December 2001, the Government of Sri Lanka sent a communication to the
Special Representative to inform her of the creation of the Directorate of Human Rights and
Humanitarian Law in the Sri Lanka Army. This Directorate will be mandated to implement the
directives of the Commander of the Sri Lanka Army relating to human rights and to oversee the
implementation of human rights norms and standards, in line with domestic constitutional and
other legal provisions and those relating to international human rights law.
Observations
326. The Special Representative thanks the Government for its reply.
SUDAN
Communications sent
327. On 18 December 2000, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on torture and the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, sent an
urgent appeal concerning four lawyers, Messrs. Saatie Mohammed al-Haj, Hadi Abmed Osman,
Ghazi Suleiman and Ali Mahmoud Hassanaian, members of the National Alliance for the
Restoration of Democracy (NARD), who were arrested in their offices in Khartoum. Although
no official reason was given, it was alleged that they were detained in connection with the arrest,
on 6 December 2000, of seven leading opposition politicians during a meeting with a
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 111
United States diplomat in Khartoum. It was further alleged that these four lawyers had signed a
petition to the Justice Ministry protesting the detention of the seven politicians. They have not
been formally charged and have, since their detention, been held incommunicado, without access
to their lawyers, families or medical treatment.
328. On 13 March 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
torture and the Chairman-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, sent an
urgent appeal concerning Dr. Nageeb Nigim El Din, a member of the Sudanese Victims of
Torture Group (SVTG) and the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT),
who was arrested on 11 March 2001 by the security forces. The security forces allegedly
confiscated the computers of the Amal Centre for Rehabilitation of Victims of Physical and
Mental Trauma situated in northern Khartoum, all of the files of the patients at the centre and
some other documents. Dr. Nageeb Nigim El Din was allegedly held at the offices of the
security forces in Khartoum on Mohamed Nageeb Street before being transferred to Kober
prison. The information received indicates that he was due to meet the Special Rapporteur on
the situation of human rights in the Sudan, Mr. Gerhard Baum, on 13 March 2001, and that the
security forces have accused him of preparing lists of victims of torture for the Special
Rapporteur. The information further indicates that Dr. Nageeb Nigim El Dim has been arrested
seven times since 1989 and has spent over four years in prison.
329. On 21 June 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal, jointly with the
Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in
the Sudan, regarding Faisal el Bagir Mohamed, ajournalist and member of the SVTG.
On 13 June 2001, he was reportedly arrested at home in Khartoum and the security forces
searched his house, confiscating his computer and fax machine, as well as various documents.
They reportedly had no search warrant and gave no reason for his arrest. According to the
information received, Mr. Bagir Mohamed was taken away to be interrogated and was released
later on the same evening, but was told to report to the security headquarters the following day.
When he did so, he was reportedly rearrested. He has since allegedly been held incommunicado.
It was reported that shortly before his detention, Faisal el Bagir Mohamed had met with the
Ministry of Justice twice to seek permission for the SVTG and the Amal Centre to celebrate the
United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture on 26 June 2001.
330. On 19 October 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
the situation of human rights in the Sudan, sent an urgent appeal concerning a series of
operations allegedly launched by the Sudanese security authorities against several civil society
organizations. It was reported that the following organizations were targeted, the Abduulkareem
Margani Cultural Centre, the Centre for Sudanese Studies, the Gender Centre, the Amal Centre
for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Physical and Mental Trauma and the Khartoum Centre for
Human Rights Studies. According to the information received, the director of the Centre for
Sudanese Studies, Dr. Hydar Ibrahim Ali, was summoned to the security forces headquarters
on 9 October 2001. He was reportedly interrogated about the activities of the Centre and was
ordered to suspend all the Centre's activities until further notice. It was also reported that
Mr. Hydar Al-halab, director of the Abdulkareem Margani Cultural Centre, was also summoned
on the same day, together with the director of the Gender Centre. Dr. Nagib Nagm Eldin,
director of the Amal Centre, was reportedly likewise summoned to the security forces
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 112
headquarters on 10 and 11 October 2001. He was reportedly interrogated about the Centre's
activities by security officers, who informed him that the Centre would be under permanent
surveillance for a period of two months, after which they would decide about its future.
Mr. Faisal Al-bagir, a member of staff of the Khartoum Centre for Human Rights Studies, was
reportedly summoned on 9 October 2001 to the security forces headquarters and questioned
about his demands that the security forces return the Centre's equipment, which they had
confiscated during his arrest in June 2001. Representatives of the Amal and Khartoum Centres
were told by security officers that they would be under continued surveillance.
Observations
331. The Special Representative welcomes the release on 26 June 2001 of Mr. Faisal el Bagir
Mohamed and the release on 29 March 2001 of Dr. Nageeb Nigim El Din. She still, however,
awaits a reply from the Government to her communications.
SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
Communications sent
332. On 13 August 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
torture and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, sent an urgent appeal
concerning independent Member of Parliament and human rights defender Mamun al-Humsi,
who was arrested on 9 August 2001 in the National Assembly building in Damascus.
Mamun al-Humsi, who has represented a Damascus constituency for 11 years, had reportedly
begun a hunger strike at his office some 48 hours before he was arrested, in protest against the
continued application since 1963 of the Syrian emergency laws, under which the authorities have
sweeping powers to suppress dissent. In June 2001, he had called for a parliamentary human
rights committee to be set up and was also active within the newly emerging human rights and
civil society movement in Syria. Mr. Mamun al-Humsi has allegedly been charged with
offences including “insulting the Constitution, opposing the Government and engagement in
intelligence with foreign quarters”. These offences, which are tried by the Supreme State
Security Court, carry sentences of up to 15 years' imprisonment. It was also reported that
Mr. Mamun al-Humsi is reportedly being held incommunicado at the Adra prison, and is
allegedly denied his rights to legal representation, access to his family and access to medication
for his diabetes, which he takes regularly. It is also reported that under the state of emergency,
political opponents of the Government can be arrested and detained indefinitely.
333. On 14 September 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal jointly with the
Special Rapporteur on torture and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression
regarding the following nine political opposition activists who are said to have been arrested
since 1 September 2001: Riad Turk, a lawyer and the first secretary of the “Syrien-Bureau
Politique” Communist party; Riad Seif, a parliamentarian from Damascus; Kamal Labouani, an
old doctor and member of the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDF)
administrative council and the editorial committee of the “AMARJI” publication; ArefDalila, a
Damascus University professor and founding member of the “Commissions de la renaissance de
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 113
la société civile” (CRSC) movement; Habib Saleh, a businessman from Tartus and CRSC
activist; Hassan Sa'Doun, from the Al-Hassaka region of northern Syria and a debate forum
activist; Walid Al-Bouni, a doctor and “national dialogue” forum organizer; Habib Issa, a lawyer
and spokesperson for the “Jamal Attassi” forum; Fawaz Tello, an engineer and member of the
“dialogue national” forum.
334. On 15 November 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal concerning
Mr. Aktham Naisseh, president of the Syrian Committee for Human Rights, and one of its
members, Dunia Khawla. According to the information received, on 5 November 2001
Mr. Naisseh was prevented from leaving the airport to go to a conference organized by the
International Federation for Human Rights in Belgium, although he had previously obtained a
visa, as well as administrative authorization to leave Syria. The following day, Mr. Naisseh
was reportedly asked to go to the Palestine section of the Intelligence Services. As for
Ms. Dunia Khawla, she reportedly could not obtain a visa to go to the same conference.
Furthermore, on 9 October, Mr. Naisseh was asked by the security forces to go to the Palestine
section of the Intelligence Services after he distributed a petition relating to the arrests which
took place in Beirut at the beginning of September during a seminar organized by the
International Federation for Human Rights.
Observations
335. The Special Representative regrets that at the time of the finalization of this report the
Government had not transmitted any reply to her communication.
TANZANIA
Communication sent
336. On 30 November 2001, the Special Representative sent, jointly with the Special
Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, an urgent appeal regarding the arrest and
interrogation of Mr. Rugemeleza Nshala, president of Lawyers' Environmental Action Team
(LEAT), a public interest law firm, part of the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide
(E-LAW) network dedicated to the protection of the environment through law and advocacy.
It was reported that Mr. Nshala was representing small-scale miners in Tanzania who are
complaining about the death of some 50 colleagues during the eviction by force of thousands of
miners from the Bulyanhulu area in August 1996. This action was allegedly carried out in order
to enable the Canadian-owned conglomerate, Kahama Mining Company Ltd. (KMCL),
supported by the Government of Tanzania, to take hold of the property. It was reported that,
on 24 November 2001, the police raided the offices of LEAT in Dar es Salaam and seized a
videotape and some of the evidentiary material in the case. Mr. Nshala was reportedly arrested
and interrogated for about five hours. It was also reported that he was released on police bail
and required to report daily to the police. He was allegedly accused of “sedition”, along with
two other LEAT members, Mr. Tundu Lissu and Ms. Augustine Mrema. According to the
information received, this arrest and search followed a press conference held by LEAT
on 19 November 2001 during which the organization asked for an international commission
of inquiry to investigate the Bulyanhulu massacre of August 1996.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 114
Observations
337. No reply from the Government has been received so far.
TOGO
Communications envoyées
338. Le 1 er octobre 2001, la Représentante spéciale a envoyé un appel urgent concernant
Me Yawovi Agboyibo, Président du Comité d'action pour le renouveau (CAR), fondateur de
la premiere commission nationale des droits de l'homme en Afrique et ex-membre de la
Commission pontificale Justice et Paix. D'aprCs les informations reçues, Me Agboyibo aurait
été condamné le 3 aoüt 2001 a six mois de prison ferme eta 100 000 francs CFA d'amende par
le tribunal correctionnel de Lomé suite a une plainte pour diffamation intentée par
M. Agbéyomé Kodjo, actuel Premier Ministre. Cette condamnation ferait suite ala
“reactivation” d'une plainte déposée le 23 octobre 1998 par M. Kodjo a l'encontre de
Me Agboyibo qui aurait demande au Ministre de l'interieur et de la sécurité, dans un
communiqué du CAR, d'ouvrir une enquête sur des actes criminels commis par une milice armée
pretendant agir sur approbation de M. Kodjo. Ii n'y aurait eu aucune suite donnée a cette plainte
puisque Me Agboyibo était alors membre du Parlement et beneficiait de l'immunite. D'autre part,
les informations reçues indiquent que la detention de Me Agboyibo pourrait egalement être liee
au fait qu'il aurait rencontré les membres de la Commission d'enquête de l'Organisation des
Nations Unies et de l'Organisation de l'unite africaine créée le 7juin 2000, ala demande du
Gouvernement togolais. Cette commission était chargée de verifier les allegations d'Amnesty
International sur les executions extrajudiciaires commises au Togo a l'occasion des elections
presidentielles de juin 1998. Selon les informations reçues, au moms une douzaine de personnes
ayant témoigné devant la Commission d'enquête ONU-OUA auraient fait l'objet de represailles
depuis la publication de cc rapport en février 2001. Ces personnes auraient été victimes
d'intimidations et de menaces, tandis que d'autres auraient été contraintes de fuir le Togo.
339. Le 29 octobre 2001, la Représentante speciale a envoyé un appel urgent concernant
de nouvelles informations portant sur Me Yawovi Agboyibo, qui aurait été accuse, le
21 septembre 2001, de s'être rendu complice du “groupe de malfaiteurs de Sendomé, dirigé par
Kodjovi Akomabou, en lui apportant aide et assistance sous forme d'encouragement”. Selon les
informations reçues, cc groupe de malfaiteurs serait celui dont Me Agboyibo aurait dénoncé les
agissements des 1997, auprCs du Prefet de Yoto, du commandant de la brigade de gendarmerie
de Tabligbo, de M. Agbéyomé Kodjo, actuel Premier Ministre, et du Ministre de l'interieur et de
la sécurité. Cette seconde accusation, qui rend Me Agboyibo passible d'un a cinq ans
d'emprisonnement, aurait pour but de rendre Me Agboyibo ineligible aux prochaines elections.
Observations
340. The Special Representative regrets that at the time of the finalization of this report the
Government had not transmitted any reply to her communications. She would also like to
reiterate her concerns over a credible report alleging that several persons or organizations had
received threats or suffered reprisals for cooperating with the International Commission of
Inquiry for Togo. In this regard, the Special Representative would like to recall article 12.2 of
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 115
the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to
Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which
provides that “the State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the
competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any
violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure, adverse discrimination, pressure or any other
arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the
present Declaration”. The Special Representative would also remind the Government of
Commission on Human Rights resolution 200 1/11, entitled “Cooperation with representatives of
United Nations human rights bodies”, which “urges Governments to refrain from all acts of
intimidation or reprisal against those who seek to cooperate or have cooperated with
representatives of United Nations human rights bodies, or have provided testimony or
information to them”.
TUNISIA
Communications envoyées
341. Le 10j anvier 2001, la Représentante spéciale, conjointement avec le Rapporteur
special sur l'independance des juges et des avocats, a envoyé un appel urgent concernant
MeNejib Hosni, avocat reconnu dans le domaine des droits de l'homme, membre du Conseil
national pour les libertes en Tunisie (CNLT) et laureat de plusieurs prix internationaux pour son
travail de protection et de promotion des droits de l'homme. D'après les informations reçues,
Me Hosni aurait été condamne le 18 decembre 2000 a 15 jours d'emprisonnement ferme pour
exercice non autorisé de sa profession, puis arête le 21 decembre 2000 a son domicile de El Kef
oU il aurait été battu par le chef de la police judiciaire locale lors de son arrestation. Alors que
Me Hosni aurait du être relache le S janvier 2001 après avoir purge sa peine, il aurait été
maintenu en detention pour une duree allantjusqu'a cinq ans et demi, suite a une decision des
autorités tunisiennes de révoquer ainsi la mesure de liberation conditionnelle qui lui avait été
accordée en 1996. Selon les informations reçues, Nejib Hosni aurait été reconnu coupable
d'avoir enfreint “une mesure d'interdiction de l'exercice de sa profession” d'avocat, émise en
janvier 1996 pour une durée de cinq ans. Les informations reçues mentionnent que l'interdiction
imposée a Me Hosni d'exercer sa profession aurait ete prise arbitrairement sans l'aval du Conseil
de l'ordre des avocats. Le Conseil aurait d'ailleurs émis en avril 2000 un document autorisant
Me Hosni a exercer son métier et certifiant qu'il était regulièrement inscrit au barreau.
342. Le 27juin 2001, la Représentante speciale, conjointement avec le Rapporteur special sur
la liberte d'opinion et d'expression, a envoyé un appel urgent concernant Mme Sihem Ben
Sedrine, propriétaire de la maison d'édition “Aloes”, directrice du magazine en ligne Kalinia et
porte-parole du Conseil national pour les libertes en Tunisie (CNLT). D'après les informations
reçues, M Ben Sedrine aurait été interpellee le 26 juin 2001 a l'aeroport de Tunis-Carthage de
retour de Marseille pour être déférée devant unjuge d'instruction. Elle se serait vu notifier son
placement en détentionjusqu'au S juillet avant d'être transférée ala prison pour femmes de
la Manouba, située dans la banlieue ouest de Tunis. Selon les informations reçues,
l'interpellation de Mme Ben Sedrine serait consecutive a une information judiciaire ouverte par
un juge tunisien pour “diffamation”, “outrage a magistrat” et “atteinte a l'autorite de justice”,
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 116
suite a des propos tenus les 17 et 24 juin 2001 dans l'émission “Le Grand Maghreb” sur la
chaine arabe “Al Mustaquilla” (“L'Indépendante”), basée a Londres. Mme Ben Sédrine y aurait
notamment abordé la question de la corruption en Tunisie et fait référence a des propos tenus par
un magistrat tunisien lors d'une audience publique.
343. Le 19 octobre 2001, la Représentante spéciale a transmis au Gouvernement tunisien une
allegation concernant les cas suivants
344. La Ligue tunisienne de defense des droits de l'homme (LTDH) ferait l'objet de
poursuites judiciaires depuis le 27 novembre 2000 suite a une decision judiciaire provisoire
ordonnant au Comité directeur nouvellement elu de quitter les bureaux, lui interdisant d'agir au
nom de la LTDH et le remplaçant par un administrateur nommé par le tribunal. D'après les
informations reçues, cette décisionjudiciaire serait le résultat d'une plainte portée par quatre
congressistes battus lors des elections du Comité directeur et dont les liens avec le pouvoir
seraient manifestes. Selon les informations reçues, une decision de la Cour d'appel de Tunis
aurait été rendue le 21 juin 2001, confirmant la decision du tribunal de premiere instance du
12 février 2001 annulant les elections du congrCs de la Ligue. Le Comité directeur actuel de la
Ligue, élu au terme de ces elections déclarées illégitimes, se verrait ainsi dépourvu de tout statut
legal. La Cour d'appel aurait aussi décidé de suspendre l'administrateurjudiciaire nommé
le 27 novembre 2000. Dans cc même jugement, la Cour d'appel ordonnerait a cc même Comité
directeur d'organiser, dans un delai d'un an, la tenue de nouvelles elections. Depuis la decision
de la Cour d'appel, la LTDH continue a dénoncer les violations des droits de l'homme en
Tunisie, cc qui lui aurait valu une convocation au MinistCre de l'interieur, qui lui aurait interdit
toute autre activité que l'organisation de nouvelles elections.
345. Me Mokhtar Trifi, Président de la LTDH, aurait comparu le 10 mars 2001 devantlejuge
d'instruction pour être entendu concernant les chefs d'accusation de propagation, faite de
mauvaise foi, de fausses nouvelles susceptibles de troubler l'ordre public et de refus de se
conformer a une decision judiciaire. Ces chefs d'accusation lui auraient été notifies
le 3 mars 2001 et seraient lies a un communiqué émis par Me Trifi le 12 fevrier 2001 dans lequel
il aurait commenté le jugement rendu le même jour dans le procCs concernant la LTDH.
La comparution aurait été reportée par manque d'espace pour tous les avocats venus supporter
M Trifi.
346. M Khedija Cherif, sociologue, membre fondateur du Conseil national pour les libertes
en Tunisie (CNLT) et membre du Conseil d'administration de l'Association tunisienne des
femmes democrates (ATFD), aurait fait l'objet, le 10 mars 2001, d'une agression physique
devant le palais de justice de Tunis. Mrne Cherif était venue apporter son soutien a Me Trifi,
appele a comparaitre devant le juge d'instruction. A sa sortie du palais, un agent des services de
sécurité habille en civil l'aurait agressée et lui aurait arrache le dossier qui se trouvait dans son
sac. Le dossier qui lui aurait été vole contenait des photos et des documents concernant la
premi Cre agression par des policiers dont elle aurait été victime le icr mars 2001. Il a aussi été
rapporté que le 24 mars 2001, Mme Cherifn'aurait pas pu assister, en tant que membre, au
Conseil d'administration d'Internet des droits humains, une organisation non gouvernementale
basee au Canada, puisqu'il lui aurait été interdit de quitter le territoire tunisien.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 117
347. Me Anouar Kousri, Vice-Président de la LTDH et membre du Comité directeur, ferait
l'objet d'une surveillance constante par la police civile depuis qu'il aurait publié, en 2000, une
liste commentée des agents de la süreté du nord de la Tunisie prétendus coupables de
persácutions, de harcèlement et de torture. Dc même, il a été rapporté que suite a la plaidoirie,
le 14 mars 2001, de Me Kousri, avocat de la partie civile dans le procès de policiers impliqués
dans le décès dujeune tunisien Ridha El Jeddi, les alentours de son domicile et de son bureau
auraient été investis par des policiers en civil qui auraient multiplié les menaces a son égard,
envers ses proches et ses clients.
348. M Souhayer Belhassen, Vice-Présidente de la LTDH chargée des relations
internationales, aurait été agressée par des policiers en civil, le 14 avril 2001, a l'aéroport de
Tunis-Carthage. Mme Belhassen rentrait d'Europe oU elle avait défendu le dossier des droits de
l'homme en Tunisie et de la LTDH, auprès des instances des Nations Unies, du Parlement
européen et d'ONG internationales. Lorsque Mme Belhassen s'est rendue au poste de police pour
porter plainte, les agents de police auraient refuse d'enregistrer sa deposition.
349. M. Fathi Chamkhi, Président du Rassemblement pour une alternative internationale de
développement (RAID), aurait été insulté et menace le 2 mai 2001 par des policiers en civil
postés en faction quasi permanente devant son domicile. Ii a aussi été rapporté que
le 1 mai 2001, son fils de 8 ans qui revenait de l'école aurait été interrogé par deux individus sur
sa famille, tout en lui tenant les mains. Cet incident ferait suite a la coupure du téléphone de
M. Chamkhi et a l'interception de son courier. Selon les informations reçues, M. Chamkhi
aurait également été condamné a un mois de prison enjuin 2000 pour avoir été impliqué dans
des organisations non autorisées. Lors de son arrestation, on aurait trouvé en sa possession des
rapports du RAID et du CNLT.
350. Le docteur Mouncef al-Marzouki, défenseur des droits de l'homme et ancien porte-parole
du CNLT, a été condamné le 30 décembre 2000 a huit mois de prison ferme pour “appartenance
a une association illégale” et a quatre mois de prison ferme pour “diffusion de fausses
informations de nature a troubler l'ordre public”. Depuis cette date, le docteur Marzouki était
en liberté surveillée jusqu'a cc que sa peine soit réduite en appel a un an avec sursis
le 29 septembre 2001. D'après les informations reçues, la premiere condamnation résulterait de
son implication avec le CNLT, dont il était le représentant, et la deuxiCme concernerait une
contribution écrite du docteur Marzouki au CongrCs des défenseurs arabes des droits de
l'homme, qui s'est tenu a Rabat (Maroc) du 8 au 11 octobre 2000 et dans laquelle il aurait
condamné la situation des droits de l'homme et des libertés publiques en Tunisie. Ii a aussi été
rapporté que, le 10 mars 2001, le docteur Marzouki aurait été interdit de sortir du territoire
tunisien alors qu'il devait se rendre a Paris oU il avait obtenu un statut de professeur associé
dans une université. Invite a une reception de passation de mandat organisée par le CNLT
le l mars 2001, le docteur Marzouki aurait été empêché d'accéder au lieu de cette reunion, qui
aurait été bouclé par un important dispositifpolicier.
351. M. Hichem Gribaa, ancien Vice-Président de la LTDH, aurait été victime d'une attaque
dans la nuit du 3 au 4 aoüt 2001. Selon les informations reçues, des personnes non identifiées
auraient pénétré par effraction dans le bureau de M. Gribaa et auraient détruit du materiel. Deux
imprimantes, un fax, deux téléphones et une machine a écrire auraient aussi été voles et le
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 118
contenu des boites d'archives disperse. Ii a aussi etC rapportC que depuis la fin du mois de
mars 2001, M. Gribaa serait victime de filatures constantes de la part des services de police.
Selon les informations reçues, cette attaque serait liCe a l'engagement de M. Gribaa en faveur des
droits de l'homme.
352. M Sihem Ben Sedrine, qui a etC libCrCe le 11 aoüt 2001 après six semaines de
detention, continuerait, selon les informations reçues, de faire face a des accusations de
“diffamation”, “outrage a magistrat” et “atteinte a l'autoritC de lajustice”. Liberee sur decision
pr esidentielle, Mme Ben Sedrine ne serait pas repassée devant lajustice et pourrait de cc fait, a
tout moment, être amenée a comparaitre de nouveau. Dc plus, Mme Ben Sedrine et un groupe de
sympathisants qui se seraient réunis le 17 aoüt 2001 pour celebrer sa sortie de prison auraient été
attaqués par des policiers en civil. Mme Ben Sedrine aurait été battue a coups de pied dans les
côtes. Son man et sa fille de 13 ans auraient egalement etc violemment battus ainsi que plusieurs
de ses sympathisants.
353. M. Khemais Ksila, Secrétaire general de la LTDH, ferait l'objet d'une campagne de
diffamation depuis le 30 aoüt 2001, date a laquelle le Comité directeur de la LTDH aurait reçu
par fax un tract anonyme au contenu diffamatoire envers M. Ksila, l'accusant de harcèlement
sexuel sur Mlle Sonia Labidi, secrétaire a la LTDH. Le contenu de cc tract aurait ensuite ete
diffuse massivement par fax et repris par plusieurs quotidiens et hebdomadaires de la presse
tunisienne. D'après les informations reçues, la police politique et le comité central du parti au
pouvoir (RCD) auraient exercé des pressions sur M Labidi et sur sa famille afin de la
contraindre a porter plainte. M Labidi aurait fini par deposer une plainte pour harcèlement
sexuel a l'encontre de M. Ksila le 17 septembre 2001, plainte qui aurait elle aussi ete diffusee
massivement par fax. Selon les sources, cette campagne viserait a destabiliser la LTDH en
portant atteinte a sa credibilite.
354. M. Sadri Khiari, membre du Comité de coordination du RAID et membre fondateur du
CNLT, aurait été empêche de se rendre a Aix-en-Provence, en France, oU il devait participer a un
colloque le 24 septembre 2001. Il aurait été refoule a l'aeroport de Tunis par un policier en civil
qui lui aurait signifle qu'il lui était interdit de quitter le territoire tunisien en vertu d'une decision
du juge d'instruction. Le 19 juin 2001, M. Khiari aurait egalement été empêche de se rendre a
Paris, oU il devait presenter sa these, au motif qu'il aurait été l'objet de poursuites judiciaires
pour des affaires remontant a mars 1997 et mars 2000.
355. Jérôme Bellion-Jourdan et Philip Luther, deux delegues d'Amnesty International,
auraient été apprehendes et maltraites par des membres en civil des forces de sécurité lors d'une
visite officielle en Tunisie, au cours de laquelle ils devaient assister au procCs du defenseur des
droits de l'homme MoncefMarzouki. D'aprCs les informations reçues, les deux delegues se
seraient vu barer la route par des agents de police le 29 septembre 2001 a une heure du matin
alors qu'ils rentraient d'une reunion avec l'avocate Radhia Nasraoui. Selon les sources, leurs
effets personnels, notamment un ordinateur, un téléphone portable, un numériseur (scanner), un
dictaphone, deux cameras, une pellicule photographique et tous leurs documents, leur auraient
été confisques. Parmi ces documents se trouvaient des témoignages confidentiels de defenseurs
des droits de l'homme, de victimes de violations, ainsi que de leur famille. Au moment de
l'incident, les deux delegues se seraient dument identifies et auraient egalement produit une
lettre émise par le Ministre des droits de l'homme, Slaheddine Maaoui, les invitant a le
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 119
rencontrer le 4 octobre 2001. Les deux délégués auraient finalement été relachés et certains des
objets confisqués leur auraient été remis par des policiers en civil et par un employé du Ministère
des droits de l'homme. Selon les sources, les documents confidentiels n'auraient pas été remis.
356. Le 22 octobre 2001, la Représentante spéciale a envoyé un appel urgent concernant le
docteur Sahib Amri, qui aurait été attaqué par quatre hommes le 16 octobre 2001. Selon les
informations reçues, le docteur Amri aurait voulu déposer plainte au commissariat local en
spécifiant que ses agresseurs étaient membres de la police politique, mais les gendarmes
auraient refuse de mentionner cet Clement et lui auraient propose d'inscrire seulement
“contre X”. Le docteur Amir aurait refuse cette proposition et, a cc jour, aucune plainte n'aurait
etC officiellement dCposCe. Selon les informations reçues, cette agression serait due aux
commentaires faits par le docteur Amir, lors des Jeux mCditerranCens de septembre 2001, sur
la mort du commandant Mansouri en 1987, ainsi que sa volontC affichCe de crCer un comitC legal
de lutte contre la torture.
Communications received
357. By letter dated 11 December 2000, the Government responded to the urgent appeal sent
on 29 November 2000 (see E/CN.4/200 1/94, para. 82) and the press statement issued by the
Special Representative on 7 December 2000. The Government expressed its concern that the
press statement was released before the competent Tunisian authorities had had time to reply
to the urgent appeal. The Government informed the Special Representative that some
members of the Tunisian League for Human Rights had brought an action in the Court of
First Instance of Tunis for the annulment of the General Assembly of the League held
from 27 to 29 October 2000. During a press conference on 1 December 2000, the plaintiffs
asserted that there had been a number of breaches of the statutes and rules of procedure of the
League, and that this undermined its principles, interfered with the activities of its bodies and
violated the rights of several of its members. The plaintiffs have also submitted an application to
the interim reliefjudge for the appointment of a judicial officer to protect the League's property
and documents and to represent it at law until the court hands down a decision on the main case.
The Government informed the Special Representative that, on 27 November 2000, the court
decided that all the activities of the League's present executive board should be suspended
pending the court's decision on the main case and appointed ajudicial official pending that
decision. The Government assured the Special Representative that the provisional measures as
decided at law were executed in accordance with the rules of civil procedure in force, which
require the supervision of a notary acting as bailiff. The Government stated that these legal
proceedings were purely an internal matter concerning the League, involving only certain
members who contested the conditions under which the last General Assembly took place, and
were not at all intended to bring about its dissolution.
358. By letter dated 8 February 2001, the Government informed the Special Representative
that on 18 November 2000 the doyen of the corps of investigating magistrates declared the
investigation proceedings closed and ordered the committal of Mr. Marzouki, without custodial
detention, for trial by the Court of First Instance of Tunis on charges of support of an illegal
association and dissemination in bad faith of false information prejudicial to public order. The
Government added that on 30 December 2000 the Court of First Instance of Tunis sentenced
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 120
Mr. Marzouki to eight months' imprisonment for support of an illegal association and four
months for the dissemination in bad faith of false information prejudicial to public order. Since
the Public Prosecutor's Office has lodged an appeal, the judgement given at first instance will
not become executory until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. The Government assured
the Special Representative that throughout these legal proceedings Mr. Marzouki had enjoyed all
the rights of defence in accordance with the legislation in force. It followed from the foregoing
that the legal proceedings instituted against Mr. Marzouki had been based on acts designated as
criminal under the Tunisian legislation in force. The Government added that his alleged activism
in the field of human rights could not place him above the law. According to the Government,
Mr. Marzouki, who was employed by the regional public health directorate in Susa, submitted an
application for 13 days of annual leave beginning on 12 June 2000. However, that period
coincided with the holding of examinations and the meetings of examination boards in the
Faculty of Medicine at Susa. The administration had to inform Mr. Marzouki that he could not
take the leave applied for. Mr. Marzouki, immediately submitted to the above-mentioned
regional directorate a medical certificate prescribing “30 days' sick leave”. The administration,
in application of the provisions of article 41 of the general regulations applicable to public
officials, ordered a second examination. The inspecting physician went to the home of
Mr. Marzouki but was unable to perform his task, since the official concerned was never at
home. The administration later learned that he had left the country. The administration
consequently decided to refer him to the Disciplinary Board, which recommended “the dismissal
of the person concerned without loss of pension rights”. The Minister of Public Health accepted
the recommendation and on 29 July 2000 issued an order dismissing Mr. Marzouki. The order
of the Minister of Public Health, being an administrative decision, is subject to appeal before the
administrative tribunal.
359. By letter dated 22 March 2001, the Government informed the Special Representative
that Mr. Néjib Hosni drew up a contract dated 28 October 1989 for the sale of a property for
his own profit, which he claimed had been agreed by Mr. Mohamed MoncefRezgui.
On 3 January 1996, the Appeal Court of Kef sentenced Mr. Néjib Hosni to four years'
imprisonment for forgery, two years for possession of false documents and two years for use
of false documents. The Court also banned him from practising as a lawyer for a period of
five years. In December 1996, Mr. Hosni was granted conditional release for humanitarian
reasons. The additional sentence banning him from practising as a lawyer remained in force, as
required by law. The Government asserted that, despite his sentence, Mr. Hosni had in fact
defended cases in court, thereby violating the Criminal Code, article 315, under which “anyone
failing to abide by the rules or decisions adopted by the competent authority is liable to
punishment”. As a result, on 18 December 2000, the court sentenced Mr. Hosni to 15 days'
imprisonment. Following this sentence, and in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure,
article 359, the Minister for Internal Affairs, by a decision dated 3 January 2001, revoked the
December 1996 decision on conditional release for Mr. Hosni. He will therefore have to serve
the remainder of the sentence handed down on 3 January 1996. The Government stressed that
the court banned Mr. Néjib Hosni temporarily from practising as a lawyer and stated that this
was an additional sentence imposed in accordance with the law. The Bar Council's competence
to decide whether one of its members should be disbarred or suspended is a disciplinary
competence. The competence of a disciplinary body can never outweigh the competence of a
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 121
court, which is defined by law. The Government stated that during the entire course of the
proceedings against him, Mr. Hosni had been treated in accordance with the law and with strict
regard for the right to a defence. The allegations that he was beaten at the time of his arrest
on 21 December 2000 were completely without foundation.
360. By letter dated 18 May 2001, the Government informed the Special Representative that
Nejib Hosni had been released on 12 May 2001 with a presidential pardon.
361. By letter dated 16 July 2001, the Government informed the Special Representative that
Ms. Ben Sedrine was arrested because, in a programme broadcast by a London-based satellite
television channel, she had made personal accusations concerning a magistrate, an act which
constitutes an offence under Tunisian law. The Government added that Ms. Ben Sedrine was the
subject of a complaint by the magistrate in question, who availed himself of his rights in the
matter, claiming he was the victim of defamation. Court proceedings were immediately initiated
against Ms. Ben Sedrine, who was accused of defamation and malicious spreading of false
information. On 26 June 2001, she appeared before the examining magistrate and requested a
stay of proceedings in order to obtain legal assistance. The examining magistrate granted her
request, deferred proceedings until 5 July 2001 and issued a warrant for her detention in
accordance with the provisions of Tunisian law. According to the Government, under article 85
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the judge may order preventive detention where there are
serious presumptions and as a security measure to ensure that further offences are not committed.
On 5 July 2001, Ms. Ben Sedrine appeared before the examining magistrate, assisted
by 32 lawyers. After informing her of the counts with which she was charged, the examining
magistrate requested her to respond to them, but the accused insisted that she would respond
only in the presence of all the lawyers she had appointed. In view of the physical impossibility
of accommodating all the defence lawyers she had appointed and the obstinate refusal of the
accused to respond except in their presence, the examining magistrate entered the accused's
position in the record of proceedings and ordered the extension of the detention warrant.
Suivi
362. Le 28 décembre 2000, la Représentante spéciale a répondu a la lettre du Gouvernement
tunisien datée du 11 décembre 2000. La Représentante spéciale assure que s'agissant de la
pratique en matière de publication de communiqués de presse dans le cadre des procedures
spéciales des Nations Unies, si l'usage requiert que la publication de communiqués de presse soit
précédée par l'envoi de communications au Gouvernement, il n'est pas exigé d'attendre une
réponse du Gouvernement a cette communication avant d'émettre le communiqué. Après avoir
analyse les informations contenues dans la communication du Gouvernement tunisien, la
Représentante speciale indique que, d'après les informations reçues, les procedures judiciaires
intentées contre la LTDH ne constitueraient pas une affaire purement interne a la Ligue. Les
allegations, selon lesquelles les procedures intentées contre la LTDH seraient a l'origine d'une
manieuvre pour destabiliser le travail de l'organisation, sont sérieuses. Considérant l'histoire
personnelle des plaignants qui ont intenté le procès, il serait difficile de discréditer les allegations
et de considérer cc cas comme une affaire interne ala LTDH. La Représentante speciale ajoute
qu'elle est préoccupée par les procedures utilisees a l'encontre de la LTDH. Dc telles procedures
n'auraientjamais été utilisees auparavant pour regler des problèmes internes a une telle
association. Par ailleurs, s'agissant de la situation des membres de la LTDH, il a été rapporté
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 122
que, du fait que la Ligue soit sous “administrationjudiciaire” et du fait de la “suspension de
toutes les activités de l'actuel Comité directeur”, le Président et les membres de cc comité
risqueraient d'être arrêtés et poursuivis. Ii a aussi été rapporté que les membres du Conseil
national de la LTDH auraient été empêchés de se réunir a Bizerte le 3 décembre 2000 en raison
d'un déploiement policier bloquant l'accès non seulement aux locaux de rencontres mais même
aux rues oU se trouvent ces locaux. La Représentante spéciale mentionne aussi sa preoccupation
quanta l'arrestation de Nejib Hosni, avocat et membre du CNLT, le 21 décembre 2000 chez
lui a El Kef, suite a sa condamnation a une peine de 15 jours de prison pour avoir repris ses
activités en tant qu'avocat, malgré l'interdiction d'exercer sa profession émise en 1994 contre
lui. Dc plus, la Représentante spéciale rappelle a l'attention du Gouvernement la situation de
MoncefMarzouki, porte-parole du CNLT, qui devait comparaitre le 30 décembre 2000, pour
répondre a des accusations d'appartenance a une organisation non reconnue et la diffusion de
fausses nouvelles de nature a troubler l'ordre public.
Observations
363. The Special Representative would like to thank the Government for its detailed
replies. She welcomes the release on 12 May 2001 of Mr. Neijib Hosni following a
presidential pardon. She remains concerned, however, about the situation of human rights
defenders and the conditions under which they are exercising their activities in Tunisia. The
Special Representative continues to receive allegations of violations targeting human rights
defenders. These violations are believed to consist mainly of illegal searches, confiscation of
property, anonymous and threatening telephone calls, surveillance by unidentified individuals,
the cutting of phone lines, arbitrary detention, confiscation of passports, legal proceedings,
physical violence, defamation in the media, and other acts which might constitute a pattern of
intimidation against human rights defenders. According to the information received, a
significant portion of those acts of harassment and intimidation have been marked by impunity
as, even in the rare instances where incidents have been investigated by the judicial authorities,
those responsible have not been brought to justice. Finally, the Special Representative sent a
request on 19 October 2001 to the Government of Tunisia to visit the country and hopes for a
positive reply.
TURKEY
Communications sent
364. On 2 February 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal concerning
Ms. Nimet Tanrikulu, a member of Insan Ha /clan Dernegi (IHD), the Turkish Human Rights
Association, reportedly held in detention at the Bakirkoy Women's and Children's Prison in
Istanbul since 7 January 2001 and charged with breaching the Law on Demonstrations.
According to the information received, she was arrested as she took part in a ceremony to lay a
wreath in front of the Democratic Left Party headquarters in Istanbul to protest against the prison
raids that allegedly took place on 19 December 2000. Furthermore, it was reported that the
security police had raided the IHD headquarters in Ankara on 25 January 2001 and had
confiscated documents and five computer hard disks containing the organization's information.
The police raid on the IHD offices reportedly followed a decision by the 9th Criminal Court of
Ankara on the grounds that the organization had received funding from the Greek Foreign
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 123
Ministry without previous authorization from the Turkish authorities. However, it has been
alleged that the police raid was linked to the organization's high-profile campaign against the
new prison system, in particular the forced transfer of prisoners to so-called F-type prisons, as
well as its support for prisoners on hunger strike. It was further reported that six IHD branches
were closed down in January 2001. An allegation concerning the raid on the IHD offices in
Ankara was also sent by the Special Representative on 19 October 2001.
365. On 18 April 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
violence against women and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
executions, sent an urgent appeal regarding threats reportedly received by Ms. Eren Keskin, a
prominent lawyer who is a leading member of the Human Rights Association (IHD) and founder
of the Legal Aid Project for women who have been raped or sexually abused in custody. It was
reported that Ms. Eren Keskin has been receiving threatening telephone calls on her mobile
phone, at her law office and at the offices of the IHD, including threats that she will be raped or
killed. The harassment has allegedly taken place since Ms. Eren Keskin visited Silopi, in the
south-eastern province of Sirnak, as a member of a delegation investigating the disappearance of
two members of a Kurdish political party.
366. On 28 June 2001, the Special Representative,jointly with the Special Rapporteur on
freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the independence ofjudges
and lawyers, sent an urgent appeal concerning the trial of 16 individuals, which was due to
recommence on 29 June 2001, by the Ankara Military Court of the Office of the General Staff.
According to the information received, these individuals, namely, Yavuz Onen - president
of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (HRFD), Vahdettin Karabay - chairman of
the Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions, Salim Uslu - chairman of Hak-Is,
Siyami Erdem - former chairman of the Confederation of Public Labourers' Trade Unions,
HUsUn OndUl - president of the Human Rights Association, Cengiz Bektas - chairman
of the Writers' Trade Union, Atilla Maras - chairman of the Writers' Trade Union,
Yilmaz Ensaroglu - president of Mazlum-Der, Zuhal Olcay, Lale Mansur, Sanar Yurdatapan,
Ali Nesin, Erdal Oz, Omer Madra, Etyen Mahçupyan and Sadik Tasdogan, who published a
book entitled “Freedom of Thought 2000”, were accused of “driving people away from wanting
to conduct their military service” in violation of article 155 of the Turkish Penal Code (TPC). It
has been reported that this case forms part of a larger set of judicial proceedings against these
individuals because of the publication of the above-mentioned book. On 13 February 2001, they
were acquitted by the Istanbul State Security Court of charges under the Anti-Terror Law. They
also face proceedings in the Penal Court of First Instance for “insulting the religions” in violation
of article 175 of the TPC and before the Uskudar Criminal Court for “insulting the quality of
being a Turk, the Republic, Parliament, Government, Ministries, jurisdiction or the forces of the
Government related to the military”, in violation of article 159 of the TPC.
367. On 14 August 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on torture, sent an urgent appeal regarding harassment by the police against members of the
Human Rights Association (IHD) in Beytusebap, Sirnak, and the arrest and detention of one of
the IHD key witnesses, Rasim Asan. According to the information received, executives of the
IHD, as well as representatives of the Turkish Union of Chambers of Architects and Engineers
(TMMOB), the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (HRFT), the Association for Human Rights
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 124
and Solidarity with Oppressed People (Mazlum-Der), the Confederation of Public Sector Unions
(KESK) and the Diyarbakir Democracy Platform, were taking part in an investigative mission
on 8 August 2001 in Beytusebap. The purpose of the mission was reportedly to investigate
information relating to the torture of villagers, evictions in some villages and food embargos
imposed on other villages. It was reported that, after the mission, its members were stopped at
the entry checkpoint police station at Sirnak. The policemen allegedly collected cameras and
notes owned by members of the mission and banned them from using their phones. The
police reportedly confiscated 20 videotapes, 19 music tapes and some handwritten notes.
After releasing the 14 members of the mission, the police allegedly kept 18-year-old
Rasim Asan under detention. Rasim Asan had reportedly given a witness statement to the
IHD mission - which was recorded on one of the tapes confiscated by the police - and had
asked the mission to accompany him to his home in Mersin. It was reported that Rasim Asan
was forced to sign a written statement saying that he had received money from
Mr. Osman Baydemir, vice-president of IHD, in order to bring a testimony to the mission.
After a short trial, Rasim Asan was allegedly transferred to prison on 9 August, on the basis of
article 159 of the Turkish Penal Code, which provides for from one to six years' imprisonment
for “insulting the Turkish Republic ... and the military and security of the State”.
368. On 11 September 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal concerning the
raid, on 7 September 2001, on the Diyarbakir offices of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey
(HRFT). HRFT has five centres which provide treatment and rehabilitation for people who have
reportedly been tortured by the security forces in the south-east of the country. According to the
information received, the police obtained from the Diyarbakir Public Prosecutor's Office a
search warrant ordering the seizure of all documents in the offices that related to the treatment of
torture victims, which has been reportedly described as an illegal activity. This information had
been kept confidential as people known to have complained of being tortured by the security
forces reportedly face intimidation, torture and disappearance to stop them pursuing their
complaints. It was further reported that the police seized all the files and documents in the
office, including confidential medical files and information on staff, other doctors supporting
them and patients at the HRFT.
369. On 19 October 2001, the Special Representative transmitted an allegation regarding the
following cases.
370. Ms. GUnseli Kaya, a teacher and secretary of the HRFT office in Izmir, and
Dr. Alp Ayan, a psychiatrist with the HRFT Rehabilitation of the Victims of Torture Centre,
both members of the Human Rights Association of Turkey (HRA) and Mr. Berrin Esin Akan,
medical secretary of HRFT were reportedly accused of violating the law on meetings and
demonstrations. According to the information received, they were among the people arrested
on 30 September 1999 in Izmir as they were on their way to the village of Helvaci to attend the
funeral of Nevzat Ciftçi, one of the prisoners allegedly killed in the Ulucunlar massacre in
Ankara Central Prison on 26 September 1999. On 3 October 1999, after a hearing before the
Criminal Court of Izmir, they were reportedly charged, along with 12 other people, on the basis
of article 32, paragraph 3 of the law on meetings and demonstrations (“coercion, violence, threat,
assault or resistance” to a police decision forbidding a meeting) and of article 7, paragraph 2 of
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 125
the anti-terror law (“helping the members of a terrorist organization and disseminating
propaganda on its behalf'). Ms. GUnseli Kaya, Dr. Alp Ayan and Mr. Berrin Esin Akan were
reportedly released on 20 January 2000 after four months in prison, but the case is still under
trial.
371. LUtfi Demirkapi, president of the Human Rights Association (HRA) Ankara Branch
Office, Ilhami Yaban, Ismail Boyraz, Erol Direkçi, Mesut Cetiner, Zeki Irmak, and Riza Resat
Cetinbas, office members, Ali Riza Bektas, Saniye Simsek, Ekrem Erdin, Gokçe Otlu,
Emrah Serhan Soysal and Selim Necati Ort, HRA Prisoners' Commission members, were
reportedly charged under article 169 of the Penal Code, on 11 January 2001, by the Bureau of the
Prosecutor of the Criminal Court with “aiding and abetting of members of illegal organizations”.
According to the information received, the charges mentioned that during a police raid
on 23 December 2000, a detailed list of prisoners with information on their health was found
on the HRA premises, along with press releases which included statements against the building
of an F-type prison (with small, one- and three-person cells) and in support of the prisoners on
hunger strike. It was also reported that the Prosecutor demanded the closure of the Ankara
branch of HRA. It was further reported that the 12 HRA members charged were released
and that Ali Riza Bektas and Selim Necati Ort were released from preventive detention
on 22 May 2001. According to the information received, the court decided to combine an
additional case against Selim Necati Ort with this trial, which is still ongoing.
372. According to the information received, the HRA headquarters in Ankara were reportedly
searched by the police on 25 January 2001 and the association's computers and all its documents
and floppy disks were confiscated. According to the information received, this search followed a
decision of the 9th Penal Tribunal of Ankara which, on 22 January 2001, at the request of the
Ankara Prosecutor, was seized of the matter of the receipt of financial support from abroad
(Greece) by HRA without prior authorization from the authorities. It was also reported that the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Turkey published information on its web site aimed at
discrediting HRA, and questioning its impartial and objective character. According to the
information received, on 19 March 2001, a court case started against the HRA at Ankara Judicial
Court No. 24, with the demand, by the Prosecutor that the headquarters of the Association be
closed, under article 37 of the Law on Associations. The indictment reportedly claimed that
HRA had been active beyond the aims described in its statutes.
373. On 26 October 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal concerning
Mr. Saban Dayanam, a member of the HRA national board and of the Istanbul branch board.
According to the information received, on 19 October 2001, five unknown men tried to break
into Mr. Dayanam's apartment in Istanbul. It was reported that these men introduced themselves
as police officers and produced identity cards. This act was reportedly connected with the
publication on the same day of a report by the IHD Istanbul branch on a hunger strike by
political prisoners, which had been under way for a year. It was further reported that
Mr. Dayanam had been followed during the previous days by people in plain clothes, different
from the plain clothes police officers who reportedly kept the IHD Istanbul branch under
surveillance.
374. On 19 November 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal regarding
threats against members of the HRA in Istanbul. According to the information received,
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 126
on 15 November a man called Zeki Genç reportedly entered the IHD offices carrying a pistol,
a large knife and a parcel that he claimed was a bomb. He threatened that he would kill
everybody. Saban Dayanan and three other IHD members managed to wrestle him to the ground
and disarm him.
Communications received
375. By letter dated 5 June 2001 the Government responded to the urgent appeal sent
on 18 April 2001. The Government informed the Special Representative that in the context of
police operations in Konya, HUseyin Calik was taken into custody on 25 April 2000. He
confessed that he had been planning to murder Eren Keskin and that he had gone to Istanbul in
March 1999, possessing a pistol. He said that he had gone to the office of Eren Keskin, but
could not achieve his goal owing to the crowd in the office. The Government stated that upon
the completion of the investigation, HUseyin Calik had been arrested and was in prison. The
Government added that it was incorrect and misleading to refer to “a Kurdish political party” in
Turkey because no political party could be established on ethnic grounds.
376. By letter dated 13 June 2001, the Government provided additional information.
Eren Keskin had not requested the security forces to provide her with personal protection. She
had asked for a police patrol in the neighbourhood of the Istanbul branch of HRA. The
Government informed the Special Representative that upon receipt of this request, the necessary
measures had been taken by the security forces.
377. By letter dated 4 July 2001, the Government responded to the urgent appeal sent
on 2 February 2001. The Government informed the Special Representative that the relevant
court had decided to release Nimet Tanrikulu on 6 February 2001 and she had been acquitted
on 24 May 2001. The Government assured the Special Representative that none of the medical
reports indicated any trace of ill-treatment or torture while she was in custody. The Government
added that, upon the decision of the relevant court, the security forces searched the IHD premises
in Ankara in January 2001 and found empty cartridges, a mortar shell head and illegal
publications. A suit was therefore filed demanding that IHD be closed down. The Government
informed the Special Representative that the case was pending.
378. By letter dated 29 August 2001, the Government responded to the urgent appeal sent
on 28 June 2001. The Government informed the Special Representative that the accused persons
were on trial on different charges in the Turkish General Staff Military Court, Istanbul State
Security Court No. 5, UskUdar Criminal Court No. 2 and UskUdar Criminal Court of First
Instance No. 2. The Government added that the UskUdar Public Prosecutor's Office gave a
decision of non-jurisdiction on 5 October 2000 in the case of the publishers of the book entitled
“DUsUnceye OzgUrlUk 2000” (Freedom of Thought 2000). The UskUdar Public Prosecutor's
Office therefore decided to forward the file to the General Staff Military Prosecutor's Office.
The Government added that, according to article 11/A of the Code on the Establishment and
Trial Procedure of Military Courts, military courts also have jurisdiction to try non-military
persons for offences specified in article 58 of the Military Criminal Code. The Government
informed the Special Representative that the accused persons were acquitted by the Istanbul
State Security Court No. S on charges of aiding and abetting the terrorist organization PKK by
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 127
spreading its propaganda, spreading propaganda against the indivisible entity of the Turkish
State with its territory and nation, as well as inciting people to hatred and enmity on the basis of
race and region. The judgement was upheld for Sadik Tasdogan, while it was overruled for the
other accused persons by the Court of Appeal on 11 June 2001. The case was therefore pending.
The Government informed the Special Representative that the trial of the accused persons on
charges of insulting the Turkish nation, the Republic and the Government through a publication
was pending in UskUdar Criminal Court No. 2. The trial of the accused persons on charges of
insulting religions, judges, the Turkish flag and AtatUrk through the press was pending in
UskUdar Criminal Court of First Instance No. 2.
379. By letter dated 19 September 2001, the Government responded to the urgent appeal sent
on 14 August 2001. The Government informed the Special Representative that Rasim Asan had
been arrested upon a decision of Sirnak Criminal Court of Peace on 9 August 2001 on the
grounds of violating the Turkish Criminal Code by insulting the military. The Government
assured the Special Respresentative that none of the medical reports indicated any trace of torture
or ill-treatment. The Government added that the confiscated cameras had been returned to their
owners and the tapes handed over to the security forces as part of the investigation.
380. By letter sent on 2 January 2002, the Government responded to the urgent appeal
sent on 14 August 2001 regarding Rasim Asan. The Government informed the Special
Representative that a lawsuit has been filed against Rasim Asan and Osman Baydemir under the
Turkish Penal Code on the grounds of insulting the armed forces. Rasim Asan was released
following the first hearing, held on 19 September 2001, and Osman Baydemir was not taken into
custody. The case is pending.
381. By letter dated 2 January 2002, the Government responded to the urgent appeal sent
on 11 September 2001 concerning the raid on the HRFT offices in Diyarbakir. The Government
informed the Special Representative that, upon the decision of the competent court, the security
forces searched the premises of the Diyarbakir branch of HRFT on 7 September 2001.
Afterwards, an investigation had been initiated regarding the HRFT on the grounds of its
carrying out activities which went beyond the purposes prescribed by its founding charter and
aiding the terrorist organization PKK by its involvement in treating PKK members. The
Government added that, following the investigation, a decision of partial non-prosecution was
given regarding the accused persons on 25 October 2001, and a decision of non-jurisdiction was
given regarding Sezgin Tanrikulu and his file was therefore transferred to the Diyarbakir Public
Prosecutor's Office.
382. By letter dated 2 January 2002 the Government responded to the allegation
transmitted on 19 October 2001. The Government informed the Special Representative that
Ms. GUnseli Kaya and Dr. Alp Ayan had both attended a demonstration held without permission
for the funeral of Nevzat Ciftçi on 30 September 1999. When the security forces advised the
group to disperse, the group attacked with stones and cudgels. Some members of the group,
including Ms. Kaya and Dr. Ayan, were detained on the ground of violating the law on meetings
and demonstrations. They were released on 20 January 2000 pending trial. The Government
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 128
added that upon the decision of the relevant court, the security forces searched the HRA
premises in Ankara on 22 December 2000. Au Riza Bektas and Scum Necati Ort were arrested.
A suit was filed demanding the punishment of 12 persons, including LUtfi Demirkapi, on the
grounds of aiding and abetting terrorist organizations, and demanding the closure of the
Ankara HRA. The Government added that Emrah Serhan Soysal had been taken into custody
on 26 May 2001 and arrested on 30 May 2001. His file is pending, as is the IHD file.
383. By letter dated 8 January 2002, the Government responded to the urgent appeal sent
on 19 November 2001 regarding Zeki Genç. The Government informed the Special
Representative that investigations had been initiated. Zeki Genç was taken into custody
on 15 November 2001 and arrested on 19 November 2001. The Government added that a
lawsuit had been filed against him and his two fellows on the grounds of carrying out armed acts,
restricting personal freedom, threat by weapon and violating law No. 6136.
Observations
384. The Special Representative thanks the Government of Turkey for its detailed replies.
The Special Representative was pleased to learn that the Diyarbakir Directorate for Security
returned on 10 October 2001 all 365 patient files which had been seized by Turkish police forces
from the Diyarbakir Rehabilitation Centre. She also welcomes the release on 19 September 2001
of Rasim Asan. However, the Special Representative remains concerned about the human rights
defenders against whom criminal trials are still pending.
UGANDA
Communication sent
385. On 2 November 2001, the Special Representative transmitted an allegation regarding an
NGO registration amendment bill under consideration by the Ugandan Parliament. The
Special Representative expressed her concern over information alleging that such a bill allows
the suspension of NGO activities when their statutes are deemed in “contravention of any
government policy or plan or public interest”. The draft bill does not contain any provision
regarding the identity of the entity making this determination. It was also alleged that it
stipulates individual liability for acts committed in the service of the organization, including
possible imprisonment for up to one year for operating beyond the expiration or revocation of a
licence. This draft bill also “expands the Minister's power to make regulations to include
prescribing the manner in which organizations shall be wound up when they cease to operate
and also prescribing the duration and form of a permit issued to an NGO when it is registered”.
Observations
386. No reply has been received so far.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 129
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
Communications sent
387. On 11 December 2000, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal regarding
the situation of the Pat Finucane Centre, a human rights organization based in Deny,
Northern Ireland. According to the information received, on 1 December 2000, the Centre
allegedly received a Christmas card from the 1st Battalion, Scots Guards, Nanyuki, Kenya, in an
official United Nations Protection Force envelope. This card reportedly created an atmosphere
of apprehension amongst the members of the Centre. It was reported that the Centre has been
actively protesting a decision of the Army Board, which allowed two members of this battalion
to continue their careers in the armed services. These two members were convicted
on 10 February 1995 of murdering Mr. Peter McBride (an unarmed civilian) in Belfast
on 4 September 1992. It was reported that this Christmas card may be a threat to members of the
Centre, particularly since it was received on the same morning that they organized a day of
action protesting the Army Board's decision to re-employ the two convicted soldiers. Fears have
been expressed that members of the Pat Finucane Centre may be at risk of attack and/or reprisals
for their protests against the members of the 1st Battalion, Scots Guards.
388. On 16 July 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal regarding the case of
an NGO representative based in Belfast whose name has appeared on a list called “Know The
Provo”. According to the information received, the fact that he appears on the list constitutes a
threat to him as well as to other members of the NGO concerned. The NGO representative had
heard nothing of his own inclusion in the list until he was informed by someone in the
United States. The web site on which the list appeared now advertises that if $20 is sent to the
Loyalist Volunteer Prisoner Welfare (LVPW), to an address in the United States, a hard copy of
the list will be posted out. It has been reported that the list was previously available on the
Ulster Loyalist Information Services Network (ULISNET) web site but has been removed. It
allegedly targets many known republicans but also human rights activists, lawyers, journalists,
politicians, community activists and others. It was further reported that the list, which names
about 970 individuals, makes many false accusations of involvement in or sympathy for
republicanism.
Communications received
389. In a letter dated 2 May 2001, the Government of the United Kingdom replied to the
urgent appeal sent on 11 December 2000 and reported that officials had investigated the
circumstances surrounding this incident. According to the Government, the Commanding
Officer of the Scots Guards affirmed that no official card was sent. The origin of the card
remains unknown. The Government added that the Police Division of the Northern Ireland
Office, which operates the Key Person's Protection Scheme (KPPS) in Northern Ireland, had
stated that it had had no approaches from members of the Pat Finucane Centre expressing
concern regarding their safety.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 130
390. In reply to the communication dated 16 July 2001, the Government of the
United Kingdom provided, on 7 August 2001, information on the “Know the Provo” list.
The Government reported that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) had a dedicated computer
crime unit, which had been working with the service provider to have the sites removed from
their server. The Government further indicated that the Director of Public Prosecutions for
Northern Ireland had concluded that no criminal offences in respect of the ULISNET list had
been committed within Northern Ireland. However, the Government stated that the RUC had
also been in contact with the United States authorities and had taken steps to inform those named
on the list and to offer them advice on personal security. Regarding the case of the Belfast based
NGO representative, the police informed him on 20 July 2001 that his name was found on a
computer owned by a person believed to have an association with a Loyalist paramilitary
organization, and offered him the opportunity to seek advice about his personal security.
Observations
391. The Special Representative would like to thank the Government for its replies.
However, she remains concerned about the threats directed against human rights defenders in
Northern Ireland and would urge the Government to investigate them thoroughly and without
delay. hi this regard, a prompt and independent judicial investigation into the murders of lawyer
Patrick Finucane in 1989 and solicitor Rosemary Nelson in 1999 are essential in order to restore
a secure environment for human rights defenders in Northern Ireland.
UZBEKJSTAN
Communications sent
392. On 22 February 2001, the Special Representative sent an urgent appeal concerning the
arrest on 19 February 2001 of Elena Urlayeva, a member of the Human Rights Society of
Uzbekistan (HRSU). Information received indicated that she was taken by four militia workers
to the Yunusabad District Department of Internal Affairs, where several documents she was
carrying were confiscated and recorded as anti-constitutional. These documents apparently
included the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, documents from various
non-governmental organizations, correspondence addressed to President Karimov and the
Ombudsman of Uzbekistan, Uzbekistan legislation and individual complaints to the
United Nations. The militia workers reportedly demanded that she sign a statement admitting
the material was anti-constitutional. She was allegedly detained for seven hours, during which
time she was threatened and given no water nor her medication for a heart condition, then taken
to the office of Colonel Djurabayev, who told her she was not guilty and would be freed.
However, the information indicated that neither her documents nor her passport were returned to
her. Furthermore, urgent attention was drawn to the case of Tulkan Karaev, also a member of
the HRSU, who was detained by the militia at Tashkent airport on 15 February 2001 as he
returned from a human rights course in Ekaterinburg. He was reportedly carrying human rights
literature and other documents from various non-governmental organizations. According to the
source, the militia declared the literature unconstitutional and called an official from the
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 131
Department for the Prevention of Religious Extremism and Terrorism. Tulkan Karaev was
reportedly informed that he would be imprisoned for carrying this literature and asked to write an
explanatory paper. The information indicates that later that evening he was released and his
passport and other documents were returned to him.
393. On 15 March 2001, the Special Representative sent, jointly with the Special Rapporteur
on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, another urgent appeal regarding
Elena Urlayeva. It was reported that in the night of 8 March 2001, her house was doused with
petrol and set on fire while she and her family were asleep inside. According to the source, the
arson could be connected to an incident that occurred on 19 February 2001 when Ms. Urlayeva
was reportedly arrested by four militia workers.
394. On 22 June 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur on
torture, sent an urgent appeal concerning Shovruk Ruzimuradov, the head of HRSU. He was
reportedly arrested on 15 June 2001 by members of the Kashkadaryn District Department of the
Interior (DDI). Later the same day, a group of members of the DDI, including 31 armed
policemen, are said to have raided and searched his house and to have confiscated several items,
including a HRSU computer and several documents. It is believed that they did not have any
search warrant. It was also alleged that Shovruk Ruzimuradov's mother, T. Burieva, his wife,
R. Ruzimuradova, his sister, 0. Burieva, and his daughter were present in the house during the
search and were severely beaten. Since his arrest, Shovruk Ruzimuradov has reportedly been
held incommunicado in a secret place.
395. On 5 September 2001, the Special Representative sent, jointly with the
Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, an urgent appeal regarding
Ruslan Sharipov, president of the Union of Independent Journalists of Uzbekistan. According
to the information received, on 31 August 2001 Mr. Sharipov was detained by officials from the
Kibrayskiy Department of Internal Affairs, who confiscated his passport and journalist's card. It
was reported that the internal affairs officials interrogated Mr. Sharipov and accused him of
being involved in terrorist activities. It was also reported that members of Mr. Sharipov's family
were also intimidated by the same internal affairs officials. It was alleged that such harassment
is linked to Mr. Sharipov's human rights activities in particular his publication of articles entitled
“Shadow of independence” relating inter alia to persecution of Muslims, torture in Uzbekistan
prisons, corruption and intimidation ofjournalists.
396. On 1 October 2001, the Special Representative transmitted, jointly with the
Special Rapporteur on torture, an allegation regarding the following cases.
397. Elena Urlayeva, a member of HRSU, on behalf of whom the Special Representative
sent two urgent appeals, on 22 February 2001, and 15 March 2001, was reportedly arrested
on 6 April 2001 and taken to Mirzo Ulugbek district police headquarters in Tashkent, where she
is believed to have been interrogated and beaten. It was reported that she was later transferred to
the Municipal Clinical Psychiatric Hospital No. 1, where on 7 April 2001 a medical commission,
in which the deputy district police chief is believed to have taken part, reportedly ordered that
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 132
she had to undergo “compulsory treatment”. According to the information received,
Elena Urlayeva was perfectly healthy and had never been treated for mental illness. It is thought
that she was targeted for her human rights activities. On 4 June 2001, the Mirabadski court
reportedly held a hearing to decide whether the forced treatment and detention of Urlayeva, who
was not present, needed to be extended. The second day of the hearing, which took place in the
Municipal Clinical Psychiatric Hospital, included Elena Urlayeva. The latter reportedly stated
that hospital employees strapped her to a bed and forced her to receive injections and to take
tablets. According to the information received, shortly after the hearing Ms. Urlayeva was
transferred to the Republican Psychiatric Hospital No. 2, which she was reported to have left
voluntarily on 20 June 2001. It was also reported that, on 12 July 2001, a hearing on the legality
of her detention took place in the Tashkent City Court, which was alleged to have ruled that her
detention was legal.
398. Vassily Evtigneev, the brother of the above-named human rights activist, Elena Urlayeva,
was reportedly sentenced to six years' imprisonment by the Mirza Ulugbek District Court in
Tashkent in April 2000, on allegedly fabricated charges, probably in retaliation for his sister's
human rights work. According to the information received, he was kept in the “red zone” in
Karshi town, and was transferred in October 2000 to a medical penitentiary facility in Tashkent
in a serious condition. It was alleged that, on 6 November 2000, the manager of the medical
facility did not allow his relatives to visit him.
399. On 1 October 2001, the Special Representative transmitted jointly with the
Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur
on torture, an allegation of the assassination of Shovruk Ruzimuradov, the head of the HRSU
Kashkadaryn regional department, on behalf of whom the Special Representative had sent a
joint urgent appeal on 22 June 2001. Mr. Ruzimuradov was reportedly arrested on 15 June 2001
and held incommunicado for at least three weeks. His body was delivered to his family
on 7 July 2001. The reasons of his death in custody are not known.
400. On 2 November 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on torture and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, sent an urgent
appeal concerning Mr. Yusuf Juma, a poet, journalist and active member of The Popular
Movement Birlik on Uzbekistan. Mr. Juma was reportedly arrested on 23 October 2001 by the
Security Service of Uzbekistan (SSU) in Bukhara district. The SSU agents allegedly searched
Mr. Juma's house and confiscated many poems written by him and his daughter. According to
the information received, those poems criticized government policies and referred to police
violence, impunity and corruption. Mr. Juma was allegedly accused of anti-government
activities and charged under article 159 of the Criminal Code for having published some of these
poems on a web site.
Observations
401. The Special Representative regrets that at the time of the finalization of this report the
Government had not sent any reply to her communications. The Special Representative recalls
that she has indicated her interest in visiting Uzbekistan and hopes that the Government will give
positive consideration to this request.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 133
VENEZUELA
402. An official invitation to visit Venezuela was extended to the Special Representative by
the Government on 8 August 2001, following a request sent by the Special Representative
on 27 April 2001. The Special Representative hopes to undertake this visit in the near future.
VIET NAM
Communication sent
403. On 26 September 2001, the Special Representative transmitted an allegation to the
Government of Viet Nam. The Special Representative expressed her concern that human rights
defenders are perceived with unveiled hostility by the authorities. Under vaguely defined
“national security” provisions embodied in the Criminal Code and other domestic legislation,
human rights defenders are said to be at risk of being imprisoned or placed in “administrative
detention” without trial, allegedly for their peaceful activities. The Special Representative was
also concerned that there are no independent indigenous human rights NGOs in Viet Nam and
that all “social organizations” (i.e., organizations which are not direct branches of the
Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP)) must belong to the “Fatherland Front”, an umbrella
organization composed of non-Party elements, but said to be under Communist Party control.
404. The communication concerned the following cases.
405. Professor Nguyen Dinh Huy, a journalist and press editor, founder and president of the
Movement to Unite People and Build Democracy, is said to be currently detained in Z3OA prison
camp, Xuan Loc, Dong Nai province, where he had been since May 1996. According to the
information received, Mr. Nguyen Dinh Huy was arrested on 17 November 1993 for trying to
organize an international conference on democracy, human rights, economic development and
peaceful political change in Ho Chi Minh City. In April 1995, he was reported to have been
sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment and hard labour, allegedly for “acting to overthrow the
people's Government”.
406. Professor Nguyen Thanh Giang, a writer and outspoken intellectual, was reportedly
arrested and imprisoned for two months on 4 March 1999, for having reportedly written
documents which showed “close collusion with reactionary forces abroad to disrupt the social
order”. His writings have allegedly focused on political pluralism, labour rights and the
problems of State-owned enterprises. According to the information received, he was released
after he went on hunger strike in June 1999 and he has been victim of harassment since then. It
was alleged that on 20 October 1999 he was subjected to police harassment and his computer
was confiscated after two days of interrogation and he was forced to quit his researchjob at a
government science institute. According to the information received, Mr. Giang remained under
surveillance throughout the year 2000.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 134
407. Mr. Nguyen Dan Que, founder of the Non-violent Movement for Human Rights in
Viet Nam, was reportedly under house arrest at Ho Chi Minh City. According to the information
received, he was arrested in 1990 for “trying to overthrow the regime” and sentenced
to 20 years' imprisonment. He reportedly issued an appeal calling for a free and democratic
Viet Nam through free and fair elections. Mr. Que was reportedly released and placed under
house arrest in 1998. It was also alleged that, in 1998, his telephone was cut, his mail censured
and his family harassed by the police. According to the information received, on 12 April 2000,
the Vietnamese authorities arrested Ms. Sylvaine Pasquier, a reporter with the French magazine
L ‘Express, while she was trying to meet Mr. Que for an interview at his house. She was
reportedly expelled from Viet Nam after 24 hours of detention and interrogation at a police
station in Ho Chi Minh City. It was also reported that, on 15 January 2001, Mr. Que and his
wife were summoned to a “popular denunciation session” staged by the public security in the
5th district of Ho Chi Minh City. They were accused of treason because Dr. Que is said to have
proclaimed the foundation of his new organization, named “Get-together for Democracy”, in
November 2000.
408. Mr. Nguyen Van Ly Thadeus, a Roman Catholic priest, was reportedly detained in
Thua Phu prison. He was allegedly arrested on 17 May 2001 for his peaceful advocacy of
religious freedom. According to the information received, Mr. Nguyen Van Ly Thadeus was
placed under administrative detention for two years for having sent, on 13 February 2001, a
written testimony to a United States congressional hearing on violations of religious freedom in
Viet Nam. The Thua Thien-Hue Provincial People's Committee had reportedly forbidden him to
exercise his religious functions during his two-year administrative detention period and he was
said to have later been arrested for violating this order. It was also reported that the
State-controlled press has begun a vilification campaign against him, accusing him of treason.
409. Mr. Thich Tue Sy, secretary general of the Unified Buddhist Church of Viet Nam, a
writer and honorary member of PEN International and PEN Canada, was reportedly under house
arrest in the Quang Huong Gia Lam pagoda in Ho Chi Minh City for his peaceful advocacy of
freedom of belief and opinion. According to the information received, Mr. Thich Tue Sy was
released in September 1998 after 17 years of imprisonment and hard labour. After his
release, he was allegedly subjected to police surveillance, interrogations and threats.
On 14 September 1999, he was interrogated at the local police station and his computer hard disk
was confiscated for his alleged attempt to overthrow the Government. It was also alleged that, in
May 2001, he was harassed and interrogated by the police, who were reported to have initiated a
repression campaign against the Vietnamese Unified Buddhist Church. On 25 May 2001, he was
threatened at his pagoda by the police for his refusal to go to the police station in order to be
interrogated. It was also alleged that, on 3 June 2001, Mr. Thich Tue Sy wrote a letter to the
“Tribunal Populaire Supreme”, protesting against the harassment he has allegedly been
subjected to.
410. Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang, patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church of Viet Nam,
has reportedly been under house arrest without charges since 1982. Security police are said to be
permanently stationed on the only road leading to his hut and are thus able to monitor and
control all his visits. Mr. Thich Huyen Quang was allegedly never officially sentenced and was
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 135
arrested allegedly for his peaceful advocacy of religious freedom, human rights and democracy.
In November 1993, he reportedly issued a landmark “Declaration” calling for democratic reform,
such as the legalization of opposition parties, free elections and a multiparty system. According
to the information received, Thich Huyen Quang was formally “released” by order of the
Quang Ngai Security Police on 27 October 1997, even though he remains under house arrest.
411. Venerable Thich Quang Do, a writer, scholar, head of the Institute for the Propagation of
the Dharma and the second-highest dignitary of the Unified Buddhist Church of Viet Nam, was
reportedly detained incommunicado in Thanh Minh Zen monastery. It was alleged that
on 1 June 2001 the Ho Chi Minh People's Committee placed him under administrative detention
for two years, which was a “reactivation” of a five-year probationary detention sentence for
which Thich Quang Do was amnestied in 1998. This “reactivation” was said to have been the
consequence of a letter sent by Mr. Thich Quang Do to the authorities, asking for the release of
Mr. Thich Huyen Quang, and to be aimed at preventing Mr. Thich Quang Do from travelling to
the central province of Quang Ngai on 7 June 2001 to escort Patriarch Thich Huyen Quang to
Saigon for medical treatment. It was reported that Security Police officers guard the room of
Thich Quang Do, control his meals and forbid any visits or phone calls. It was also reported that
the State-controlled press has begun a vilification campaign against Thich Quang Do, accusing
him of “corruption”, and that the police have circulated a series of “anonymous letters” in Saigon
slandering the monk.
Communications received
412. On 2 November 2001, the Government of Viet Nam replied that the allegations regarding
the individual cases mentioned were inaccurate and falsified and that the true information on
those cases had been provided to the other thematic mechanisms of the Commission on Human
Rights. The Government affirmed that all the individuals mentioned were criminal offenders
who had been found in violation of the law and duly prosecuted for their acts. The Government
said that there were hundreds of Vietnamese NGOs and professional associations working in all
spheres of life, contributing actively to the renewal process of the country and to the promotion
and protection of the social, cultural, economic and political rights of every citizen. The
Government assured the Special Representative that these NGOs need not and in fact did not all
belong to the “Fatherland Front”.
Observations
413. The Special Representative thanks the Government for its reply. She nevertheless
remains concerned about the situation of human rights defenders in Viet Nam. She will
continue to watch the situation and seek the cooperation of the Government for the
implementation of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups
and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 136
ZIMBABWE
Communication sent
414. On 19 November 2001, the Special Representative, together with the Special Rapporteur
on freedom of opinion and expression, sent an urgent appeal regarding the cases of
Mr. David Coltart, a prominent and well-respected human rights lawyer and Member of
Parliament, Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the main opposition party Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC), and other members of the political opposition in Zimbabwe. It was
reported that on 15 November 2001, Mr. Coltart was detained by the police in Harare and then
released after two hours. Mr. Coltart has campaigned for many years to improve access to legal
services and to uphold the basic rights of everyone in Zimbabwe. In addition, Vice-President
Mr. Joseph Msika and other government officials reportedly appeared to be inciting violent
action against members of the MDC. In November 2001, the ruling Zanu PF party allegedly
accused MDC members of being responsible for the abduction and murder of Mr. Cain Nkala,
chairman of the Bulawayo war veterans' association, an armed militia closely associated with the
Zanu PF party. Members of the political opposition and human rights activists are reportedly the
targets of threats, detention and physical attack as part of a crackdown on the political opposition
in Zimbabwe prior to the elections scheduled for March 2002.
Observations
415. No reply from the Government has been received so far.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 137
Appendix
Submission of allegations to the Special Representative of the
Secretary-General on human rights defenders
Overview
At its fifty-sixth session, the Commission on Human Rights requested the
Secretary-General to appoint a special representative on human rights defenders
(resolution 2000/61 of 26 April 2000). Ms. Hina Jilani (Pakistan) was appointed in
August 2000. Her work on the mandate, which began in September 2000, is based largely on the
Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to
Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(General Assembly resolution 53/144 of 9 December 1998).
The Declaration recognizes that the definition of a human rights defender must be
broadly understood as encompassing also those striving for the promotion, protection and
realization of social, economic and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights. As the
Special Representative stated in her first annual report (E/CN.4/200 1/94), she believes that the
ambit of her mandate is broad enough to include, for example, those defending the right to a
healthy environment, promoting the rights of indigenous peoples, or engaging in trade union
activities. The mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights
defenders, as set out in Commission on Human Rights resolution 2000/6 1, is:
(a) To seek, receive, examine and respond to information on the situation and the
rights of anyone, acting individually or in association with others, to promote and protect human
rights and fundamental freedoms;
(b) To establish cooperation and conduct dialogue with Governments and other
interested actors on the promotion and effective implementation of the Declaration;
(c) To recommend strategies better to protect human rights defenders.
Any individual, group, non-governmental organization, intergovernmental agency or
government organization with reliable knowledge of human rights violations against human
rights defenders is encouraged to bring the relevant information to the attention of the Special
Representative in writing. The Special Representative will transmit information she considers
credible and reliable to the Government concerned and request that it respond with its comments
and observations.
Because of the wide range of groups and individuals that send allegations to the Special
Representative, those submitting complaints are encouraged to provide information regarding
their own human rights work.
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 138
While there is no formal procedure for the submission of allegations, certain details must
be provided to enable the Special Representative to bring the appropriate cases to the attention of
the Governments concerned as soon as possible. The information required includes the identity
of the alleged victim, the alleged violation, the perpetrator(s), and the steps, if any, taken by the
authorities. Complaints must be made in writing and sent to:
The Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
United Nations
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
FAX: (41 22) 917 90 06
Guideline for submissions
The following outline should be followed, to the extent possible, by those wishing to
submit allegations of violations against human rights defenders.a
1. Information regarding the alleged victim
— Full nameb
— Age
— Sex
— Profession or occupation
— Place of residence (or origin, if relevant to the violation suffered)
— The victim's affiliation, if any, with an organization, association or group engaged in
human rights work
— Name of the organization, association or group
— Name of the person heading the organization, association or group
— Nature of human rights work the individual performs
If the alleged violation is against an organization:
— Name of the organization
— Nature of the human rights worklactivities it is engaged in
— Territorial scope of its work (national, regional, international)
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 139
— Affiliations with other human rights organizations, if any
— Name of person(s) heading the organization
Additional information on the history of the work the individual or organization has
performed, if submitted, may be helpful in assessing the complaint/allegation.
2. Nature of the alleged violation
All relevant information regarding the violation allegedly committed against the human
rights defender, or organization, association or group, including:
— Date
— Place
— Description of the events/incident
— Nature of violation suffered or threatened
The information must indicate the connection of the alleged violation to human rights
activities performed.
If the violation involves or includes the arrest and/or imprisonment of an individual or
group of human rights defenders, information is required on:
— Identity of the authority involved (individual and/or ministry and/or department)
— Date and place of arrest
— Any circumstances under which the arrest was made that are relevant to the violation
— Nature of charges, if any, and the legal statute invoked
— Potential penalties the individual or group faces
— Place of detention, if known
— Term of detention
— Information on the provision of access to legal counsel and family members
— Steps taken to seek administrative or judicial remedy, nature of the remedy sought,
legal entity before which proceedings have been taken, and stage or result of such
proceedings
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 140
If the defender is being prosecuted in the courts for any activity in defence of human
rights or related activity, or as a consequence of such activity:
— The date and location of the trial
— The court hearing the case
— The relevant appeal procedures
— The penalties the group or individual faces
3. Perpetrator(s) of the alleged violation
— Name(s), if known
— if they are members of the security forces, their rank, functions, the unit or service,
etc., to which they belong
— if they are members of a civil defence group, paramilitary or other forces or an armed
group, details on whether or how these groups relate to the State (e.g. cooperation
with the State security forces, including information on chains of command, if
available, State collusion with or acquiescence in their operations)
4. Steps taken by or on behalf of the victim or organization to seek a remedy at the
national level
— All relevant information regarding whether a complaint was filed
— if so, when, where, by whom and before which authority
5. Steps taken by the concerned authorities
— Whether or not an investigation or inquiry into the alleged violation has been initiated
and/or concluded
— if so, by which authority, ministry or department of the Government
— Progress and status of the inquiry or investigation at the time of submission of the
allegation
— Whether or not the investigation or inquiry has resulted in charges or other legal
action
— if so, the reason why the result is unsatisfactory
— Measures, if any, taken to protect person(s) under threat
E/CN.4/2002/106
page 141
6. The violation alleged may not be the result of one incident or event, but may be a
continuing violation owing to conditions, policies, practices or laws that obstruct
the promotion, protection and/or realization of human rights
In such cases submissions must include:
— All relevant information regarding such conditions, policies, practices or laws
— The nature of the prejudice suffered by an individual or group(s) working for the
defence of human rights because of the above
— Methods used to impede the work of human rights defenders on the basis of the above
conditions, policies, practices or laws
— Agencies (State, non-State) employed to harass, intimidate and/or injure human rights
defenders on the basis of these conditions or in implementing such laws, practices and
policies
— Possible measures that can be taken to remedy the situation
— Any action taken by individuals or groups at the national level to reverse the
conditions, policies and practices or for reform of the laws that are contrary to the
rights recognized by the Declaration
Notes
a This guideline is not final. Comments and suggestions are welcome.
b Please note in the submission if the name of the alleged victim SHOULD NOT be
transmitted to the Government. Names of alleged victims wifi remain confidential
IF REQUESTED.
