Aadel Collection
Report submitted Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur, in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1994/18
UNITED
NATIONS
E
Economic and Social Distr.
GENERAL
Council
E/CN.4/1995/91/Add. 1
23 December 1994
ENGLISH
Original: ARABIC/CHINESE/ENGLISH !
FRENCH/SPANISH
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Fifty-first session
Item 22 of the provisional agenda
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECLARATION ON THE ELIMINATION OF
ALL FORMS OF INTOLERANCE AND OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON
RELIGION OR BELIEF
Report submitted Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur, in
accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1994/18
Addendum
CONTENTS
Paragraphs Page
INTRODUCTION . . . 1
I. SPECIFIC INCIDENTS IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES (PRIOR TO THE
FIFTIETH SESSION OF THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS)
EXAMINED BY THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR 2 - 21
Australia . . . . . 6 - 7
China .. .. 8- 9
10
Cuba . .
Spain . . . . 11 - 13
Greece . . 14
Iran, Islamic Republic of . . . 15 - 17
Myanmar . . . 18
Pakistan . . . . . . 19 - 21
3
4
4
S
26
27
35
38
42
52
GE.94-75168 (E)
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 2
CONTENTS ( continued)
Paragraphs Page
II. CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECLARATION ON THE
ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF INTOLERANCE
AND OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION
OR BELIEF 22 - 49 63
Argentina 27 64
China 28 69
Croatia 29 71
Spain 30 72
Ethiopia 31 73
Greece 32 73
Guyana 33 76
Indonesia 34 77
Jamaica 35 80
Luxembourg 36 84
Morocco 37 84
Monaco 38 85
Philippines 39 86
Qatar 40 89
Romania 41 89
Sudan 42 - 46 92
Sri Lanka 47 97
Sweden 48 99
Venezuela 49 101
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 3
Introduction
1. In this addendum, the Special Rapporteur devotes chapter I to the
communications transmitted to three Governments before the fiftieth session
of the Commission on Human Rights and also to the replies received from eight
Governments concerning communications transmitted during the same period,
in so far as that information was not published in the preceding reports.
In chapter II, the Special Rapporteur considers the replies received from
Governments in 1994 to his letter of 21 April 1994 addressed to all States
with a view to gathering any new information and any other relevant details
falling within the framework of his mandate on religious intolerance.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 4
I. SPECIFIC INCIDENTS IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES (PRIOR TO THE
FIFTIETH SESSION OF THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS)
EXAMINED BY THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR
2. The Special Rapporteur reports, in particular, on the communications
addressed to the Governments of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran and
Pakistan in 1993. With regard to the Islamic Republic of Iran and Pakistan,
the Special Rapporteur had decided in his previous report (E/CN.4/1994/79) not
to refer to the communications transmitted if the Governments concerned had
not been granted the minimum two-month period needed to undertake the
necessary investigations and to reply to the allegations.
3. In 1993, the Special Rapporteur had also communicated to the Chinese
Government allegations which were both general and detailed and for which the
period allowed for replies had been found to be less than two months. The
Chinese Government had sent a first reply concerning the general part of the
allegations (see E/CN.4/1994/79) , but had not replied to the detailed part of
the allegations relating to a series of individual cases requiring longer
investigations. This chapter reflects the detailed replies concerning those
allegations.
4. The Special Rapporteur received the reply of the Pakistani authorities
dated 8 February 1994, as well as that of the Chinese authorities which was
communicated to him during his visit to China. On 14 January 1994, the
Special Rapporteur also sent an urgent appeal to the Iranian Government,
which replied on 15 February 1994.
5. Moreover, in 1994, after the finalization and presentation of the report
to the fiftieth session of the Commission on Human Rights, the Special
Rapporteur received the replies of the Governments of Australia, Cuba, Greece,
Myanmar and Spain concerning the communications transmitted in 1992 and 1993.
AUSTRALIA
6. In reply to the communication from the Special Rapporteur
dated 14 October 1993 (E/CN.4/1994/79, paras. 34 and 35), the
Attorney-General's Department of Australia stated that the Australian
authorities were considering the questions raised by the Special Rapporteur
and would be transmitting their observations as soon as possible at the
beginning of 1994.
7. On 21 January 1994, the Australian Government transmitted to the Special
Rapporteur the following information concerning the allegations mentioned:
“Events of the general nature described by the Special Rapporteur
on the question of religious intolerance involved action taken by the
police and social welfare agencies in two States of Australia, namely,
New South Wales and Victoria. In response to the Special Rapporteur's
inquiry, the Australian Government sought advice from the New South Wales
and Victorian Governments.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 5
The latter pointed out that the events in question were the subject
of continuing judicial proceedings. In New South Wales, civil claims
on behalf of the children who were taken into care on 15 May 1992
were lodged with the Supreme Court as recently as December 1993 and
served on the Department of Community Services of New South Wales
on 12 January 1994.
In the State of Victoria, applications by the Department of Health
and Community Services to the Children's Court for the protection of
over 90 children under the Children and Young Person's Act 1989 are
proceeding. The case has been on appeal to the High Court of Australia
on preliminary issues. The hearing of the care applications is expected
to begin in February 1994.
The Australian Government fully supports the work of the Special
Rapporteur. However, as the domestic courts are currently considering
that matter, it would be premature for the Australian Government to
comment further at this time. Indeed, much of the relevant information
is still in dispute before the courts and any public statement by the
Australian Government might adversely affect the proper administration of
justice.”
CHINA
8. In a communication dated 25 November 1993 and addressed to the Chinese
Government, the Special Rapporteur transmitted allegations the general part of
which was reproduced in his previous report (E/CN.4/1994/79, para. 41) and the
detailed part of which is as follows:
“1. Harassment of Protestants in China
The Protestant churches in Yikezhao and Ih Ju League, Batou, and in
a village near Hohhot in Inner Mongolia, as well as in the provinces of
Shaanzi and Gansu, were reportedly destroyed by the Public Security
Bureau in 1991 and 1992. In one incident near Datong, Shaanxi,
300 worshippers were allegedly beaten and removed by force in the middle
of a religious service. The Church, although officially affiliated,
is said to have been razed to the ground.
In March 1992, members of the Public Security Bureau armed with
electric prods, truncheons and belts are said to have interrupted a
religious service being held at night in a house in the country near
Suzhou, Jiangsu province. At least 30 worshippers are reported to have
been detained following this incident.
In March and April 1992, the pastor in Guangzhou, Lin Xiangao
( Samuel Lam ) , was allegedly interrogated six times by the police and the
Bureau for Local Religious Affairs for refusing to affiliate his parish
with the official structure. Fifteen thousand Bibles are said to have
been seized at the house of one of his assistants.
At the beginning of April 1992, eight itinerant evangelists from
northern Zhejiang are reported to have been arrested and beaten. Six of
them were released during the following two months.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 6
In Queshan country, Henan province, 80 members of the underground
Protestant Church are reported to have been arrested and detained by
the police in April 1992. A month later, the police allegedly also
interrupted a religious service being held in a private house belonging
to Chai Danghe. Statues and hassocks were reportedly confiscated before
the premises were closed down. On 15 June, members of the Public
Security Bureau armed with electric prods are said to have forced their
way into another house and beaten the 100 so worshippers assembled there,
a dozen of whom were reportedly detained and interrogated before being
released a few weeks later. All the persons involved in this incident
were subsequently placed under house arrest.
In December 1992, some 100 Protestants are reported to have been
thrown into prison in Guoyang, northern Arihui province. Their release
was delayed after they refused to pay heavy fines. The police reportedly
reacted by carrying out searches of the homes of the persons detained and
confiscating their property and livestock.
Individual cases
Zhongxun Pei , aged 75, an evangelist of Korean origin in Shanghai,
was reportedly arrested in August 1983 for having, among other things,
played a leading role in the underground Protestant Church in the region
of Shanghai and for having received a large number of Bibles from abroad
and distributed them to his fellow Protestants of Korean origin in China.
Sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment, he is thought to be held in Shanghai
prison No. 2. Although he is exempted from working and is housed in a
private cell, his precarious state of health is said to be causing
concern to his family, who fear that he may die in prison before the
end of his term in five years' time.
Guoxing Xu , aged 38, a leader of an underground Protestant Church
in Shanghai, was allegedly arrested on 14 March 1989, released on 16 June
after numerous interrogations, rearrested on 6 November 1989 by the
Public Security Bureau in Shanghai and sentenced on 18 November 1990 to
three years' re-education through labour for having disrupted the social
order and encouraged unrest. He is allegedly held at the Da Feng labour
camp, in northern Jiangsu province.
Zhu Mei (or Sha Zhumei) , aged 74, a former schoolteacher and
member of an independent Protestant Church, was reportedly arrested on
3 June 1987 at her home in Shanghai and beaten by police. She was tried
in secret on 3 November 1987 and released on parole on 3 April 1992 for
medical reasons, following ill-treatment suffered in prison, as a result
of which she apparently lost the use of one knee. After two months in
hospital, she was reportedly placed under house arrest and her movements
restricted. Her political rights are said to have been suspended until
1995 and both she and her family are reportedly kept under close
surveillance by the authorities. She had reportedly already been
imprisoned for six years during the Cultural Revolution because of her
religious activities.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 7
Chang Rhea-yu (or Zhang Ruiyu) , aged 54, a member of one of the
underground Protestant Churches in Fujian province, is reported to have
had her house searched and to have been molested by members of the Public
Security Bureau in May 1990. They allegedly inflicted burns on her face
with their electric prods and broke several of her teeth. They then also
apparently confiscated Bibles and religious literature. She was
reportedly detained from 25 August 1990 and tried on 9 and 10 April 1991
for holding illegal meetings, distributing seditious propaganda, aimed
in particular against the measures taken by the authorities during the
events in Tiananmen Square, and for having corresponded with foreigners.
She was sentenced to four years' imprisonment and is reported now being
held in a women's prison in Fuzhou.
Li Jiayao , aged 30, head of one of the underground Protestant
Churches in Guangdong province, was reportedly arrested on
25 September 1990 and sentenced without trial on 17 September 1991
to three years of re-education through labour for having received and
illegally distributed Bibles and foreign literature. He is thought to be
currently held in Chek Li prison near Guangzhou. The police are said to
have informed his family that he would be released only on payment of a
fine of Y 5,000 ($900), Y 10,000 for a quicker release. His family is
said to have rejected this arrangement.
Yongze Xu , aged 52, of Nanyang, Zhenping country, Henan province,
is said to have been released in May 1991, but to be kept under strict
surveillance by the authorities. He was arrested twice in 1982 and 1988,
on the second occasion being sentenced to three years' imprisonment. He
reportedly began his evangelistic activities as early as 1968 and helped
to establish the New Birth Christian Movement, which spread to other
provinces with the formation of some 3,000 local underground groups, many
of whose members are said to have been arrested or detained subsequently.
Chen Zhuman , aged 50, a member of the Church of the New Testament
in Fujian, is reported to have been arrested on 14 December 1991 for
his religious activities, including contacts with members of foreign
churches, and to have been tortured by the police at the Putian county
detention centre with a view to extracting a confession. In July 1992,
he is said to have been sentenced without trial to three years'
re-education through labour and to have been transferred one month later
to a prison in Quanzhou, Fujian, where he was severely beaten by guards
and fellow prisoners. He is said to have lost his hearing and to be in
a precarious state of health as a result of the torture he suffered.
Pastor Moshan Xie , a well-known writer and evangelist, aged 70,
is said to have been released on bail on 23 July 1992, but is reportedly
still being kept under strict surveillance by the Shanghai Public
Security Bureau. He had allegedly been arrested on 3 May 1992, on his
return from Guangzhou, for having preached outside the area of his
domicile and undertaken an illegal itinerant evangelization campaign.
Pastor Xie had reportedly already been imprisoned from 1956 to 1980 for
refusing to join the Three-Self Patriotic movement.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 8
In June 1992, in the province on Shandong, the Religious Affairs
Bureau of the province reportedly destroyed the religious edifice of the
Family of Jesus sect in Duoyigou, confiscated its property and imposed
severe prison sentences on some 30 of its leaders. Created in the 1920s,
this sect apparently disappeared in the 1950s and then emerged again,
mainly from 1985 onwards. In 1992, it reportedly had some 3,000 members.
The head of this community, Zheng Yunsu , was allegedly arrested in
June 1992 for his religious beliefs and sentenced to 12 years'
imprisonment. Three of his sons are also said to have been sentenced
to nine, eight and seven years in prison, respectively.
Eight Christians, mostly of peasant origin, belonging to a local
chapter of the Church of the New Testament a Protestant community banned
by the authorities in a number of regions in China, are said to have been
arrested on 8 and 9 September 1992 in several villages of Shouguang
county, some 200 kilometres to the east of Jinan, the capital of Shandong
province. Their names are given as Zhang Lezhi , a tradesman aged 32,
Yan Peizhi , a farmer aged 35, and his wife, Zheng Yulian , aged 23,
Xu Zhihe , a 50-year-old farmer, and his wife, Guo Ruiping, Zhu Zizheng ,
aged 30, and Hu Jinting , aged 38, the last two both being farmers.
Accused of participating in ‘illegal' religious activities and
‘contributing to the resurgence and expansion of the Church of the
New Testament', these persons were allegedly taken to the detention
centre of the town of Shouguang, where they are said to have been beaten
and otherwise ill-treated. Upon protesting his innocence, Zhang Lezhi
was allegedly hit with electric truncheons by two policemen. Then,
handcuffed and with his legs in fetters weighing 9 kilos or more,
Zhang Lezhi reportedly spent three months doubled up, day and night, his
four limbs held together by a short chain, without ever being unshackled
even to eat or sleep. Another detainee, Zhu Zizheng, is said to have
undergone the torture of the ‘security chair', fitted with spikes at the
sides so that every movement is painful. He was allegedly beaten and
force fed while attached in this position.
Five persons are reported to have been released after one to
three months' detention. As regards Zhang Lezhi, Yan Peizhi and
Xu Zhihe, the sources indicated that they were sentenced in December 1992
by the Shouguang court to three years' re-education through labour, but
that the exact nature of the of fences with which they were charged is
not known. Allegedly taken to the Chang Le camp, some 40 kilometres
from Shouguang, they are said to have been ill-treated there by common
criminals serving sentences and to have been assigned the hardest tasks.
On 8 September 1992, in Henan province, the deliberations of a
group of Protestants gathered together for a seminar at a farm in the
village of Guofa, Wuyang county, were reportedly interrupted when some
40 members of the Public Security Bureau burst in and arrested 170 of the
participants. Some 10 apparently managing to escape. It is said that
12 participants were released after paying the cost of their stay in
prison and found when they returned home that everything of value,
including animals and farm implements, had disappeared. The family of
Ma Shuishan , at whose home the seminar had been held, apparently watched
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 9
helplessly while all his personal effects were pillaged. It is said
that, on about 1 January 1993, Ma Shuishan was again arrested and that
his family has had no news of him.
On 27 March 1993, in Shaanxi province, five Protestants from the
village of Taoyuan, in Xunyang county, were allegedly persecuted and
tortured after attending a religious service, one of them, Lai Manping ,
aged 22, dying from his injuries. According to the sources, eight or
nine members of the Public Security Bureau interrupted the ceremony,
seized three men and two women and stripped them of their clothing in
front of the other worshippers. Twenty-six of them were allegedly forced
by threats to beat these five persons with bamboo canes, each of them
receiving 100 strokes. Half-conscious, the three men were reportedly
strung up by their feet and beaten again. When the guards realized the
seriousness of Lai Manping's injuries, they reportedly called in a
physician who gave him only minimum care. Then, realizing that he was at
death's door, they apparently released him. It is said that Lai Manping
dragged himself along for 10 kilometres before collapsing and being taken
in by some villagers. He reportedly died a day and a half later.
The two women, who had also been severely beaten, apparently
fainted. On regaining consciousness, they were reportedly stretched out
on a stove with a 130-pound millstone across their backs and violently
beaten on the sensitive parts of their bodies. They were also allegedly
strung up by their feet and beaten in that position. A 12-year-old child
is said to have been violently struck on the head and then tossed around
like a balloon. The next day, according to reports, the victims were
taken to the Taoyuan police station and then to the Public Security
Bureau before being sent back to Taoyuan, where they were allegedly
detained for a week in harsh conditions.
2. Harassment of Catholics in China
Father Joseph Chen Yungtang , aged 75, of Shanghai, was allegedly
sentenced on 22 March 1983 to 11 years' imprisonment for his loyalty to
the Vatican and for having maintained contacts abroad and organized
independent religious activities, including the distribution of
underground religious literature. Apparently he had already been
arrested in 1955 and sentenced in 1960 to 15 years' imprisonment, but not
released until 1979. At that time, it is said, he was authorized to take
up residence in Shanghai and receive foreign visitors, a fact which was
to contribute to his subsequent rearrest.
Father Joseph Chan Rongkui , aged 28, of the Yixiang diocese,
Hebei province, was reportedly arrested at Dingxian railway station on
14 December 1990. In March 1993 he was still being detained. Charges
unknown.
Father Peter Xingang Cui , a priest serving in the village of
Donglu, Qingyuan county, Hebei province, was allegedly arrested on
28 July 1991.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 10
Father Fangzhan Gao , of the diocese of Yixian, Hebei province,
is said to have been arrested in 1991 by plain-clothes police on the
outskirts of the village of Shizhu, in Dingxing county.
Father Xinsan Li , of the diocese of Anguo, Hebei province, and
Father Zhongpei , of the same province, are reportedly two of the priests
who were to have been released by the Chinese authorities in March 1993.
They have apparently not been seen again at their respective domiciles.
It is said that they were sentenced to three years' re-education through
labour and have been detained in a labour camp at Tangshan since their
arrest in December 1990.
Father Haiging Liao , aged 63, of the diocese of Yujiang, Jiangxi
province, was allegedly arrested, for the fourth time, on 16 August 1992
by some 20 members of the Political Security Bureau and the Religious
Affairs Bureau while celebrating mass at about 6.30 a.m. at his home in
Fuzhou before the eyes of over 200 worshippers crammed into his house
and around it. Already twice sentenced, before 1980, to 8 to 5 years'
imprisonment respectively, he was reportedly ordained a priest shortly
before being rearrested on 19 November 1981 and given a further 10-year
sentence. Released in July 1991, he was allegedly detained for a time at
Nanchang Prison No. 4.
Father Heping Liu , aged 28, was reportedly arrested on
13 February 1991 at his home in the village of Shizhu, Dingxing county,
Hebei province. There has apparently been no news of this priest, who
had allegedly already been arrested once on 4 June 1990. From the same
province, Father Paul Shimin Liu , aged 32, was reportedly arrested at
Xiefangying, Xushui county, on 14 December 1990, while Father Ma Zhiyuan
and four seminarists are said to have been arrested on 12 December 1991
at Houzhuang in the same country. The fate of Father Guojun Pei , of the
diocese of Yixian, and of deacon Ma Shunbao , aged 42, arrested on
29 January and 6 November 1991 respectively in the province of Hebei,
is still unknown.
Father Zhenping Pei , a young Trappist priest, who was apparently
trained outside the fold of the official Chinese Catholic Church, was
allegedly arrested on 21 October 1989 in the village of Youtong,
Luancheng county, Hebei province, where he lived and worked. According
to reports, he was sentenced to an indefinite term and in March 1993 was
still being detained.
Bishop Cosmas Enxiang Shi , aged 71, of the diocese of Yixian, was
reportedly arrested in mid-December 1990, detained by the Public Security
Bureau of Xushui county and sent for a month of ‘study sessions' to
Handan, since when apparently all trace of him has been lost.
Several Catholic laymen from Baoding, Hebei province, have
allegedly been arrested. They include Guohui Shi, Dapeng Zhang and
his wife Zhonqye Zhao , all three said to have been arrested in
mid-December 1990. Zhang was reportedly sentenced to three years'
re-education through labour, while his wife was released after three
months' detention, arrested once again in 1992 and sentenced to the same
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 11
term as her husband. During the interval between her two periods of
detention she was allegedly banned from working, and was also made to
pay for her husband's bed and board in prison.
Father Danian Wang , aged a little over 70, and his two sisters were
allegedly arrested in June or July 1992 and accused of illegal missionary
activities in Suzhou region, Jiangsu province. Though the two women were
released on 26 August, Father Wang is apparently still being detained by
the Changsu or Suzhou Public Security Bureau.
Although on the list of prisoners who were to have been freed
according to the announcement made by the Chinese authorities in
March 1993, Father Jiansheng Wang , aged 40, has reportedly still not
reappeared. Following his arrest on 19 May 1991, he is apparently still
serving his sentence of three years' re-education through labour at the
Xuanhua detention centre, Hebei province.
Tongsheng Wang , a Catholic layman aged 56, detained at the
Chengde re-education centre, Hebei province, after being arrested on
23 December 1990 and sentenced to three years' re-education through
labour, had still not returned home in May 1993 despite the promise
made by the authorities in March of the same year to release him.
The same apparently applies to Father Jingyi Wei , a priest aged
about 30, of the diocese of Yixian, Hebei province, who in May 1993 had
not reappeared. Arrested in August 1990 at Harbin, Heilongjiang, he was
reportedly sentenced, in March 1991, to three years' re-education. His
ordination at Baoding in the early 1980s was apparently never recognized
by the official Chinese Catholic Church.
Two priests, Father Xu Guoxin and Father Shixiang Xiao , aged 56,
respectively, of the dioceses of Langfang and Yixian, Hebei province,
were reportedly arrested in December 1991. The former is said to be
serving a three-year re-education sentence, while it is thought that the
latter is probably the priest who disappeared when on his way to Shandong
province on 20 October 1989.
Three Catholic laymen, Youzhong Zhang, Guoyan Zhang and
Youshen Zhang , arrested in 1991, were to have been among the prisoners
whose release had been announced by the Chinese Government. In May 1993
they had still not returned home. It is believed that Guoyan Zhang has
been sentenced to three years' re-education through labour for refusing
to join the Catholic Patriotic Association. Youshen Zhang, for his part,
is allegedly still in prison. Sentenced without trial to three years'
re-education through labour on 2 July 1991 for having written an article
criticizing the above-mentioned Association, this retired publisher is
reportedly being detained at the Hengshui labour camp. The charges
against him include counter-revolutionary activities directed against
the Chinese Communist Party and Government. Following his arrest in
March 1991 the police allegedly ransacked Youshen Zhang's home,
confiscating prayer-books and hymnals. He is said to have gone for
a long time without any visits by his family and to have endured
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 12
particularly harsh conditions in the place where he was first detained
before being transferred to Hengshui. His health has allegedly been
severely affected thereby.
On the occasion of the funeral of Bishop Fan Xueyan , the
circumstances of whose death have already been related in a previous
report (E/cN.4/1993/62), some 10,000 Catholics reportedly assembled
at Wangting, the Bishop's native village, in Dingxing County, Hebei
province, despite the proclamation of martial law by the authorities in
four dioceses of that province and the posting of troops in the vicinity
of the village. The population of Wanting are said to have been warned
by loudspeaker that they would be heavily fined if they had guests to
stay for the night after the funeral. Many Catholics who had made the
journey by tractor, bicycle or motor cycle allegedly had their means of
transport confiscated and were fined.
(a) Chinese Catholics who have died in custody or who are gravely ill
Bishop Liu Difen , of the diocese of Anguo, Hebei province, who
had disappeared in December 1990 at the age of 78, reportedly died on
14 November 1992 from a cerebral embolism and hypertension. A fortnight
before his death, according to reports, a delegation from the Religious
Affairs Bureau visited his family to inform them of the Bishop's poor
state of health and ask them to take care of him. Apparently his
relatives assented immediately and offered to go and fetch him, but the
officials answered that they would arrange to have the Bishop brought
home. A week later his nephews were reportedly apprised of his worsening
state of health and of the need to convey him immediately from the
Kuancheng district hospital, where he then was, to their home
500 kilometres from there.
After travelling all night, the nephews reportedly found their
uncle already unconscious and urgently in need of oxygen before they
could undertake the return trip. Allegedly, the hospital demanded such
a large sum of money for supplying the oxygen that one of the nephews
turned around to go back to his village, hire a car, get a doctor to come
with him bringing an oxygen tent, and again make the outward trip. In
the meantime, according to the reports, Bishop Liu had breathed his last.
When finally the nephews obtained permission to bring home their uncle's
remains, they allegedly found many untreated wounds on his back, on his
left shoulder and under his left armpit. They are said to be convinced
that the Bishop's death was caused by ill-treatment. The funeral
reportedly took place in the presence of some 3,000 Catholics, 14 priests
and a bishop not belonging to the official Catholic Church.
Grave concern is reportedly being expressed about the fate of
Bishop Jianzhang Chen , who disappeared on 13 December 1990 from his
residence in Xiefangying, Xushui County, and of whom there has since been
no news. The Bishop, aged over 70, was allegedly first sent to a ‘study
camp' and then transferred, a year later, to an old persons' home
apparently run by the Catholic Patriotic Association. Despite
assurances given by the authorities to the Bishop's family that he had
done nothing illegal and was free, it seems that his relatives were
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 13
unable, in January 1993, to get in touch with him. The Bishop is said
to be diabetic and paralysed on the right-hand side as a result of a
cerebral haemorrhage, and therefore totally dependent on the care perhaps
administered to him under ‘strict surveillance' in an institution
for aged persons.
Bishop Paul Shuhe Liu , aged 69, second bishop of Yixian, Hebei
province, is reportedly suffering from a very serious kidney ailment
and not receiving the care his state of health requires. Sentenced in
October 1988 to three years' re-education through labour for possessing
a typewriter and two copies of ‘illegal' sermons, Bishop Liu is said to
have been temporarily released to receive the medical care he required
for cirrhosis of the liver. Placed under restricted residence until
mid-December 1990, he was reportedly then taken to a re-education centre
to finish his sentence, which was due to end in December 1991. Since
then, according to reports, his family have applied in vain to the Public
Security Bureau to be allowed to visit him and obtain his release. In
the spring of 1992, it is said, the Bishop finally gave his guards the
slip and joined the underground. He is reportedly now in hiding.
(b) Chinese Catholics who have been released but are being kept under
strict surveillance
The following is a list of bishops most of whom were allegedly
arrested after the Clandestine Bishops' Conference held in November 1989.
It is said that they were released recently but that they are often kept
under strict surveillance by the authorities or subject to restricted
residence.
Auxiliary Jesuit Bishop Joseph Zhongliang Fan , aged 73, acting
bishop of Shanghai, is said to have been released in August 1991 and
subjected to restricted residence in the outskirts of the town after
having spent 15 years in prison (1967 to 1982) . He is allegedly kept
under surveillance by 2 police officers 24 hours a day, prohibited from
travelling and subjected to frequent questioning and intimidation.
Moreover, at least once or twice a month he is allegedly answerable to
the Public Security Bureau for his actions and the persons he meets.
Bishop Wenzhi Guo , aged 73, bishop of Harbin, Heilongqiang
province, is allegedly denied permission to leave Qiqhar, his village
of origin. He was reportedly arrested on 14 December 1989 and released
in March 1990. It is said that he has already been imprisoned on
two occasions, namely, from 1954 to 1964 and from 1966 to 1985, in
a labour camp in the Xinjiang autonomous region.
Bishop Bartholomew Chengdi Yu , aged about 73, secretly ordained
bishop of the diocese of Hangzhong, Shaanxi province in 1981, was
allegedly arrested in December 1989 together with his brother,
Father Chengxin . Loyal to the Vatican, it is said that he was released a
few months later and has since then been subject to restricted residence
at Chengdu.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 14
Bishop Guoyang Hou , whose title of bishop is not officially
recognized in Chongqing, Sichuan province, is said to have been released
at the beginning of 1991 following his arrest in January 1990. His
movements are allegedly restricted. He is said to be accused of having
incited a group of persons to participate in demonstrations in Sichuan
and having published and distributed copies of the Bible without
authorization.
Bishop Liren Jiang , aged 80, of Hohhot, inner Mongolia, was
allegedly imprisoned from the end of 1989 to the beginning of 1991 after
having secretly been ordained bishop in June 1989. Since his release he
has been kept under police surveillance and prevented from leaving his
village.
Bishop Joseph Side Li , unrecognized bishop of Tianjin since 1989,
aged about 60 and in poor health, was allegedly released in May 1992
after spending several weeks in prison and placed under strict
surveillance in the village of Liangzhuang, Ji County. It is said that
he spent 18 months in prison between 1989 and 1991 without being charged
and that his detention conditions were bad.
Bishop Mathias Zhensheng , aged 73, second bishop (not officially
recognized) of the diocese of Tianshui, Gansu province, is allegedly no
longer in prison, although his movements are strictly supervised. It is
reported that he was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment in 1984.
Bishop Weili Song , aged 76, unrecognized bishop of the diocese
of Langfang, Hebei province, was reportedly detained on two occasions
between December 1992 and the beginning of March 1993 for a period of
several weeks. It is said that while in prison he was forced to study
the country's religious policy and the role played by political
organizations and also to engage in self-criticism in respect of the
Vatican. It is said that since April 1993 he has apparently been
performing some of his religious functions although his freedom of
movement is restricted.
Bishop Casimir Milu Wang , was allegedly paroled in April 1993 and
returned to his home in Ganggu district, Gansu province, although his
freedom of movement is restricted. It is said that the bishop was
arrested in 1983 and sentenced in 1985 by the Intermediate Court of
Tianshui to 10 years' imprisonment and 4 years' deprivation of his
political rights, as well as to the confiscation of some of his
belongings. He was reportedly detained in several labour camps. The
charges against him include the fact that he had allegedly ordained
priests in secret and had openly criticized the article of the
Constitution that prohibits religious institutions from having
connections abroad, the Catholic Patriotic Association and interference
by the authorities with the performance of religious rites. The bishop
was allegedly imprisoned during the Cultural Revolution for having
proclaimed his faith. He was released in 1979 and arrested once more
in 1981 before being again released. He is allegedly known for having
preached the Gospel to his fellow detainees.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 15
Father Francis Yijun Wang , aged 75, Vicar-General of the diocese of
Wenzhou, Zhejiang province, was allegedly released on 21 May 1992 but it
is said that he is confined to his village. Although he is allowed to
celebrate mass, it is reported that he cannot meet foreigners. It is
said that he was sentenced to three terms of imprisonment, from 1957
to 1962, from 1981 to 1990, then released, but arrested almost
immediately once again, and allegedly sentenced on 5 February 1990 to
three years of re-education through labour. His most recent sentence
is said to be due to the fact that he had refused to repent of having
maintained contacts with the unrecognized Catholic Church of Wenzhou and
had urged Christians to oppose the religious policy of the authorities.
Father Wang has allegedly spent a total of over 15 years in prison.
Father Joseph Dechen Jin , aged 72, Vicar-General of the diocese
of Nanyang, Henan province, was allegedly arrested in December 1981
and sentenced on 27 July 1982 to 15 years' imprisonment and 5 years'
deprivation of his political rights. It is also alleged that he was
released on parole in May 1992 when his state of health was precarious
and that he is subject to restricted residence in his village of
Jinjiajiang, near Nanyang. He was allegedly detained in the third
provincial prison of Yuxian, near Zhengzhou, at Henan, and accused
of opposing abortion and birth control.
Father Zhemin Su , aged 60, accused of having ‘organized and
participated in illegal activities', was allegedly released on parole
at Baoding, Hebei province, where he lives although he does not enjoy
freedom of movement. Arrested on 17 December 1989 when he was appointed
Vicar-General of the diocese of Baoding, he was reportedly sentenced to
three years of re-education through work on 21 May 1990 for having
participated in the Clandestine Bishops' Conference in 1989. Father Su
has allegedly spent two periods in prison, from 1959 to 1975 and
from 1982 to 1992. It is said that members of his family have been
unable to visit him since his release.
Father Anthony Zhang Guangyi , was allegedly arrested on
11 December 1989 at the end of a religious meeting because of his loyalty
to the Vatican and then imprisoned. It is reported that he was released
in June 1990 owing to the precarious state of his health but remained
subject to restricted residence and freedom of movement.
Father Binzhang Huo , aged 76, Vicar-General of Baoding, Hebei
province, was allegedly arrested in 1983 together with his superior,
Bishop Fan Xueyan , and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment for ordaining
priests in secret and maintaining contacts abroad. He was a Catholic who
was loyal to the Vatican. It is uncertain whether Father Huo is still
alive. If so, it is possible that he is being held in the prison of
Shijzhuang, Hebei province, or subject to house arrest.
Father Vincent Hongsheng Zhu , aged 78, a Jesuit priest who is
allegedly subject to restricted residence, probably in Shanghai; his
state of health is precarious after having twice been imprisoned, namely,
from 1960 to 1978 and from 1981 to 1988, for his loyalty to the Vatican,
his contacts abroad and his studies in France, Ireland and the
United States.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 16
3. Religious intolerance against Tibetans
(a) Cases of Tibetan monks and nuns allegedly arrested before the
1992 demonstrations
Jamphel Changchup , aged 29, of Toelung Dechen, monk at Drepung
monastery; sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment and at present in Drapchi
prison.
Ngawang Chamtsul , aged 31, of Phenpo Lhundrup Dzong, monk at Potala
monastery; sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment.
Ngawang Gyaltsen , aged 36, of Toelung Dechen, monk at Drepung
monastery; sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment.
Tenpa Wangdrak , aged 58, of Lhoka Nedong, monk at Gaden monastery;
sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment and at present in Damchu prison.
Jamphel Khedrup , aged 45, of Toelung Dechen, monk at Drepung
monastery; sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment.
Ganden Tashi (Lhundrup Kelden) , monk at Ganden monastery; allegedly
arrested in 1988 during a demonstration. It is said that at the time of
his arrest he was beaten unconscious and suffered serious head injuries.
Allegedly sentenced to three years' imprisonment and forced labour,
during which his state of health deteriorated. Said to have been
sentenced once again to nine years' additional imprisonment for having
attempted to escape with two other prisoners who, it is reported, were
executed. At present said to be paralysed from head to foot.
Ngawang Yangkyi , nun at Tsamkhung monastery in Lhasa, who
was allegedly arrested by the Chinese police for taking part in a
demonstration during which she shouted slogans in the street. Initially
detained in Drapchi prison, she was then transferred to the people's
hospital in Lhasa owing to the ill-treatment she experienced during long
periods of questioning in the course of her detention. Her state of
health is allegedly a source of serious concern.
Lhundup Kalden (Tashi) , aged 25, monk at Gaden monastery, was
allegedly arrested on 5 March 1988 on the last day of the Great Prayer
Festival during mass Tibetan demonstrations in favour of independence.
After being tortured in the course of questioning over a period of
nine months, he was allegedly sentenced to three years' imprisonment
and re-education through work and deprived of his political rights for a
period of one year. It is said that he was then taken to Drapchi prison
on 6 March 1989 to serve his sentence. On 17 May 1990 he was allegedly
sentenced to a further term of nine years' imprisonment for participating
in preparations for an escape. Following this sentence, Lhundup Kalden
was allegedly chained by the wrists and ankles for a period of one year
and seven months and forced to work in that condition. At the time of
his arrest he allegedly suffered severe head injuries. As he failed to
receive the necessary care during his detention it is said that one day
he fell down because of his condition. Eventually taken to the people's
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 17
hospital in Lhasa, he was placed in the intensive care unit and then
transferred to the Tibetan Medical Centre (Lhasa Mentsikhang) . His state
of health allegedly continues to be a source of serious concern to his
family.
(b) Cases of Tibetan monks and nuns arrested during the demonstrations
of February and May 1992
On 29 October 1992, the Tibetan monks and nuns listed below were
allegedly sentenced by the Chinese authorities to terms of imprisonment
ranging from two to nine years as well as deprivation of their political
rights for periods of two to four years.
(i) Eleven young monks or novices from Dunbhu Tsenkhor monastery:
Dawa , aged 20.
Migmar Tsering , aged 17, of Chidhe Shol, sentenced to seven years'
imprisonment.
Migmar Gyaltsen.
Migmar , aged 21, from Namyal Shol.
Gelong Tsering , aged 26, from Namyal Shol.
Lhakpa Tsering , from Chidhe Shol.
Tsering , aged 20, from Chidhe Shol, sentenced to five years'
imprisonment.
Shilog Genpa , aged 20, from Chidhe Shol.
Sonam Choephel , aged 12, sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
Phurbu Tashi , aged 14, sentenced to five years' imprisonment.
Jampel Dorje , aged 15, sentenced to nine years' imprisonment.
(ii) Other monks and nuns:
Lobsang Dorje (Kelsang Wangdu) , aged 20, from Phenpo Lhundup,
retired monk from Phurchok; sentenced to nine years' imprisonment
and four years' deprivation of his political rights.
Lobsang Sherab (Kelsang Lhundup) , aged 20, retired monk from
Phurchok; sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and three years'
deprivation of his political rights.
Thupten Kelsang (Penap ) , from Toelung Tso-med; sentenced to
six years' imprisonment and two years' deprivation of his political
rights.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 18
Lobsang Lhudup (Palden) , aged 20, from Lhundup Dzong, retired monk
from Phurchok; sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and three years'
deprivation of his political rights.
Ngawang Tenzin , from Lhundup Dzong, nun at Chupsang convent;
sentenced to five years' imprisonment and two years' deprivation of
her political rights.
Gyaltsen Sherab (Rinchen Dawa) , aged 25, from Lhundup Dzong, nun at
Chupsang convent; sentenced to five years' imprisonment and two years'
deprivation of her political rights.
Lobsang Dolma (Dawa Saldon) , aged 22, from Toelung Dechen Dzong,
nun at Mijungri convent; sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and
three years' deprivation of her political rights.
Tinley Choezom (Gog-kyed) , aged 18, from Maldro Gungkar, nun at
Mijungri convent; sentenced to five years' imprisonment and two years'
deprivation of her political rights.
Phuntsok Yangkyi (Mingdron) , aged 19, from Taktse Dzong, nun at
Mijungri convent; sentenced to five years' imprisonment and two years'
deprivation of her political rights.
Lobsang Choedrak (Thupten Norbu) , aged 18, monk at Kah-chen
monastery; sentenced to five years' imprisonment and two years'
deprivation of his political rights.
Phuntsok Ziched (Penpa) , aged 24, from Lhundup, monk at Drepung
monastery; sentenced to eight years' imprisonment and three years'
deprivation of his political rights.
Phuntsok (Tenzin ) , aged 21, from Za-sa, monk at Drepung monastery;
sentenced to eight years' imprisonment and three years' deprivation of
his political rights.
Phuntsok Legsang (Penpa) , aged 20, from Dhamshung Dzong, monk at
Drepung monastery; sentenced to six years' imprisonment and two years'
deprivation of his political rights.
Phuntsok Namqyal (Paldhen) , aged 22, from Lhundup Dzong, monk at
Drepung monastery; sentenced to six years' imprisonment and two years'
deprivation of his political rights.
Ngawang Lhasang (Jordhen) , aged 23, from Lhundup Dzong, monk at
Drepung monastery; sentenced to five years' imprisonment and two years'
deprivation of his political rights.
Ngawang Lungtog (Tobgyal) , aged 19, from Lhundup, monk at Drepung
monastery; sentenced to five years' imprisonment.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 19
Ngawang Sothar (Penpa) , aged 23, from Toelung Dechen Dzong, monk at
Drepung monastery; sentenced to five years' imprisonment.
Ngawang Tinley (Penpa Tsering) , aged 27, from Lhundup Dzong, monk
at Drepung monastery; sentenced to four years' imprisonment.
Phuntsok Dadrag (Tashi Norbu) , aged 17, from Toelung Dechen, monk
at Drepung monastery; sentenced to four years' imprisonment.
Phuntsok Samten (Tsering Wangdu) , aged 20, from Dhamshung, monk at
Drepung monastery; sentenced to four years' imprisonment.
Ngawang Choeshe (Choeka) , aged 23, from Lhundup Dzong, monk at
Drepung monastery; sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
Tinley Choeden (Samdup) , aged 21, from Lhundup Dzong, monk at
Drepung monastery; sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
Tinley Tenzin (Chileg) , aged 21, from Toelung Dechen, monk at
Drepung monastery; sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
Jampa Tenzin (Kharab Gyatso) , aged 21, from Lhundup Dzong, monk at
Gaden monastery; sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
Ngawang Khedup (Tenzin Nyima) , aged 21, from Maldro Gungkar, monk
at Gaden monastery; sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
Lobsang Ngawang (Nyima) , aged 20, probably monk at Nechung
monastery.
Kelsang Dawa , aged 21, from Toelung Dechen, monk at Tsomed
monastery; sentenced to five years' imprisonment.
Ngawang Khedup (Dawa) , aged 24, from Toelung Dechen, monk at
Drepung monastery; sentenced to six years' imprisonment.
Ngawang Palgon (Yonten) , aged 23, from Toelung Dechen, monk at
Drepung monastery; sentenced to five years' imprisonment and two years'
deprivation of his political rights.
Ngawang Phuntsok (Woeser ) , aged 21, from Toelung Dechen, monk at
Drepung monastery; sentenced to five years' imprisonment.
Penpa , aged 23, from Gyangtse; sentenced to two years' imprisonment
and three years' deprivation of his political rights.
Ngawang Zoepa (Tsering) , aged 25, from Rimpung Dzong, monk at
Rong Jamchem monastery; sentenced to three and one half years'
imprisonment.
Norqye , aged 23, from Rimpung Dzong, monk at Rong Jamchen
monastery; sentenced to three and one half years' imprisonment.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 20
(c) Cases of Tibetan monks and nuns arrested during the demonstrations
of February, March and June 1993
On 25 February 1993 a group of Buddhist nuns allegedly organized a
demonstration in the centre of the Tibetan district of Lhasa. It is said
that four nuns were arrested.
During another incident, on 9 March 1993, six monks from Ganden
monastery allegedly demonstrated in Barkor Street next to the Jokhang
temple in the centre of the Tibetan district. It is reported that three
of them were arrested by the police. One of the monks who was carrying
the Tibetan national flag was allegedly beaten. Seven other monks were
allegedly arrested that day in the same area.
Two incidents, on 11 and 13 March 1993, on Barkor Street allegedly
involved a dozen monks who, according to some sources, were from the
Ganden monastery and were arrested by the police.
On 1 June 1993, three monks from Drepung monastery who were
chanting ‘free Tibet' were savagely set upon by the police, who
eventually led them off together with two young women who had tried to
defend them. On 4 June 1993, five monks and two nuns from Toelung and
Nethang were allegedly arrested in the Barkor area.
In June 1993, 19 nuns from Garu convent were allegedly arrested.
Shortly afterwards it was learned that 12 other nuns from that convent
had reportedly been sentenced to long prison terms (up to six years in
some cases) for participating in a procession around the Potala Palace
in 1992.
On 20 June 1993, about 100 monks were allegedly arrested at Kirti
monastery in the Ngaba region. It is said that some of them were
tortured during their detention.”
9. Investigation concerning cases raised in Rapporteur's November 1993
communication (G/SO 214 (56-7) ) :
“Zhang Ruiyu, female, age 55, from Putian County, Fujian province.
University level education. In accordance with the law, was sentenced
in September 1993 by the Putian Municipal Intermediate People's Court
to four years' imprisonment and stripped of her political rights for
two years, for counter-revolutionary activities. Released on probation
in May 1994.
Zheng Yunsou, male, age 60, from Wei Shan County, Shandong
province, primary school level education. In accordance with the law,
was sentenced in October 1992 by the People's Court of Wei-Shan County,
Shandong province, to 12 years' imprisonment for disruption of
public order and fraud. He is serving sentence with the Jinan
Reform-through-Labour Detachment, and is in good health.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 21
Jamphel Changchup, male, a lama from Drepung monastery in Lhasa.
In accordance with the law, was sentenced on 30 November 1989 by the
Lhasa Municipal Intermediate People's Court to 19 years' imprisonment and
stripped of his political rights for 5 years for his involvement in the
illegal activities of an illegal separatist organization in January 1989,
and for collecting State secrets.
Tenpa Wangdrak, male, a lama from Ganden monastery. In accordance
with the law, was sentenced in January 1989 by the Lhasa Municipal
Intermediate People's Court to 14 years' imprisonment for involvement
in separatist activities and for participating in the Lhasa riots on
3 May 1988.
Ngawang Gyaltsen, male, a lama from Drepung monastery in Lhasa.
In accordance with the law, was sentenced in November 1989 by the Lhasa
Municipal Intermediate People's Court to 17 years' imprisonment, and
stripped of his political rights for 5 years for involvement in the
separatist activities of an illegal organization, collecting State
secrets, crossing the border illegally, and participating in the Lhasa
riots in March 1993.
Ganden Tashi or Lhundrup Kelden, male, age 25, a lama from Ganden
monastery. In accordance with the law, was sentenced by the Lhasa
Municipal Intermediate People's Court to three years' imprisonment for
counter-revolutionary activities. While serving sentence he organized an
escape from prison, and was then sentenced to nine years and six months
of imprisonment in accordance with the law. Released on bail for medical
treatment on 31 March 1993.
Lobsang Dorje, male, age 21, ethnic Tibetan from Linzhou County,
Tibet Autonomous Region. A lama from Pu-jiao Temple. In accordance with
the law, was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment by the Lhasa Municipal
Intermediate People's Court for counter-revolutionary activities. Now
serving sentence in the Tibet Autonomous Region prison.
Lobsang Lhudup, male, age 21, ethnic Tibetan from Linzhou County,
Tibet Autonomous Region. A lama from Pu-jiao Temple. In accordance
with the law, was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment by the Lhasa
Municipal Intermediate People's Court for counter-revolutionary
activities. Now serving sentence in the Tibet Autonomous Region prison.
Dhuntsok Ziched, male, age 25, ethnic Tibetan from Linzhou County,
Tibet Autonomous Region. A lama from Drepung monastery. In accordance
with the law, was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment by the Lhasa
Intermediate People's Court for counter-revolutionary activities. Now
serving sentence in the Tibet Autonomous Region prison.
Phuntsok Legsang, male, age 21, ethnic Tibetan from Dangxiong
County, Tibet Autonomous Region. A lama from Drepung monastery. In
accordance with the law, was sentenced to six years' imprisonment by the
Lhasa Intermediate People's Court for counter-revolutionary activities.
Now serving sentence in the Tibet Autonomous Region prison.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 22
Phuntsok Namgyal, male, age 23, ethnic Tibetan from Linzhou County,
Tibet Autonomous Region. A lama from Drepung monastery. In accordance
with the law, was sentenced to six years' imprisonment by the Lhasa
Intermediate People's Court for counter-revolutionary activities.
Now serving sentence in the Tibet Autonomous Region prison.
Ngawang Lbasang, male, age 24, ethnic Tibetan from Linzhou County,
Tibet Autonomous Region. A lama from Drepung monastery. In accordance
with the law, was sentenced to five years' imprisonment by the
Intermediate People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region for
counter-revolutionary activities; now serving sentence in the Tibet
Autonomous Region prison.
Ngawang Lungtog, male, age 20, ethnic Tibetan from Linzhou County,
Tibet Autonomous Region. A lama from Drepung monastery. In accordance
with the law, was sentenced to five years's imprisonment by the
Intermediate People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region for
counter-revolutionary activities; now serving sentence in the Tibet
Autonomous Region prison.
Ngawang Sothar, male, age 24, ethnic Tibetan from Dui-long-De-Qing
County, Tibet Autonomous Region. A lama from Drepung monastery. In
accordance with the law, was sentenced to five years' imprisonment by
the Intermediate People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region for
counter-revolutionary activities; now serving sentence in Tibet
Autonomous Region prison.
Phuntsok Samten, male, age 21, ethnic Tibetan from Dangxiong
County, Tibet Autonomous Region. A lama from Drepung monastery. In
accordance with the law, was sentenced to four years' imprisonment by
the Intermediate People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region for
counter-revolutionary activities; now serving sentence in the Tibet
Autonomous Region prison.
Ngawang Choeshe, male, age 24, ethnic Tibetan from Linzhou County,
Tibet Autonomous Region. A lama from Drepung monastery. In accordance
with the law, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment by the
Intermediate People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region for
counter-revolutionary activities; now serving sentence in the Tibet
Autonomous Region prison.
Jampa Tenzin, male, age 21, ethnic Tibetan from Linzhou County,
Tibet Autonomous Region. A lama from Drepung monastery. In accordance
with the law, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment by the
Intermediate People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region for
counter-revolutionary activities. Served sentence in the Tibet
Autonomous Region prison: released on 12 May 1994, after serving
his full prison term.
Kelsang Dawa, male, age 21, ethnic Tibetan from Dui-long-De-Qing
County, Tibet Autonomous Region. A lama from Cuomai Temple. In
accordance with the law, was sentenced to five years' imprisonment by
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 23
the Intermediate People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region for
counter-revolutionary activities; now serving sentence in the Tibet
Autonomous Region prison.
Ngawang Khedup, male, age 25, ethnic Tibetan from Dui-long-De-Qing
County, Tibet Autonomous Region. A lama from Drepung monastery. In
accordance with the law, was sentenced to six years' imprisonment by
the Intermediate People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region for
counter-revolutionary activities; now serving sentence in the Tibet
Autonomous Region prison.
Ngawang Palgon, male, age 24, ethnic Tibetan from Dui-long-De-Qing
County, Tibet Autonomous Region. A lama from Drepung monastery. In
accordance with the law, was sentenced to five years' imprisonment by
the Intermediate People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region for
counter-revolutionary activities; now serving sentence in the Tibet
Autonomous Region prison.
Ngawang Phuntsok, male, age 22, ethnic Tibetan from
Dui-long-De-Qing County, Tibet Autonomous Region. A lama from Drepung
monastery. In accordance with the law, was sentenced to five years'
imprisonment by the Intermediate People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous
Region for counter-revolutionary activities; now serving sentence in the
Tibet Autonomous Region prison.
Lobsang Dolma, female, age 23, ethnic Tibetan from Dui-long-De-Qing
County, Tibet Autonomous Region. A nun from Michungi nunnery. In
accordance with the law, was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment
by the Intermediate People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region for
counter-revolutionary activities; now serving sentence in the Tibet
Autonomous Region prison.
Tinley Choezom, female, age 19, ethnic Tibetan from Me-Zhu-gong-Ka
County, Tibet Autonomous Region. A nun from Michungi nunnery. In
accordance with the law, was sentenced to five years' imprisonment by
the Intermediate People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region for
counter-revolutionary activities; now serving sentence in the Tibet
Autonomous Region prison.
Phuntsok Yangkyi, female, age 20, ethnic Tibetan from Dazhi County,
Tibet Autonomous Region. A nun from Michungi nunnery. In accordance
with the law, was sentenced to five years' imprisonment by the
Intermediate People's Court of the Tibet Autonomous Region for
counter-revolutionary activities; served sentence in the Tibet Autonomous
Region prison. Died of tubercular encephalitis on 4 June 1994. Medical
treatments proved in vain.
Li Jiayao, male, age 35, from Guangdong province. In accordance
with the law, was assigned by local re-education through labour committee
to three years of labour re-education for violation of Chinese customs
regulations and distribution of prohibited articles. Was released in
March 1994, before serving his full sentence.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 24
Xu Guoxin, male, from Langfang, Hebei province. In accordance with
the law, was assigned in December 1991 by local re-education through
labour committee to three years of labour re-education for disruption of
public order. Released before serving his full sentence in May 1994.
Chen Zhuman, male, age 49, from Putian County, Fujian province.
In accordance with the law, was assigned in December 1991 by local
re-education through labour committee to three years of labour
re-education for disruption of public order. Released in May 1994
before serving his full term.
Zhang Yuezhi, male, age 31, from Shouguang County, Shangdong
province. In accordance with the law, was assigned in February 1992
by local re-education through labour committee to three years of labour
re-education for disruption of public order. Released in May 1994 before
serving his full sentence.
Yang Peizhi, male, age 34, from Shouguang County, Shangdong
province. In accordance with the law, was assigned in February 1992
by local re-education through labour committee to three years of labour
re-education for disruption of public order. Released in May 1994 before
serving his full sentence.
Xue Zhihe, male, age 51, from Shouguang County, Shangdong province.
In accordance with the law, was assigned in February 1992 by local
re-education through labour committee to three years of labour
re-education for disruption of public order. Released in May 1994
before serving his full sentence.
Wang Jiansheng, male, age 33, from Zhangjiakou, Hebei province. In
accordance with the law, was assigned in May 1992 by local re-education
through labour committee to three years of labour re-education for
disruption of public order. Released in July 1993 before serving his
full sentence.
Zhang Guoyan, male, age 49, from Baoding, Hebei province. In
accordance with the law, was assigned in July 1991 by local re-education
through labour committee to three years of labour re-education for
disruption of public order. Released in March 1993 before serving his
full sentence.
Zhang Youshen, male, age 66, from Baoding, Hebei province. In
accordance with the law, was assigned in July 1991 by local re-education
through labour committee to three years of labour re-education for
disruption of public order. Released in March 1993 before serving
his full sentence.
Wei Rengyi, male, age 35, from Shulan County, Jilin province.
In accordance with the law, was assigned in December 1990 by local
re-education through labour committee to three years of labour
re-education for involvement in activities endangering the national
interest and disruption of public order. Released in December 1992
before serving his full sentence.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 25
Zhang Dapeng, male, age 75, from Baoding, Hebei province.
In accordance with the law, was assigned in December 1991 by local
re-education through labour committee to three years of labour
re-education for disruption of public order. Released in July 1993
before serving his full sentence.
Wang Tongsheng, male, age 56, from Qingwan County, Hebei province.
In accordance with the law, was sentenced in August 1991 by local
re-education through labour committee to three years of labour
re-education for disruption of public order. Released in May 1993
before serving his full sentence.
Xu Yongze, male, age 53, from Zhenping County, 1-lenan province. In
accordance with the law, was assigned in April 1988 by local re-education
through labour committee to three years of labour re-education for
violation of the national regulations on registration of public groups,
establishing an illegal organization, inciting people to disrupt public
order, and resistance to re-education. Released from labour
re-education.
Lai Manping, male, age 21, a peasant from the district of
Zhangjiatan, JIIkang City, Shanxi province. On 27 March 1994, Lai and
two others organized illegal meetings at Taoyuan village, in the Luhe
district of Xunyang County, seriously disrupting public order. In
accordance with the law, public security officials interrupted and
curtailed the meeting. No one was arrested. Afterwards, Lai was beaten
up by disgruntled local people; medical examinations in hospital revealed
only minor injuries. Lai died suddenly on 6 April. Medical diagnosis of
the cause of death is respiratory failure from severe pulmonary cardiac
disease.
Liu Difen, male, born in 1914, from Renqiu, Hebei province.
In 1991, the local government, concerned at Liu's advanced age and bad
health and the lack of anyone to look after him, provided for him in his
old age. Liu died of illness on 14 November 1992 at age 78.
Shi Enxiang, male, age 70, from Xuxui County, Hebei province.
Catholic priest. In December 1990, the local government, concerned at
Shi's advanced age and the lack of anyone to look after him, provided him
with favourable living conditions and good medical care on humanitarian
grounds.
Liu Shuhe, male, age 74, from Yi County, Hebei province. Catholic
priest. Since October 1991 the local government, concerned at his
advanced age and feeble health and the lack of anyone to look after him,
has provided him with favourable living conditions and good medical care
on humanitarian grounds.
Fan Xueyan, male, from Jingwan County, Hebei province. Former
bishop of Boading district. In 1983, Fan colluded with foreign forces,
endangering national sovereignty, and was sentenced to 10 years'
imprisonment. Released on probation in 1987. The local government
of Hebei province provided for him in his old age beginning in 1990.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 26
Fan was hospitalized in February 1992 because of pneumonia and senile
constipation. His condition deteriorated in April, emergency medical
measures proved ineffective and he died, age 86.
Chen Jianzhang, male, age 72, from Jingwan County, Hebei province.
Catholic priest. Since December 1992, the local government, concerned
at Chen's advanced age and the lack of anyone to look after him, has
provided him with favourable living conditions and good medical care
on humanitarian grounds.
Fei Zhongxun (Fei Junzhe) , male, age 76, former factory worker in
the City Construction Department, Shanghai.
Address: No. 1, Alley 76, Fu-Xing West Road, Shanghai.
In accordance with the law, was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment
(from 18 August 1983 to 17 September 1998) by the Shanghai Municipal
Intermediate People's Court for espionage. He is serving his sentence
in a Shanghai prison, and is in good health.
The following 13 persons are under investigation by local security
organs in accordance with the law for illegal activities. No action has
yet been taken.
Shi Guohui, Xie Meshan, Gao Fangzhan, Liao Haiqing, Lin Heping,
Liu Chiming, Zhao Zhongyue, Chen Yuntang, Fei Zhanping, Zheng Yulan,
Guo Ruiping, Zhu Zizhen and Hou Jingting.
Claims that Fan Zhongliang, Guo Wenzhi and others are ‘still under
close surveillance' are not consistent with the facts.
Chen Ronggui, Ma Zhiyan, Fei Guojun, Ma Shoushan, Zhu Mei,
Wang Tanian, Cui Xingqun, Zhong-Fei, Li Xingqun, Ngawang Jiucuo,
Ngawang Yangjing, Dawa, Mima Ceren, Mima Jianzan, Mima, Gelong Ceren,
Laba Ceren, Ceren, Shilong Ganba, Sunan Quzhe, Pubu Zhaxi,
Jiangbai Duozhe, Loushang Xia-er-ba, Tudeng Gesang, Ngawang Danceng,
Zianzan Xia-er-ba, Lousang Zhuoga, Ping-Cuo, Ngawang Tingli,
Ping Cuo Daga, Tingli Qudiam, Tingli Danceng, Ngawang Kezhu,
Lousang Ngawang, Daba, Ngawang Zeba, Nuo Zhe, etc. : because of
incomplete information or incorrect transcriptions of Chinese and
Tibetan names, no such persons have been traced.”
CUBA
10. In reply to the communication of 31 August 1993 (E/CN.4/1994/79),
the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Cuba transmitted the following
information to the Special Rapporteur on 7 February 1994:
“I have the honour to refer to your note G/SO 214 (56-7) dated
31 August 1993 asking the Government of the Republic of Cuba for its
views and observations concerning alleged persecution and harassment of
Jehovah's Witnesses by my country's authorities.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 27
The note in question contains a summary of alleged incidents,
together with dates, that have obviously been distorted and/or completely
fabricated by the source or sources that provided this fallacious
information.
The entire world knows that this doctrinaire sect inculcates an
anti-patriotic attitude in its members: failure to salute the national
flag, failure to recognize other symbols of the homeland and refusal to
receive blood transfusions. Such negative behaviour occasionally
produces a feeling of rejection among the population.
Nevertheless, the Jehovah's Witnesses are able fully to exercise
the rights guaranteed to the citizens of the Republic of Cuba, which
include freedom of conscience and religion.
Article 55 of the Constitution in force in the country stipulates
that the State shall guarantee freedom of conscience and the right of
everyone to change religion or to have no religion, as well as the right
to practise the religion of his choice within the bounds of the law.
However, in Cuba as elsewhere, practising a religion does not
guarantee impunity to those who violate the legal and constitutional
order of the State.
For years, the leaders of this sect have attempted to elude the
laws in force in our country and have repeatedly, under different
pretexts, prevented standards and regulations from being applied. They
finally decided, on their own initiative, to close their places of
worship in order to make the members of the sect and public opinion
believe that the closing had been ordered by the Government and that the
Jehovah's Witnesses were being persecuted by the State.
Off ences are punished in Cuba independently of the religious
convictions of their perpetrators, whether they are Jehovah's Witnesses
or the followers of African-based religions.
The Government of the Republic of Cuba refutes the validity of the
above-mentioned figures and incidents, which are totally false and/or
distorted. It simply wishes to add that it is not Government policy to
seize a religious object or book belonging to an individual.”
SPAIN
11. In addition to its reply of 5 November 1993 (E/CN.4/1994/79, para. 47),
on 7 January 1994 the Government of the Kingdom of Spain sent its observations
concerning the communication of 11 October 1993 (E/cN.4/1994/79, para. 46),
which had been transmitted to it by the Special Rapporteur:
“Pursuant to my letter No. 153/93 of 9 November 1993 and in order
to supplement the information furnished by the Government of Spain
concerning allegations of religious intolerance with respect to Spain as
regards the case involving the religious movement called ‘The Family', I
have the honour to inform you that, in accordance with the communication
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 28
from the State Attorney-General, the Public Prosecutor in Barcelona
attached to the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court has filed an appeal
against the acquittal decision handed down in this case.”
12. On 15 March 1994, the Government of the Kingdom of Spain submitted
further observations on the above-mentioned communication:
“Pursuant to my letters Nos. 153/3 of 9 November 1993 and 3/94 of
7 January 1994 and in order to supplement the information furnished by
the Government of Spain concerning allegations of religious intolerance
with respect to Spain as regards the case involving the religious
movement called ‘The Family' , I have the honour to transmit herewith a
report on the matter addressed to the Special Rapporteur on the question
of religious intolerance from the Spanish Ministry of Social Affairs.”
“Report concerning the religious movement ‘The Family'
prepared for the Special Rapporteur on the question
of religious intolerance
Article 16 of the Spanish Constitution guarantees, among other
fundamental rights, the right to freedom of ideology, religion and
worship. All individuals enjoying full legal capacity, i.e. persons of
full age, may exercise these rights.
Religious entities belonging to churches, faiths and communities
with activities in Spain are regarded as religious and are therefore
placed under the protection of the Organization Act relating to freedom
of religion, but a large number of them, whose purpose is to study and
experiment with psychic and parapsychic phenomena or to propagate
humanist or spiritualist values and which do not have a truly religious
function, fall outside the scope of that Act.
The Constitution and the Organization Act relating to freedom of
religion guarantee religious entities, and hence sects, which are
characterized as such, the right to exercise freedom of religion or
worship without any restrictions other than those required in order that
activities resulting from the expression of this freedom may be conducted
with due regard for public order as protected by law, so as to preserve
the right of others to exercise public freedoms and fundamental rights
and to safeguard security and public health, without it being necessary
to enter those organizations in any official register. In this
connection, the authorities may not interfere in matters concerning the
basic religious beliefs of Spaniards and may not exercise any coercion
against believers who, availing themselves of their legitimate right,
have made a specific choice in the matter of religion or belief.
Not only may religious entities freely exercise their activities,
but they may also request to be entered in the register of religious
entities kept at the Ministry of Justice. Registration is free and
public and, since the procedure is tantamount to deposit of an instrument
of incorporation, upon being registered, religious entities acquire legal
personality.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 29
Moreover, the Constitution itself requires the public authorities
to guarantee ‘the right of everyone to education, through general
planning of education, with the effective participation of all parties
concerned and the setting up of teaching establishments' .
Article 39 of the Constitution stipulates that children shall enjoy
the protection provided for by international conventions designed to
protect their rights. It should be noted in this connection that Spain
has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Article 14 of the Convention establishes the right of children to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the right of parents and
legal representatives to guide children in the exercise of that right,
and further provides for a number of restrictions to the exercise of that
right.
In accordance with constitutional requirements and for the
protection in particular of the rights of the child, article 172 of the
Civil Code, establishes the possibility for the competent public
authority for the protection of minors to assume custodial responsibility
for a minor who is in need of care because the parents are not properly
performing their duties in respect of protection.
The competent authority is consequently required to intercede when
it finds a child to be in a situation where he or she is in need of care
through being exposed to possible violations of his or her rights.
Such a situation may arise for a wide variety of reasons, including
cases where the minor or his or her parents belong to a particular
religious movement, if within that movement violations are committed of
such rights as the right to health, the right to physical integrity, the
right to education and the many other rights enshrined in the Convention
on the Rights of the Child.
Concern about the ill effects of certain sects on children is
shared by all countries and by international organizations like the
Council of Europe, which, following the European Parliament, has adopted
a recommendation (Recommendation 1178 (1992)) on sects and new religious
movements.
In the case of the ‘Children of God' or ‘The Family', the Catalan
authorities considered that the fundamental rights of the children
confined therein were not being respected, for which reason, acting in
accordance with the law and in compliance with a court order, they
authorized a search of the home belonging to the aforesaid movement.
The children were placed in welfare centres for minors, along with
other children placed in the care of the Catalan authorities and no
discrimination was exercised against them on the grounds that their
parents belonged to a religious movement or for any other reason.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 30
The Spanish Constitution recognizes a further fundamental right,
which is the right to effective judicial protection. In the present
case, several judicial bodies interceded, namely, the fourth examining
court of Sabadell, the nineteenth court (domestic court) of Barcelona and
the Court of Appeal of Barcelona, to which the appeal lodged by the
parents of the children concerned was referred.
One of the judges, serving on the bench of the nineteenth court
(domestic court) of Barcelona, fixed the schedule of visits for the
parents and indeed ordered them to spend their holidays together, with
supervision being exercised through a weekly visit by social workers.
Appended to this document is a report by the Generalitat of
Catalonia (Social Welfare Department, Directorate of Child Welfare) ,
which answers point by point the allegations made by the aforementioned
sect to the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the
question of religious intolerance.
REPORT BY THE DIRECTORATE OF CHILD WELFARE (DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL WELFARE OF THE GENERALITAT OF CATALONIA) TO
THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
In reply to the communication received from the Special Rapporteur,
based on information brought to his notice concerning the movement
‘Children of God' or ‘The Family', the Directorate of Child Welfare has
the honour to transmit the following information and comments:
1. The fourth examining court of Sabadell, ‘following the measures
(file No. 100/90) taken by virtue of the report drawn up by the ‘Mozos de
Escuadra' (autonomous police) of the Generalitat of Catalonia and the
request by the Public Prosecutor's Department, which showed that at least
20 children under the age of 11 were living in the property situated at
Castellar des Vall s (Avda. Can Piffiol, No. 45, sector D, Urbanizaci6n
‘Airesol' ) , who, according to investigations, were clearly in a situation
presenting a danger to their physical and mental health, such as to make
it necessary for them to be immediately admitted to an appropriate
reception centre; and having taken note of the report by the Public
Prosecutor's Department and the information provided in the report drawn
up by the Catalan police concerning the residence and way of life of the
aforesaid minors in that property, under the authority of persons
believed to belong to the destructive sect known as ‘Children of God' or
‘Family of Love', whose activities as a sect might rank among various
offences covered and punished by the Penal Code; and having regard, in
addition, to the obvious risk that an extended stay in the property might
entail for the physical and mental health of the aforesaid minors; taking
into account the provisions of article 172 of the Civil Code and other
such provisions; authorizes the police force to seize the minors
immediately and to have them admitted to the appropriate reception centre
and the competent child welfare agency (in Catalonia, the Directorate of
Child Welfare) will of its own motion assume custodial responsibility for
those children, so long as other measures have not been taken, in
accordance with the law' .
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 31
2. The operative part of the above-mentioned judicial decision is
reproduced below:
‘The Mozos de Escuadra of the autonomous police of the Generalitat
of Catalonia are authorized to go and round up immediately the
minors, about whom nothing is known as to their identity,
nationality or other personal particulars and who may be found at
the private home located at Castellar des Vall s (Avda. Can Piffiol,
No. 45, Ubanizaci6n Airesol, Sector D) under the authority of the
destructive sect known as “Children of God - Family of Love” or
“Missionary Families” or “Missionary Families of Montserrat”, in
order to have them admitted forthwith to the “San J 05 de la
Montaffia” reception centre, placing them in the hands of the
Directorate of Child Welfare, Generalitat of Catalonia, which of
its own motion shall assume custodial responsibility for the
children, so long as no other measure has been taken, in accordance
with the law.'
3. On 8 July 1990, in accordance with the above-mentioned judicial
warrant, the Catalan police took away 21 minors from the property
referred to and had them provisionally admitted to the San Jose de la
Montaffia Centre in Barcelona, placing them under the protection and
control of the Directorate of Child Welfare, which is entrusted with the
requisite powers and functions under Act No. 21/87 of 20 November
amending certain articles of the Civil Code and the Civil Procedure Act
in respect of family placements, adoption and other forms of protection
for minors, in conjunction with Catalan legislation.
4. In accordance with the above-mentioned judicial decision and the
provisions of article 172 et seq. of the Civil Code, Decree No. 332/1988
of 21 November and Decree No. 380/1988 of 1 December concerning the
powers and structure of the Directorate of Child Welfare, the latter, by
administrative decision, declared the minors to be in need of care and
placed them under its control, granting custody to the director of a
recognized centre, namely, the ‘San Jose de la Montaffia' reception centre.
This decision was notified in particular to the fourth examining
court of Sabadell, the United States Consulate General in Barcelona and
the Public Prosecutor's Department and, subsequently, to the parents of
the minors, once their identity had been established.
5. Availing themselves of their rights under the Civil Code, the
parents of the minors informed the nineteenth court of first instance
(domestic court) of Barcelona of their opposition to that decision.
6. Subsequently, the second examining court of Sabadell, to which the
criminal action brought by the fourth examining court of Sabadell on
2 August 1990 had been referred, instructed a psychologist and an
educator from the Directorate of Child Welfare to make a diagnosis, to
monitor the development and behaviour of the children and to coordinate
and supervise the action of the technical team responsible for studying
the case.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 32
By a decision dated 7 September 1990, filed under No. 717/90-P, the
court approved and confirmed the custodial responsibility assumed by the
Directorate of Child Welfare and the placement of the minors in an
institution and, in addition, fixed a schedule of weekly visits for the
parents.
7. In September 1990, all the minors were transferred to the
Mas Arquer reception centre in Arenys de Munt (Barcelona) so that they
could be better looked after and continue their education normally.
The parents of three of the children filed a complaint with the
first examining court of Arenys de Mar on 13 October 1990 for failure to
comply with the duty of protection and for coercion. After taking
cognizance of the reports and statements of the educators and technical
and administrative staff of the centre, the judge dismissed the
complaints, noting that there was no evidence and that the facts
complained of had not been established.
8. On 10 July 1990, on the basis of provisions of article 172 et seq.
of the Civil Code and Decrees Nos. 332 and 380/1988 concerning the powers
and structure of the Directorate of Child Welfare, the Directorate of its
own motion assumed custodial responsibility for the minors in question
and entrusted legal custody to the director of the San Jose de la Montaffia
centre and then to the director of the Mas Arquer reception centre.
9. The parents of the minors protested against the measures taken by
the Directorate of Child Welfare and expressly lodged a complaint with
the nineteenth court of first instance (domestic court) of Barcelona,
which instituted the required legal proceedings (case No. 510/90-DC) .
On 7 September 1990, the court upheld the institutional placement
decision taken by the Directorate of Child Welfare in the case of all the
minors taken into care, granting the parents visiting rights (one day a
week).
10. By court order of 9 July 1991 and following the request for interim
measures made by the Directorate of Child Welfare, the nineteenth court
of first instance (domestic court) authorized the Directorate to fix a
holiday schedule for the children with their parents for the summer of
1991 and to arrange for weekly visits by social workers from the place of
residence of each family, with the requirement that they report to the
court in the second half of September.
On 6 November 1991, the nineteenth court delivered a court order
non-suiting the parents who had challenged the measures taken against
their children and confirming the decision of the Directorate of Child
Welfare to assume custodial responsibility for the children, while
authorizing the minors concerned to remain in the company and in the
custody of their parents, under the supervision of the Directorate of
Child Welfare and the Public Prosecutor's Department.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 33
11. The parents appealed against the court decision referred to in the
previous paragraph and, on 21 May 1992, the Court of Appeal of Barcelona
handed down a judgement annulling the declaration of need of care and the
custodial measures taken by the Directorate of Child Welfare.
12. Subsequently, on 29 June 1993, the third division of the Court of
Appeal of Barcelona acquitted the accused - the parents of the minors -
of the charges made by the Public Prosecutor's Department of fraud,
assault and battery, unlawful setting up of a teaching establishment and
unlawful association, and quashed the preservation measures previously
adopted.
13. Through the Counsel of the Generalitat of Catalonia ( Letrado de
Generalitat de Catluffia) , the Directorate of Child Welfare filed an
application for amparo with the Constitutional Court of the Spanish State
against the judgement of the Court of Appeal of Barcelona annulling the
declaration of need of care and the custodial measures adopted regarding
the minors, pleading a violation of article 24, paragraph 1, of the
Spanish Constitution and of the right to education enshrined in
paragraphs 1 to S of article 27, read in conjunction with article 15 of
the Constitution.
The decision of the Constitutional Court is at present awaited.
14. Annex I of this report contains general clarifications and
particulars regarding any reports that the Commission on Human Rights
(with responsibility for the question of religious intolerance) may have
received concerning the treatment and care of the minors by the staff and
institutions of the Autonomous Administration.
JIInex I
The paragraph of the complaint reproduced below calls for
corrections of detail and an overall rebuttal.
Twenty-two children are alleged to have been removed and detained
in public welfare centres for over a year and, during this period, to
have been neglected and ill-treated by the social workers. On release of
the children, the Catalan authorities are alleged to have required their
parents to send them to State schools and further required each family in
the community to undertake to reside in their own home.
Firstly, as regards the ‘detention' of the children for more than a
year: the action taken by the Directorate of Child Welfare in the case
of the ‘Children of God' was fully in accordance with the law, since, as
explained in the preceding document, it was taken at the request of the
prosecutor's department of the Juvenile Court and in compliance with the
requisite court orders at each stage of the proceedings. The children,
whose institutionalization did not last 12 months, were allowed to
receive visits from their parents and to spend weekends with their
families, in both cases as soon as authorized by the competent judge.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 34
During the children's stay in the Centre, all their rights were
respected without restriction and they were able to attend the local
State school, take part in activities with other children, and receive
visits from school friends in the Centre expressly established for this
purpose and organize parties and a variety of activities. In our view,
therefore, talk of detention amounts to an outright lie.
As to ill-treatment and neglect by the social workers, the
specialist teachers hired to care for the children all had the necessary
qualifications; some were social workers, others had received other
training and the Centre was managed by a woman educationalist from the
Directorate of Child Welfare with broad experience in the educational
field.
The technical team called upon to advise the judge on the final
solution to be proposed frequently visited the children and examined them
and in no case was there any suggestion of neglect or ill-treatment.
On the contrary, the development of all aspects of the children's
personalities during the months of their placement in the Centre was
more than satisfactory.
The action taken by the Administration concluded with the return of
the children to their parents' custody, with retention of guardianship,
the Administration requiring, in accordance with the decision of the
Court and the Public Prosecutor's Department, that the children should
continue their schooling in official establishments (whether public or
private) and that they should continue to join in activities with other
children of their acquaintance (sports, hobbies, etc.).
The families were advised to live separately in order to strengthen
the children's feeling of belonging to a family unit. That was merely
advice, but it was followed spontaneously by all members of the group.
Family therapy was also recommended, and a few families of the group
accepted it spontaneously.”
13. On 17 November 1994, the Special Rapporteur received the following
additional information from the Spanish Government:
“In order to supplement the information, I have the honour to
transmit to you the Supreme Court ruling dated 30 October 1994 rejecting
the appeal by the Public Prosecutor's Department against the decision of
the Provincial Court of Barcelona of 29 June 1993, which you have already
received.
In Spain, the case is thus closed:
1. The measures for the protection of the minors ordered by
the Generalitat of Catalonia were cancelled by the ruling of the
Provincial Court of Barcelona dated 21 May 1992 and the
Constitutional Court rejected the application for amparo filed
against the ruling (see our communications of 5 November 1993
and 2 November 1994) .
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 35
2. The criminal accusation against the parents of the
minors was rejected by the Provincial Court of Barcelona in a
ruling of 29 June 1993 that was upheld by the Supreme Court
on 30 October 1994.
We repeat:
There has never been any violation by the Kingdom of Spain
of the right to freedom of religion and there has been no
discrimination on grounds of religion or belief.”
GRE E CE
14. Further to its reply of 12 February 1993 to the communication
of 9 October 1992 (E/cN.4/1994/79, para. 53), the Permanent Mission of
Greece transmitted the following observations to the Special Rapporteur
on 8 August 1994:
“I have the honour to transmit to you the replies communicated to
us by the Air Force General Headquarters and the Governing Body of
Mount Athos concerning the case of the four evangelist officers and that
of the four expelled monks mentioned in the Special Rapporteur's letter.
A. The case of the evangelist officers
The case concerns four Air Force officers:
(a) Flying Officer Savvas Mandalaridis, son of loannis;
(b) Pilot Officer loannis Sarandis, son of Christos; (c) Pilot Officer
Demetrios Larissis, son of Stefanos; and (d) Sergeant loannis Vlastos,
son of Spyridon.
On 18 May 1992, proceedings were instituted before the Air Force
Military Tribunal in Athens against the persons concerned on charges of
proselytism in favour of the religious sect known as the ‘Brotherhood of
the Disciples of Jesus Christ of the Free Apostolic Church of the
Pentecost', to which they had subjected their colleagues, mainly in army
quarters, in the town of Volos. They endeavoured by persuasion,
importunity and fraud to lure their colleagues into their religious
movement. Proselytism as an offence is defined in article 4 of
Act No. 1363/38. The persons concerned were charged with having violated
article 13, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, which states that ‘All
known religions shall be free and their rites of worship may be freely
practised under the protection of the law . .. Proselytism is
prohibited', in conjunction with article 4, paragraph 1, of
Act No. 1363/38, and article 2 of Act No. 1672/39.
By virtue of decision No. 909/92 of the Air Force Military Tribunal
in Athens, Flight Sergeant Vlastos loannis was acquitted on benefit of
doubt, but the three others were sentenced as follows: Flying Officer
Mandalaridis Savvas to one year's imprisonment, with three years'
suspension and, in the event of the suspension being lifted or
revoked, commutation of sentence to a fine of 1,000 drachmas a day;
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 36
Pilot Officer Sarandis loannis to 15 months' imprisonment, with
three years' suspension, and commutation to a fine of 1,000 drachmas
a day; Pilot Officer Larissis Demetrios to 13 months' imprisonment,
with three years' suspension, and commutation to a fine of 1,000 drachmas
per day.
The persons concerned appealed and, by sentence No. 390/92, the
Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment against Mandalaridis and
Sarandis to 10 months, the same conditions applying as to suspension and
commutation.
The Court confirmed the sentence of imprisonment of 13 months
imposed on Larissis Demetrios by the court of first instance, but with
suspension of three years and possible commutation to a fine. Actually,
the persons concerned spent no time in prison as they were not remanded
in pre-trial detention and the sentences on them were suspended for
three years.
B. The case of the expelled monks
On 20 May 1992, four schismatic monks, Seraphim Babits,
Ioannikkos Abernerthy (American nationals of Russian origin who had
acquired Greek citizenship) , Nikolaos Seveldisky, and Mitrophanes Bentiya
(American nationals of Russian origin) , all members of the
para-ecclesiastical and schismatic organization known as the ‘Russian
Church outside Russia', were expelled from the skite of Prophet Eliash,
a dependency of the Monastery of the Pantocrator on Mount Athos.
Background
On 20 May 1992, a Patriarchal Exarchy headed by the Metropolitan of
Heliopolis and Therare, Kyr Athanasios, together with the Committee of
the Holy Community, went to the skite of the Prophet Eliash for the
purpose of bringing back the members who had been in breach of canonical
and ecclesiastical order since 1957. Also present was the Holy Assembly
of the Elders of the Monastery of the Pantocrator. It should be noted
that repeated efforts had been made to no effect in the past and that the
Church had on numerous occasions and through the intermediary of the
Exarchies that had come to Mount Athos - the last mission of this nature
being in June 1991 - emphasized the importance of a return to canonical
order, but in vain. The patience of the Church having been exhausted, it
was high time to put an end to this long-standing problem. For that
reason the Patriarchal Exarchy, the Community Committee and the Assembly
of Elders unanimously decided that the monks in question should be
removed from the skite if they insisted on being unrepentant and
schismatic - which proved to be the case - and proceeded to occupy the
premises immediately (see above) .
All efforts to persuade the monk Seraphim and the others to
renounce their zealotry and to observe henceforth in perpetuity
the Charter of Mount Athos and the Order of Mount Athos - in which event
pardon would have been possible - failed. The monks bluntly rejected the
brotherly proposal of the Holy Assembly. Following that, the Head of the
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 37
Patriarchal Exarchy, the Metropolitan of Heliopolis, Kyr Athanasios,
communicated to the monks in question the unanimous decision to expel
them immediately and to hand over the keys of the skite to the Father
Superior.
The assistance of the Civil Governing Body of Mount Athos and of
the police having been requested, the Alternate Governor arrived in situ ,
accompanied by a small police contingent under Lieutenant G.I. Koubouras.
Having been notified of the decision, the authorities present were
requested to carry it out forthwith and to expel the schismatic monks.
The Civil Governing Body and the police carried out the decision
forthwith, in accordance with article S of the Charter of Mount Athos,
after which the Holy Assembly of the Monastery of the Pantocrator decided
that the skite would be occupied by a brotherhood of five monks from the
Monastery of Vatopedi. The members of the brotherhood responded to the
call and arrived at the skite . They were recorded in the registry of
monks and assumed the administration of the skite . It was decided that
the holy relics would be handed over to the new Holy Assembly
(Brotherhood) after an inventory had been made by the monastery and a
list drawn up and signed by the two parties. The cooperation of the lay
authorities was also requested for the protection of the skite .
The above measures were approved almost unanimously by the Holy
Community, which thanked the Patriarchal Exarchy and the Community
Committee for the adroit handling of the issue and for the successful
resolution of a situation which had long divided the body of the Church
and the Community of Mount Athos (21 May).
It should also be added that, according to reliable information,
Kyr Athanasios had, as in the past, suggested that the schismatic monks
should be given ample time to meditate on their attitude, as they stood
in error. The Prior ( dikaeos ) of the skite , the schismatic monk
Seraphim, replied intransigently and impertinently.
After being duly notified of the decision to expel them, the
persons concerned were given three hours to gather together their
personal effects and then left for Ouranoupolis under police escort
having previously passed the usual customs check at Daphne by order of
the Alternate Governor of Mount Athos. The specific breaches of the
provisions of the Mount Athos Charter (Legislative Decree of
10/16 September 1992, Official Gazette No. 309 (a)) of which the persons
concerned were guilty can be summarized as follows:
Veneration of another name (that of the schismatic Archbishop of
New York, Vitalius, Head of the ‘Russian Church outside Russia') instead
of the name of the Oecumenical Patriarch. This is contrary to article S
of the Charter (Legislative Decree of 10/16 September 1926, Official
Gazette No. 309 (a)), according to which ‘All Mount Athos monasteries,
whether established by the patriarchate or by the Holy Synod, are subject
to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Great Eastern Orthodox Church of
Christ; no other name may be venerated except for the name of the
Oecumenical Patriarch. ‘ Furthermore, no heterodox or schismatic
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 38
person is permitted to dwell on Mount Athos. (The same provisions
are contained in article 105 of the Constitution and have been
repeated since 1925.)
‘The monks have dwelt in the Holy Skite and been tonsured there
without a permit having been obtained by the Monastery and without
following the known procedure regarding habitations' . Similar to it is
document No. 55/12, of 25 March 1992, drawn up by the Monastery of the
Pantocrator. It is entirely devoted to the two schismatic monks
discovered at the time in the sacred skite . In addition to article 5,
articles 177 and 178 of the Mount Athos Charter may be cited in this
context.
Within the monastic community, there were widespread rumours of
moral offences committed by the Dikaeos of the sacred skite . The
schismatic monk Seraphim was accused of buying off consciences with
dollars, selling holy relics and being homosexual. (In other words,
there was also a violation of article 184 of the Charter) .
The above information is contained in the minutes of meetings of
the Holy Community.
Lastly, the following information was communicated on the
nationality of the monks expelled.
Two of them, Seraphim Babits and loannikios Abernerthy, were
recorded in the register of monks (see doc. No. 55/12 of 25 March 1992
issued by the Holy Monastery of Pantocrator attached hereto) . Pursuant
to article 105, paragraph 1, of the Constitution, they acquired Greek
citizenship.
The first of them declared that he had lost his identity card.
He was probably not in possession of a Greek passport. The second one
declared that he had lost his identity card and his Greek passport.
The other two schismatic monks were not recorded in their
respective monks' registers, but they had been tonsured by Seraphim,
the Schismatic Prior ( Dikaeos ) of the Skite . According to his statement,
the lawful procedure was not observed. The above-mentioned persons were
Russians of the diaspora, of American citizenship.
More details regarding legal and procedural matters are at the
disposal of the Special Rapporteur.”
IRAN (Islamic Republic of)
15. In a communication dated 8 December 1993, the Special Rapporteur
addressed the following comments to the Government of the Islamic Republic
of Iran:
“According to information received by the Special Rapporteur, the
situation of religious minorities has continued to worsen during the
current year. Such is the case of the Baha'i community and members of
various Christian Churches.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 39
1. The Baha'i community
According to reports received, the Iranian authorities have issued
directives aimed at halting the spread of the Baha'i faith in their
country. These directives are apparently intended to prevent the Baha'is
from stating their religion when their children are enrolled in school,
or when they are admitted to university, looking for a job or seeking
positions of responsibility. They also provide for the establishment of
a separate department, responsible for the religious activities of the
Baha'i community in Iran, and are aimed at undermining the foundations of
the Baha'i culture abroad.
Since 1979, 201 Baha'is have allegedly been killed or executed.
One of them was Mr. Bahman Samandari, previously referred to in the
Special Rapporteur's report (E/cN.4/1993/62) . Fifteen others have
disappeared and are presumed dead. More than 40 Baha'is have been
arrested and detained for varying lengths of time. On 10 August 1993,
11 Baha'is were imprisoned for their religious beliefs, as listed below
(the second and third cases are referred to in document E/cN.4/1993/62) :
Mr. Bakshu'llah Mithaqi, arrested on 17 October 1985 in Karaj and
subsequently detained without trial. He was reportedly sentenced
to death by an Islamic revolutionary court and his subsequent fate
remains unknown.
Mr. Kayvan Khalajabadi, arrested on 29 April 1989 in Gohardasht.
Alleged to be in the same situation as Mr. Mithaqui.
Mr. Bihman Mithaqi, arrested on 29 April 1989 in Gohardasht.
Mr. Husayn Ishraqi, arbitrarily arrested at his home in Isfahan on
1 April 1992. JII elderly man, he is reportedly still in prison.
Mr. Nijatu'llah Bihin-Ain, rearrested in July 1992 in Isfahan after
having been released in January 1990. He was reportedly summoned
once again by Iranian authorities and sentenced to five years'
imprisonment.
Mr. Hushmand and Mr. Rafiee Yazdani, arrested in Abadih in
December 1992.
Mr. Irfan Ismailpur, from Chalus, imprisoned in Bhishahr since an
unknown date.
Mr. Rabi'u'llah Isma'ilzadigan, detained in Tehran since
1 June 1993.
Mr. Husayn-Auli Rawshan-Damir, detained since 27 June 1993 in an
unknown location.
Mr. Daryush Firuzmandi, from Karaj, imprisoned in Tehran since
8 July 1993.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 40
Since the Baha'i faith is not recognized by the Iranian
Constitution, members of the Baha'i community are reportedly classified
as ‘unprotected infidels' and their rights denied. Marriages and
divorces among Baha'is, and their inheritance rights, are reportedly not
recognized. Usually denied passports or exit visas, they are not free to
travel outside Iran.
The Baha'i community has constantly been refused the right of
assembly and of electing persons to head their administrative
institutions, these being a cornerstone of the community, which has no
established clergy.
For the past 13 years, many young Baha'is are said to have been
systematically prevented from entering institutes of higher education,
such as colleges and universities. The decline in the level of training
among young people is reportedly causing concern, with serious
consequences for the Baha'i community as a whole.
Many Baha'is in Iran still lack the means of earning a living. In
the early 1980s, more than 10,000 people were dismissed from their jobs
as civil servants and teachers because of their religious belief. Many
of them are reportedly still unemployed and receive no benefits. Some
Baha'is dismissed for religious reasons are not receiving their
retirement benefits, while former civil servants who were also dismissed
have reportedly been forced to return wages or pensions previously paid
to them.
It is alleged that Baha'is are not allowed to set up their own
businesses. In the cities of Karaj and Aran (Kashan province) , they
have reportedly been harassed to the point where they were obliged to
close their stores. Baha'i farmers are allegedly not admitted to
farmers' cooperatives, a source of credits, seeds, pesticides and
fertilizer.
According to further information received, ownership rights of
Baha'is are not respected. Over the past 10 years, many of their
businesses, undertakings and private properties, including houses, have
been confiscated. Incidents of this kind have occurred in Sayran and
Ilkhchi. Notices of confiscation have been issued by Islamic
revolutionary institutions in Iran in respect of assets belonging to
Baha'is in Yazd, Tehran and Isfahan.
It has been reported that, in September 1992, several Iranian
Government officials in Isfahan occupied the house of a Baha'i man
over 80 years of age and seized his property. A dozen other houses have
been searched by officials from the Isfahan Office of the Ministry of
Justice, who are said to have carried off household utensils, radio and
television sets, recording machines, books, cameras and money found on
the premises. No acknowledgement has yet been made of complaints filed
by the owners.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 41
According to recent information received by the Special Rapporteur,
Baha'i cemeteries, holy places, historic sites and administrative centres
continue to be confiscated or in some cases destroyed. Owing to their
limited access to the cemeteries designated by the authorities, Baha'is
are allegedly finding it very difficult to bury their dead in certain
places.
2. Members of Christian Churches
According to information received, the Reverend Edmond, pastor of
Injili Presbyterian Church in Tabriz (referred to in the Special
Rapporteur's report (E/CN.4/1992/52)), is suffering various ailments as a
result of his imprisonment between December 1990 and August 1991 and has
been refused an exit visa from Iran.
Mr. Mohammad Sepehr, a Muslim convert to Christianity, is said to
have been briefly imprisoned early in 1993. Since then, he has
repeatedly been called back to prison for interrogation and is currently
under threat of a death sentence. He has even been obliged to go to the
Mash-had mosque and reconvert to Islam, under threat of execution.
The pastor Mehdi Dibaj, mentioned by the Special Rapporteur in the
report referred to above, a former Muslim and a convert to Christianity,
is reported to be still imprisoned without trial, although he has been
transferred to Sari prison (Mazandaran province) , where his conditions of
detention have allegedly improved. It is nevertheless reported that his
wife has been threatened with being stoned to death should she refuse to
recant her Christian faith. She has reportedly been forced to divorce
her husband in order to marry a Muslim fundamentalist. Their four
children are said to have remained with their Church, which has taken
charge of them. “
16. In an urgent appeal dated 14 January 1994, the Special Rapporteur
addressed the following information to the Government of the Islamic Republic
of Iran:
“I have the honour to address this letter to you in accordance with
the mandate entrusted to me by the Commission on Human Rights in its
resolution 1993/25.
In my capacity as Special Rapporteur, I should like to draw your
attention to recent information that I have received concerning
Mr. Mehdi Dibaj, aged 45, a Muslim convert to Christianity, who
subsequently became a pastor. It is reported that, after already
spending more than seven years in prison, he was sentenced to death on
3 December 1993 for apostasy by an Islamic revolutionary court in the
city of Sari. Fears are said to have been expressed about his execution
which is alleged to be imminent.
I wish to recall the provisions of article 18 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which stipulates in paragraph 1
that ‘everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience
and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 42
religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in
community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion
or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching' . Paragraph 2 of
the same article further states that ‘no one shall be subject to coercion
which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief
of his choice' .
I also draw your attention to the similar provisions of article 1
of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination based on Religion or Belief.
In the light of the aforementioned provisions, I wish to express my
deep concern regarding the sentence passed on Mr. Mehdi Dibaj , and I
should be grateful if your Government would keep me informed of the
measures to be taken to give effect to the aforementioned provisions.”
17. On 5 February 1994, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran
addressed the following information to the Special Rapporteur in response to
the above-mentioned urgent appeal:
“In reference to your telex message concerning the case of
Mr. Mehdi Dibaj and the allegations raised in the context of his death
penalty, I have the honour to inform you of the following:
According to the judicial authorities in my country,
Mr. Mehdi Dibaj has not been sentenced to death for his conversion to
Christianity and his offence has not come to the level of death penalty
according to the Penal Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Mr. Dibaj is currently released from custody and awaiting trial.”
MYANMAR
18. On 26 January 1994, the Government of Myanmar transmitted the following
information to the Special Rapporteur concerning the communication
of 28 February 1994 (E/CN.4/1994/79, para. 64).
“I am pleased to send you herewith (as per annex) the full
information received from the competent authorities of Myanmar on the
measures it had taken in order to ensure that the various religious
communities in Myanmar enjoy the free exercise of their faiths, in
accordance with universally recognized standards of religious freedoms.
May I also add that in Myanmar, the major religions - Buddhism,
Islam, Christianity and Hinduism - live side by side, flourishing and
living in complete harmony. Foreign visitors to Myanmar can attest to
the fact that there is complete freedom for the people in practising
their religious faiths.
It is also my sincere hope that the information provided in the
annex would serve to prove that religious freedom does exist in Myanmar.
Action taken by the authorities against certain individuals in connection
with certain religious matters was taken in accordance with the
prevailing laws in Myanmar. “
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 43
“JIInex
1. The State Law and Order Restoration Council took over State power
on 18 September 1988; since then, it has been carrying out the following
four main tasks in order to bring about peace and tranquillity in the
country and to restore public order. The tasks are:
(a) To restore the rule of law and order and the peace and
tranquillity of the land;
(b) To provide smooth and effective transportation;
(c) To provide the entire people with sufficient food, clothing
and shelter and to render necessary assistance to the private sector and
the cooperatives;
(d) To hold multiparty democracy general elections when the
above-mentioned three objectives are realized.
2. While carrying out these tasks, the Government has been taking
measures to quell the armed groups who have been resorting to violence
against the people and the Government with the help of outside forces.
3. In carrying out its duty, no discrimination whatever has been made
on grounds of race, creed or religion but necessary measures were taken
against these destructive forces in strict conformity with the laws of
the land.
4. In 1991, skirmishes broke out between the insurgents and the
security forces of the Government in the Ayeyarwaddy (Irrawaddy)
Division. It was possible that there might be casualties among the
civilian populations because of the skirmishes. Action according to law
was also taken against those who aided and abetted the insurgents. By
tradition, the Myanmar Government has granted amnesty to those
lawbreakers who were involved with insurgents upon the restoration of
peace and tranquillity.
5. The highly disciplined members of the armed forces are pledged to
conduct themselves in conformity with the prescribed code of ethics and
military regulations. In so doing, they have to observe strictly the
following 10 codes of conduct:
(1) to be loyal to the people;
(2) to safeguard the property of the people;
(3) to be polite to the people and to behave humbly;
(4) to work for the interests of the people;
(5) to avoid making fun of or being impertinent to the people; to
avoid insulting, using vulgar language, carrying out a wrongdoing,
or threatening the people;
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 44
(6) to avoid high-handedness in dealing with the people and not
to take advantage of the fact that they (the armed forces) wield
arms;
(7) to be careful not to get involved in matters that do not
concern oneself;
(8) to give priority to the people's welfare; not seek advantage
for oneself;
(9) to satisfy the people by being at their service;
(10) to respect the beliefs, customs, cultures and traditions of
the people.
6. As such, during military operations or otherwise, both in spirit
and in law, members of the armed forces are strictly required not to
commit arrests of persons, acts of torture, rapes and other abuses and
other illegal acts.
7. In view of the foregoing, it is obvious that alleged abuses or
illegal acts such as torture and killings did not take place during the
military operations in 1991 in the Ayeyarwaddy Division.
8. It may be mentioned here that the local populace who had suffered
at the hands of the insurgents joined hands with the security forces of
the Government in quelling these insurgents. They organized themselves
into a people's militia, arming themselves with whatever artifacts they
could use as weapons against the insurgents. Ordinary people took part
in the military operations against the insurgents in the delta areas
in 1973 and in the Pegu Mountain Range in 1975. These insurgents
belonged to the Burma Communist Party and the Karen Armed Group.
Similarly, in 1993, the Wa people who had suffered at the hands of the
insurgents rose up against them and defeated them. Law and order has
returned to these areas which have become peaceful since then.
Allegations concerning forced labour
9. During these military operations, porters were used in the border
and mountainous areas to help carry the equipment. They were given a
reasonable amount of wages as well as food. Their health and security
were also taken care of by the armed forces. A separate ration was
allocated for the porters by the army. In the unlikely event of loss of
life or limb unconnected with any armed conflict, their families were
compensated. Therefore, the allegation that porters were not given food
or water during the operations is not true. Nor is the allegation that
they were tortured. These allegations emanated from false statements
made by those that have ill-will against the Myanmar authorities.
10. Of the population in Myanmar, 89.5 per cent are Buddhists.
Buddhists believe in and observe the merits of constructing and
repairing roads and bridges, and growing trees and flower plants,
digging and salvaging wells and ponds, installing drinking water stands,
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 45
setting up rest houses, shelters for pilgrims, temples and monasteries.
Traditionally, they take delight in giving voluntary labour to dig wells
and ponds, to construct dams, to repair roads and to build bridges.
Those who can afford to do so will offer food to those who contribute
voluntary labour; those who are not well off will at least offer drinking
water to those contributing labour. There are also those who entertain
these volunteers with music and dances. Myanmar people do not regard it
as an ordeal to contribute voluntary work in building and repairing
roads.
11. Myanmar was under the rule of colonial Powers for over 100 years.
In the delta areas, waterways were the only means of transportation.
During the rainy season, travel by this means was hazardous and slow. In
accordance with the colonial policy and practice, roads and railways were
not constructed. Even after the Independence in 1948, waterways were the
only means of transport in the delta regions. Induced by the Policy
Declaration made by the State Law and Order Restoration Council to
provide smooth and effective transportation, the people in the delta
areas asked the Government to take a leading role in constructing roads
and railways to facilitate travel as well as transportation of goods.
Thus, the Ministry for Construction, together with the members of the
armed forces as well as the working people living in these areas took
part in constructing roads, railways and bridges. As a result of these
undertakings, nowadays people can travel by car from villages to towns
and between towns in all seasons in the delta areas. In the past, it
took 14 hours to travel by boat from Yangon to Pathein (Bassein) . Now
the journey has been cut short by 9 hours.
12. In the border areas and hilly regions, mules and horses were used
in the past to carry loads. Nowadays, the local people, after joining
hands with the Government to quell the insurgent activities took part in
nation-building works such as constructing new towns, hydroelectric power
stations, bridges over rivers and streams, and roads. In the past it
would take five days by car to travel from Taungyi to Kyaington
(Kengteng) . Nowadays, people could make a day trip between these
two towns.
13. Similarly, the construction of Aung Ban-Loikaw railway in
Shan State was made possible by the cooperation of the local people who
took part in the construction of the railway voluntarily. The members of
the diplomatic corps had themselves witnessed these activities.
14. It may be mentioned that the Government paid wages to the villagers
who had taken part in the construction of roads. However, villagers
usually donate these wages to the building of schools and dispensaries in
their villages for the welfare of the whole village.
Allegations concerning forced relocation of Buddhist temples, Hindu
statues of deity, Islamic mosques, etc .
15. As a result of years of urban drift, slums and shanty towns
mushroomed in major cities and towns in Myanmar. Large, overpopulated
squatter settlements sprang up in both privately and publicly owned land.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 46
Squatter settlements were built in public parks, playgrounds, schools,
hospital compounds, places of worship of various faiths, along the
railways lines and highways. Even cemeteries were not spared. These
squatters lived in crowded dwellings unfit for human habitation.
16. With a view to promoting a clean and healthy environment and
eradicating undesirable squalor, the State Law and Order Restoration
Council adopted a policy of systematically rebuilding towns and villages.
As a result, these squatters were resettled in new towns.
17. In keeping with building new towns and villages for the benefit of
the working people, regulations were laid down by the municipal
authorities. These regulations relate to building pagodas, stupas,
monasteries, mosques, temples, human dwellings, etc. As such, devotees
of various faiths were not allowed to build or construct places of
worship, etc., at any place to their liking. Regulations forbid building
of pagodas, monasteries, etc., in residential areas. Neither are they
allowed to build or construct places of worship or religious buildings at
inappropriate places. Special or appropriate places were allocated for
building of religious edifices.
18. Similarly regulations were laid down with respect to locations of
cemeteries.
19. In accordance with the regulations mentioned in the foregoing,
religious artefacts that belonged to people of various faiths were moved
to appropriate places allocated especially for religious compounds.
Among these were:
(a) Images representing 28 Buddhas were moved from the squatters'
areas in front of the People's Parliament to Nyaungyan Pagoda, Kabar-Aye.
(b) Two small Buddhist stupas built in the Insein Prison were
moved to Nyaungyan Pagoda.
(c) One Buddhist stupa built by an individual, located on
Industry Road, was moved to Nyaungyan Pagoda at Kabar-Aye.
(d) The statue of goddess Kali was moved from the squatters'
areas in front of the People's Parliament to a Hindu temple located in
Yankin.
(e) The statue of goddess Kali situated in the compound for the
Institute of Nursing was moved to a town called Nyaunglaybin.
(f) The temple of Pashu God situated near the Martyrs' Mausoleum
was moved to a Hindu religious compound in Sanchaung township, Yangon.
(g) A few mosques which were built at inappropriate places and
without the authorization of the municipal authorities were moved to
appropriate religious compounds. Similarly, cemeteries that belonged to
the people of Islamic faith which were situated in the heart of towns and
villages were moved to appropriate places.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 47
20. It may be mentioned here that the relocation of Buddhist stupas,
Hindu statues of deity, Islamic mosques, etc. , was made to appropriate
places with the consent and after consultation with the religious leaders
of the various faiths. In cases where there were strong objections
raised by the religious leaders, there were no cases of relocation.
For example:
(a) The mosque at Dawna Quarters and the cemetery in Mongwa,
Sagaing Division;
(b) The mosque in Yamethin, Mandalay Division;
(c) The mosque at Eime, Ayeyarwaddy Division.
21. In conformity with the policy laid down by the Government to
promote and propagate all religious faiths, the following mosques and
schools which were closed for various reasons were reopened:
(a) The school of Islam at Tawateintha Street, No. (4) Quarters,
Thandwe (formerly Sandoway) , Rakhine (Arakan) State;
(b) The mosque in Myothit Quarters, Magwe, Magwe Division.
22. The authorities authorized rebuilding of Swanne Gyar Mei mosque at
Mm Road, No. (4) Quarters, Kalaw, Shan State.
23. Islamic devotees perform their prayer services at mosques five
times a day peacefully. There are 66 mosques in Yangon, 64 mosques in
Mandalay and more than 3,000 mosques all over Myanmar. In Rakhine State
alone, there are 600,000 Islamic devotees and the mosques situated in
various townships are as follows:
Township No. of mosques
Sittway 106
Maungdaw 647
Buthitaung 192
Yethetaung 45
Minpya 36
Kyauktaw 48
Myauk-U 35
Kyaukphyu 6
Myaypon S
Yanbye 15
Thandwe (Sandoway) 30
1 165
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 48
24. Books on religion such as the Koran that have been imported from
abroad have been examined in accordance with the law and allowed to be
distributed. For example:
(a) One thousand copies of the Koran sent by the Muslim World
League at Mecca, Saudi Arabia, to Amin Hawa Waqf at No. 18, 26th Street,
Yangon have been passed by the board of authorities. The Minister for
Religious Affairs himself attended the donating ceremony of the Koran.
(b) In 1992, the Pakistan Embassy in Yangon was allowed to donate
copies of the Koran to Suriti mosque.
(c) One hundred copies of the Koran imported without permit by
Moulvi U Them Myint from the Islamic Scholars' Association in Yangon
were passed by the Ministry for Religious Affairs.
25. The Government makes a donation of 100,000 kyats every year for the
promotion and propagation of the Islamic faith. Some portion of the
donation is used to translate the Koran into Myanmar which is then to be
distributed to the people of Islamic faith in Myanmar.
26. The Ministry of Religious Affairs has taken the responsibility of
bringing into Myanmar X-ray equipment and hospital equipment as well as
medicines donated by Singapore for the hospital for Muslims at
Mahabandoola Road, Yangon, and then transferred them to the hospital. In
view of the foregoing, the allegation that books and articles on Islam
are not available in Myanmar is totally false.
27. The Government has also made possible Haj pilgrimages to Mecca, one
of the five tenets of the Islamic faith. Since the year 1980, 100 Hajis
have gone on the pilgrimage every year. After the State Law and Order
Restoration Council took over State power, the Hajis were sent as
follows:
Year No. of Hajis
1991 150
1992 200
1993 200
28. Since the year 1992, the Government has made arrangements with the
Finance Ministry as well as with the Myanmar Foreign Trade Bank for each
Haji to have US$ 1,000 for expenditure abroad and US$ 1,000 for air fare.
Altogether US$ 400,000 are expended every year on 200 Hajis.
29. The candidates for Haj pilgrimages are chosen by the Selection
Board of Hajis made up of representatives of Muslims and Muslim
organizations from 14 States and Divisions. Haj candidates are chosen by
lot by the Selection Board. Still there are complaints by those who have
misgivings over the selection procedure. These cases have to be handled
by the authorities often.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 49
30. Every year, sermons could be delivered from the Myanmar
Broadcasting Service on three auspicious occasions for the people of the
Islamic faith - Eid al-Adha, Eid ul-Azh (Bakra Eid) and the Birthday of
the Prophet. In order to deliver sermons on these occasions, the
Ministry for Religious Affairs made arrangements to edit the sermons and
to coordinate between the Central Association of Printers and Publishers'
Registration and the Myanmar Broadcasting Service.
31. The Ministry of Religious Affairs has recommended to the Central
Association of Printers and Publishers' Registration for publishing the
following scripts after editing them:
Year No. of religious No. of scripts for
scripts monthly journals
1991 58 4
1992 96 5
1993 42 5
32. The Ministry has also made recommendations for various Islamic
organizations so that they could publish calendars for Islamic devotees
every year.
33. The Minister for Religious Affairs himself attended the ceremony
to lay the foundation stone for the Home for Aged Muslim Women at
No. (1) Thukha Street, Thingangyun township, Yangon Division.
34. In order for the Islamic religious leaders to promote and
propagate their faith, the following two persons have been allowed to
travel in Myanmar free of charge to carry out their religious duties:
Gazi Mohamed Hashin, Chairman, Islamic Affairs Council Headquarters; and
Chief Moulvi Mamod Dawot Yusuf, Chairman, Organization for Ulema Islamic
Scholars.
35. The Department of Religious Affairs and the Ministry of Religious
Affairs usually make consultations with the following five Islamic
organizations for the purposes of Islamic affairs:
(a) The Headquarters for the Islamic Affairs Council;
(b) The Organization for Ulema Islamic Scholars;
(c) All Myanmar Moulvis Headquarters;
(d) The Organization of Myanmar Muslim Youth (a religious
organization) ;
(e) Myanmar Muslim National Headquarters.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 50
36. As mentioned above, the Government has been assisting and making
necessary arrangements for the promotion and propagation of the Islamic
faith in accordance with rules and regulations. There exists no torture
or religious intolerance in Myanmar as alleged. The Government usually
consults the five Islamic organizations in carrying out Islamic affairs.
In view of this, it could be concluded that the allegations against the
Myanmar Government of religious intolerance emanated from sources that
bear ill-will against the State Law and Order Restoration Council.
37. By the same token, for the promotion and propagation of Hinduism,
Hindu leaders are allowed to travel free of charge to carry out their
religious duties. They are allowed to deliver sermons from the Myanmar
Broadcasting Service on Deepawali celebrations.
38. Passports have been issued to leaders of the Christian faith and
missionaries who had to travel abroad either to attend religious meetings
or to hold religious jobs or to dependants accompanying them or to pay a
visit. Altogether 852 applicants in such categories have been issued
passports.
39. Moreover, the Government has issued entry visas into Myanmar to
Christian priests and nuns and to missionaries, as well as to leaders of
the Christian faith and devotees who wanted to visit Myanmar on religious
grounds:
(a) His Excellency Mgr. Alberto Tricario, Ambassador of the
Holy See, was allowed to conduct a Mass at the Church of Saint Mary in
Yangon.
(b) Arrangements were made to obtain entry visas into Myanmar for
His Excellency Mgr. Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, Chairman of the Pontifical
Council of Justice and Peace from the Vatican, Italy, and his party.
His Excellency and party called on the Minister for Home and Religious
Affairs as well as the Minister for Trade to discuss religious affairs.
His Excellency and party paid homage to the Shwe Dagon Pagoda and made a
donation of 5,000 kyats. His Excellency also called on members of the
Order of Sanghas, led by Vice-Chairman Reverend Bandanta Thawbita.
His Excellency and party led the Mass service at the Church of Saint Mary
in Yangon and also gave blessings to 500 children. His Excellency laid
the foundation stones for new churches at Nanthagene, Insein.
(c) His Excellency Mgr. Claudio Maria Celli, Deputy Minister for
Foreign Affairs of the Vatican, Rome, and party applied for entry visas
into Myanmar while they were touring South-East Asia. They were welcomed
by the Myanmar authorities. U Kyaw Aye, Deputy Minister for Religious
Affairs, received His Excellency and party, and together they discussed
religious affairs cordially.
(d) Similarly, His Excellency Mgr. Luigi Bressen, Ambassador of
the Holy See, and party were issued visas on their business trip to
Myanmar. His Excellency was received by the Minister for Religious
Affairs, with whom he had cordial talks on religious affairs.
His Excellency was seen off at the airport by the Deputy Minister for
Religious Affairs.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 51
(e) The missions from the Church of Christ, Thailand, have been
allowed to visit Myanmar at the invitation of the Myanmar Christian
Council. The Director-General of the Department of Religious Affairs
received all these missions.
40. All schools in Myanmar were nationalized in April 1965. In order
to distinguish between school and church premises, consultations were
held with the concerned Christian associations, following which:
(a) The premises for the Baptist Church in Kyeemyindine and the
premises for No. (1) State High School, Kyeemyindine, were redefined and
the premises for the Baptist Church were recognized as a religious site.
(b) The premises for the Christian Council on Kyeemyindaing Road,
Ahlone township, Yangon Division, and the premises for No. (4) State High
School, Ahlone, were redefined and the premises of the Christian Council
were recognized as a religious site.
41. On the occasion of Christmas and Easter, which are religious
festivals for Christians, arrangements are made every year to deliver
sermons from the Myanmar Broadcasting Service.
42. Leaders of the Christian faith are allowed to travel free of charge
in Myanmar in order to carry out their religious duties efficiently.
43. Magazines, journals and books on Christianity are examined in
accordance with censorship regulations and then allowed to be published.
44. Christian organizations have been allowed to register as religious
organizations with recommendations from the authorities concerned.
Altogether, 58 organizations have been registered.
45. Necessary certifications and recommendations have been granted to
Christian devotees upon application in accordance with the existing laws.
46. In view of the foregoing, it is obvious that the Government has
been facilitating freedom of religion in Myanmar and that it has been
assisting the devotees of various faiths in accordance with the existing
laws.
47. The Government has been consulting the following four Christian
organizations with regard to Christian affairs:
(a) Myanmar Christian Council;
(b) The Catholic Council;
(c) The Seventh Day Adventist Church;
(d) The Evangelist Council.
48. In view of the foregoing, the allegation that Christian devotees in
Myanmar are subjected to religious discrimination and intolerance is not
true.”
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 52
PAKI STAN
19. In a communication dated 8 November 1993, the Special Rapporteur
addressed the following comments to the Government of Pakistan:
“According to the information received by the Special Rapporteur,
the Islamization of Pakistan legislation, which dates back to the 1980s,
has severely undermined the exercise of religious freedom and led to
serious abuses, in particular abuses committed against the religious
minorities of the country.
The attempt by the Pakistan authorities to mention religious
affiliation on the identity card of every Pakistan citizen is reported to
be another source of concern. It is alleged that when 2 million of these
new identity cards had been printed during 1992, further printing was
partially suspended in November 1992, in the face of strong opposition
from many minorities, including the Christians, and that the provincial
parliament of Sind also opposed it.
The Special Rapporteur has been informed that the freedom of
movement of certain religious dignitaries has been hampered. It is
reported that they have been prevented from going to various regions of
Pakistan, on the pretext that their presence or their statements would
inflame sectarian feeling or would be liable to cause acts of violence or
disturb public order. As a result, more than 50 preachers, zakirs and
other eminent persons were allegedly unable to go to various places in
the Punjab and the North-West Frontier region during the Muharram
celebration. In June 1992, some 30 ulema were reportedly forbidden entry
to Jhang and a number of others were denied access to Sialkot. The
following month, some 20 ulema were prevented from going to Muzaffargarh,
and a dozen more were not allowed to go to Larkana.
In addition, the 10 or so appeals lodged by the JIImadi community
for the restoration of their rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the
Pakistan Constitution were reportedly dismissed by the Supreme Court in
a judgement of 3 July 1993 in which the Court gave as its interpretation
that article 20 of the Pakistan Constitution, relating to religious
freedom, was subject to the law, public order and morality. By a
majority, the Court allegedly specified that this article was subject
to ‘Islamic law'.
This decision is said to have been the culmination of a long period
of discrimination against members of the Ahmadi minority dating back to
a constitutional amendment of 1974, which stated that this minority was
‘non-Muslim' and was forbidden to engage in Islamic activities. The
scope of this constitutional amendment was reportedly reinforced later by
Ordinance XX of 1984, which made amendments to the Pakistan Penal Code,
and to sections 298 B and 298 C, in particular, by referring explicitly
to the JIImadis and by prohibiting them from declaring themselves to be
Muslims and from using Muslim practices in their worship or in the
teaching of their faith. Any breach of these laws is reportedly
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 53
punished by a sentence of up to three years' imprisonment and a fine.
On 7 July 1991, article 295 A of the Penal Code was reportedly
amended by Ordinance XXI, which increased the maximum period
of imprisonment imposed for outrage against religious views from
2 to 10 years.
Many Ahmadis have reportedly been prosecuted under article 298 C
of the Pakistan Penal Code for using expressions that include Muslim
epithets and verses of the Koran with the intention of passing the
Ahmadis off as Muslims, as well as the call to prayer, the actual
prayers, the customary greetings, the inscriptions on houses or
tombstones and the patterns on invitation cards or cards announcing
marriages.
In 1986, the amendment to article 295 C of the Pakistan Penal Code
made it possible to sentence any person guilty of directly or indirectly
slandering the name of the Prophet Muhammad to life imprisonment and even
to capital punishment, as well as the payment of a fine.
In spring 1991, the Supreme Court, inspired by the Shariah,
reportedly issued a decree, which was subsequently ratified by the
Senate, declaring that anyone deemed to be guilty of blasphemy under
article 295 C of the Penal Code would henceforth be sentenced to death,
without any possibility of appeal. Capital punishment thus allegedly
became mandatory from 1 May 1991. During the period under review, the
laws on blasphemy reportedly built up an atmosphere of religious
intolerance in the country and even encouraged acts of violence, against
the JIImadi and Christian minorities in particular.
It is alleged that, in 1992, more than 150 complaints were lodged
against members of the Ahmadi community for violations concerning the use
of Koranic verses in their private correspondence and that the persons
concerned received sentences ranging from a few months to two years. In
addition, 718 persons were allegedly prosecuted for offences involving
the inscription of the kalima (profession of faith) , 729 others for
having recited the azan (call to prayer) , 91 for having offered the
namaz (prayer) and some 10 others for having read the Koran. At least
three teachers, in Islamabad and in Dunyapur, in the district of Lodhran,
reportedly lost their posts because they were JIImadis. It is alleged
that, in one instance, the teacher was asked to resign his post because
he was not entitled to teach the Koran and that, in another, he was
allegedly harassed by the management of the school, boycotted by his
pupils and denied admission to the canteen, before being relieved of
his responsibilities; the third instance was that of a teacher who was
denounced to the police for having taught her faith in her school and
declared guilty of having breached sections 298 C and 295 C of the Penal
Code. At present, she therefore risks the death penalty. It is further
reported that 11 Ahmadi places of worship were partially demolished, a
dozen tombs were desecrated and some 20 burials according to Ahmadi rites
were forbidden.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 54
Other cases reported to the Special Rapporteur in which persons
belonging to the Ahmadi minority are alleged to have been persecuted
are described below:
On 20 July 1992, after the death and burial of a prominent
Abmadi esteemed by all the members of his village, a mullah
allegedly came five days later and demanded that the dead man be
exhumed. The villagers protested and won their case, after the
district judge discovered that the five signatures collected by
the mullah for carrying out his design had been obtained by
threats.
On 29 July 1992, a lawyer, Ateeq Ahmad Bajwa, amir of his district
in Vihari, allegedly used Islamic expressions referring to the
Prophet Muhammad in statements made during a press conference and
again before the Bar Association. He was denounced to the police
by a neighbour and, after obtaining bail, he was thrown into prison
in Multan.
In the village of Nasirabad, in the district of Muzaffargarh,
the members of the Ahmadi minority were allegedly attacked by
opponents. After being berated by the police who came to the
rescue, the opponents resumed their attacks against the Ahmadis
with even greater force, beating and robbing some of them.
Others left the scene and took refuge in neighbouring villages,
fearing denunciation by their neighbours or arrest on false
grounds.
For the ninth consecutive year, the celebration of the ‘Jalsa
Salana', which is the assembly established more than 100 years ago
by the founder of the Ahmadi movement, was allegedly forbidden by
the Pakistan authorities.
Starting from January 1993, 104 members of the Ahmadi minority,
most sentenced to life imprisonment under section 298 C of the Pakistan
Penal Code for having used certain traditional Islamic inscriptions
on the walls of their houses or in their announcements of marriage,
allegedly had their sentences reviewed under section 295 C and commuted
to capital punishment.
Like the JIImadis, the Zikris are reportedly still being harassed
with a view to declaring them non-Muslims. It is alleged that many
Zikris whose faith dates back to the sixteenth century and advocates
abstinence, seclusion, contentment and invocation of the holy names of
Allah, have been prevented by the authorities from organizing their
annual processions and rites at the end of Ramadan, in Turbat, in the
coastal area of Baluchistan. The present campaign against this minority
is reportedly also racially based and reveals fundamentalist
intransigence at work in Pakistan society.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 55
Other Pakistan citizens, who are Muslims, were allegedly affected
by the laws on blasphemy. According to the information received:
Akhtar Hammed Khan, an eminent writer and sociologist, 81 years of
age, who is known for his commitment to the deprived people of Orangi in
Karachi, launched a pilot development project on their behalf. Some
aspects of the project seeking to offer real estate loans on favourable
terms to the population and to improve the condition of women through
education and access to employment and to family planning, apparently
went down badly with local businessmen and the orthodox Muslim
authorities.
This eminent sociologist, it is alleged, was first charged with
blasphemy, after being reported by a former employee who had been
dismissed in 1988, in connection with an interview given to an Indian
journalist, the article concerning which was never published. The matter
was dropped by the Karachi police for lack of sufficient evidence. On
the other hand, extracts from the so-called article have been published
in the weekly organ of the conservative Jamaat-i-Islami party.
On 14 May 1990, similar accusations based on the above-mentioned
article were made against Mr. Khan by a religious leader from Multan and
confirmed on the basis of sections 298 A, 295 B and 295 C of the Pakistan
Penal Code. Mr. Khan was arrested a few months later and held briefly
before being released.
The third accusation of blasphemy stemmed from a children's nursery
rhyme entitled ‘The Lion and Anaq', which was published by the Oxford
University Press in 1989. According to the person who lodged the
complaint against Mr. Khan on 19 March 1992, the nursery rhyme made
particular reference to the Holy Prophet and to the fourth caliph, thus
insulting the Prophet and Islam. Although the High Court of Sind granted
Mr. Khan release on bail, in the meantime his home was searched on
several occasions. Libellous articles and tracts were published about
him in the press or distributed to the population by the religious
leaders. He was then again arrested and held for short periods without
any arrest warrant, despite being supported by several publishers,
influential Pakistan citizens or human rights groups.
Abdullah Malik, a former journalist and well-known writer active
in political life, was the victim of a smear campaign carried out
recently by the press, denouncing the accounts of his pilgrimages to
Mecca during the last 20 years as blasphemous, ridiculing the writer
and calling him the ‘Salman Rushdie' of Pakistan.
Lastly, it is reported that several Pakistanis of the Christian
faith or converts to Christianity were also victims of the blasphemy
laws. In the cases mentioned by the Special Rapporteur in his report
in document E/CN.4/1992/52, namely those of Naimat Ahmer, Tahir Iqbal
and Gul Masih, the following information should be added regarding the
latter: he professes the Catholic faith, and comes from Sargodha,
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 56
a town 200 miles from Islamabad with a sizeable Christian minority.
Gul Masih was the first person sentenced to death in Pakistan for
blasphemy since the penalty became mandatory in 1991.
It is alleged that on 10 December 1992, during a discussion between
Gul Masih and his Muslim neighbour Mohammed Sajjad Hussain, near a public
fountain, which had become poisoned because it was in poor working order,
his neighbour claimed that Gul Masih had insulted the plumber in charge
of the fountain, who is also a Muslim, and made disparaging remarks about
the Prophet Muhammad. Later that day, Gul Masih's neighbour returned
to see him and demanded that he withdraw his remarks, which he refused
to do.
During the days following this dispute, Sajjad Hussain was
encouraged by a maulvi (a learned teacher of Islamic law) belonging to
an orthodox Islamic organization which is apparently seeking to make
Pakistan a Sunni State by removing all non-Sunni Muslims from Government
posts, to lodge a complaint against Gul Masih, on the basis of
section 295 C of the Penal Code. The dispute continued for several days,
and implicated Gul Masih's brother, a political opponent of the maulvi
mentioned above.
Finally, it is reported, Sajjad Hussain lodged a complaint against
Gul Masih and his brother Basih, accusing them both of blasphemy. Both
men were arrested during the night of 14 December 1991 and imprisoned.
Basih was released six weeks later after Muslim neighbours had testified
that he had no part in the above-mentioned dispute. The trial of
Gul Masih began in November 1992, solely on the basis of the testimony
given by Sajjad Hussain, and the judge of Sargodha, Khan Talib
Hussain Baloch, sentenced Gul Masih to death by hanging and to a fine
of 5,000 rupees - a sentence which will be executed if upheld by the
Supreme Court.
It is further alleged that, since his conviction, Gul Masih has
been held in solitary confinement. An appeal has been lodged with the
Supreme Court, emphasizing that the evidence of Gul Masih's guilt was
insufficient and that he had not been given the benefit of the doubt
and that capital punishment was therefore unjustified.
It is also reported that Bhatti Sarvar, a young 21-year-old
Pakistan Christian, working side by side with Pastor Liagat Paiser of the
Pentecostal Church of Philadelphia, was accused by four Muslims, who did
not witness the events complained of, of burning a copy of the Koran at
his uncle's home on 19 June 1992. In fact, on the day in question, the
accused had gone to visit his relatives in his native Punjab. His
children had been left in the care of his uncle and his wife and, in
their absence, had lit a fire in the house which had burnt a few books
nearby. The children managed to put out the fire and throw the burnt
books out into the street.
It is further alleged that, when she returned home, the aunt found
her house surrounded by a mob of angry Muslims, chanting slogans against
her family and the Christian community of Sarghar, accusing them of
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 57
burning and desecrating the Koran. Although the book which was the
object of the complaint was never found, the following week Bhatti Sarvar
was finally handed over to the police by his family because they feared
that his detractors would end up killing him.
On the day when he appeared before the chairman of the municipal
committee, 11 representatives of the local Christian community and
some 100 Muslim leaders, together with a vociferous crowd of about
2,000 Muslims congregated in the hall, demanding that Bhatti Sarvar
should be hanged. Since his arrest, he has reportedly been due to appear
at 11 hearings without a defence lawyer because the attempts made by his
family to secure the services of four lawyers in Sarghar have been
unsuccessful. Bhatti Sarvar was apparently preparing to plead guilty,
despite the fact that the charges against him were false, in order to
spare his family any unduly unpleasant consequences. Christians from the
province of Sind were preparing to collect money to pay a lawyer from
outside of Sarghar who would agree to defend the victim.
It is also reported that three young Christians, Rehmat Masih,
Manzoor Masih and Salamat Masih (the latter only 11 years of age) were
arrested for having scrawled defamatory inscriptions on the walls of the
Ratta Dhotran village mosque on 9 May 1993 - this despite the fact that
two of them are illiterate - and that since then they are thought to have
been held at the Gujranmala central prison, in the province of Punjab.
These three young people, who were charged under section 295 C of the
Penal Code, cannot be released on bail and risk capital punishment. It
is also stated that these arrests occurred at a time when there were
feelings of hostility and friction between Muslims and members of the
Christian minority; the families of the victims were harassed, and a
Christian church was attacked. To date, local lawyers have been
reluctant to defend the accused.
Lastly, it is alleged that the Hindus, another religious minority
in Pakistan, have suffered serious violations of their right to freedom
of religion, following the desecration and destruction of the Babri
Mosque in India in December 1992. Over 120 Hindu temples and 2 Sikh
gurdawaras (places of worship) , as well as the same number of homes and
shops, were sacked by the crowd. Some 600 families have been the victims
of these attacks and scores of deaths have occurred. Furthermore, there
has been a resurgence of hostility against the Hindus in Pakistan, who
complain of various forms of discrimination, harassment and forced
conversions to the Islamic faith. “
20. On 8 February 1994 the Government of Pakistan addressed the following
information to the Special Rapporteur:
“Report on the state of the case concerning Mr. Gul Masih
1. Gul Masih, a resident of Chak No. 46/NB, Sargodha district,
was accused of having made remarks defiling the sacred name of the
Holy Prophet. Sajjad Hussain, the son of Rakim Bakhsh (the complainant),
resident of the same village, reported the matter to the Police Station,
Satellite Town, Sargodha, and criminal proceedings were therefore brought
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 58
against Gui Masih under section 295 C of the Penai Code of Pakistan.
After investigation by the poiice, the case was tried by the judge of the
Sargodha Court of Additionai District and Session. Mr. Gui Masih was
found guiity and sentenced to death, and aiso fined Rs 5,000. However,
the death sentence was not confirmed by the High Court. The accused has
appeaied to the Lahore High Court.
2. It may be mentioned that Gui Masih was convicted by the judge of
the Sargodha Court of Additionai District and Session after due process
of iaw and in accordance with the provisions of the penai iaws of
Pakistan. An citizens of Pakistan, irrespective of their reiigious
beiiefs, are subject to the same iaws and are treated equaiiy in
accordance with the iaws of the iand. “
21. On 14 February 1994, the Government of Pakistan sent the
Speciai Rapporteur its comments on the above-mentioned communication
of 8 November 1993 (see para. 19) :
“1. The foiiowing articies of the Constitution of Pakistan safeguard
the interests of the minorities in the country:
Articie 20
Subject to iaw, pubiic order and moraiity, every citizen shaii have
the right to profess, practise and propagate his reiigion and to
estabiish, maintain and manage reiigious institutions.
Articie 21
No person shaii be compeiied to pay any speciai tax the proceeds of
which are to be spent on the propagation or maintenance of any
reiigion other than this own.
Articie 22
(1) No person attending any educationai institution shaii be
required to receive reiigious instruction, or take part
in any reiigious ceremony, or attend reiigious worship
if such instruction/ceremony or worship reiates to a
reiigion other than his own.
(2) In respect of any reiigious institution there shaii be
no discrimination against any community in the granting
of exemption or preferentiai treatment in reiation to
taxation.
(3) (a) Subject to iaw, no reiigious community or
denomination shaii be prevented from providing
reiigious instructions for pupiis of that
community or denomination in any educationai
institution maintained whoiiy by that community or
denomination; and
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 59
(b) No citizen shall be denied admission to any
educational institution receiving aid from public
revenues on the ground only of race, religion,
caste or place of birth.
Article 27
No citizen otherwise qualified for appointment in the service of
Pakistan shall be discriminated against in respect of any such
appointment on the ground only of race, religion, caste, sex,
residence or place of birth.
Article 36
The State shall safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of
minorities, including their due representation in the Federal and
Provisional services.
2. These provisions clearly indicate that the Constitution provides
full protection and equal treatment to the minorities and there is no
bias, for or against, on the basis of colour, race or religion.
3. The Ahmadiyya issue has a century-old history. The problem arose
when a group of persons led by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad denied the finality
of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) which, after the unity of God,
is a fundamental tenet of Islam. Its denial led to violent agitations
against the Ahmadiyya community in 1953 and in 1974. The matter was
deliberated upon in the legislature and the consensus of the nation was
arrived at in the shape of an amendment in the Constitution through a
unanimous vote of the National Assembly in 1974. This amendment had
two objectives, viz.:
(a) To safeguard the religious sentiments of Muslims (the
overwhelming majority of the population);
(b) To protect the Ahmadis from any adverse reaction arising from
what had historically been regarded as a repudiation of a fundamental
belief of the Muslims.
4. Undoubtedly, the controversy between the Ahmadis and Muslims
continues to be emotive, but strong statements made by individuals in a
religious context are not to be taken as the policy of the Government of
Pakistan. The complaints and concerns of the JIImadiyya community are
based evidently on presumption rather than fact. The allegation
concerning persecution of Ahmadis is totally baseless.
5. The Ahmadis, as a non-Muslim minority, have been accorded all the
rights and privileges guaranteed to minorities under the Constitution and
laws of Pakistan. The Government has taken the necessary legislative and
administrative measures so as to maintain sectarian peace.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 60
6. The exercise of a right is never absolute. The International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, while proclaiming the freedom of
religion or belief in article 18, stipulates in paragraph 3 of the same
article that:
Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be subjected to
such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to
protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental
rights and freedoms of others.
7. The condition is repeated in paragraph 3 of article 1 of the
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
8. JIImadis in Pakistan enjoy full civil rights including the right of
political franchise. In Pakistan, a system of separate elections for
each religious community has been adopted to ensure that all minorities
are represented in the legislatures. The Ahmadis, like other minorities
in Pakistan, have full freedom of expression under the law and this is
evident from the fact that they have the largest number of publications
brought out by any minority in Pakistan.
9. There is no discrimination against them as regards their employment
opportunities in Pakistan. Many members of the Ahmadi community hold
important positions in the services of Pakistan, both civil and military.
Not a single Abmadi has been removed from government employment on the
grounds of his religious beliefs. Anyone familiar with the true
situation in Pakistan can bear testimony that there does not exist any
plan or campaign, official or otherwise, to persecute the Abmadi
community. Despite that, individual instances do exist, and these are
then dealt with in accordance with the law.
10. As regards the mentioning of religion in the national identity
cards, no decision has been taken by the Government. This is merely a
proposal which has been submitted to the Government for consideration.
This proposal has not been accepted and there are no indications that it
would be accepted in the future.
11. Blasphemy laws apply equally to all Pakistanis, irrespective of
religion. They pertain to all the revealed religions - Islam,
Christianity and Judaism - and their Prophets. At present two persons -
a Christian and a Muslim - are facing trial under this law: a Christian
for alleged blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad and a Muslim for blasphemy
against the Prophet Jesus Christ.
12. The blasphemy laws in Pakistan are not directed against the
Christians or any other religious group and are also not in conflict with
the fundamental freedoms. The common law reflects the will of the
majority of the people. Pakistan being predominantly an Islamic society,
it has to be ensured that the persons considered holy by the Muslims
are not disgraced in Pakistan. Since the religious beliefs carry
emotional attachment with it, in the absence of any law on the subject,
the outraged emotional people take the law in their own hands which
cannot be allowed at any cost.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 61
13. As for some of the cases mentioned in the communication,
Mr. Akhtar Hamid Khan was granted bail before arrest by Chief Justice of
Lahore High Court on 14 April 1992, and his case was transferred from the
Court of District and Sessions Judge Multan to the Court of District and
Sessions Judge Sahiwal, where it is under trial.
14. Tahir Iqbal was admitted in Central Jail, Kot Lakhpat, Lahore
on 9 December 1990, as an under trial prisoner in case FIR No. 297/90,
dated 7 December 1990, under section 295 B, Pakistan Penal Code,
for defiling the Holy Quran. The under trial prisoner died on
20 December 1992, in the Central Jail hospital, Lahore. As required
under rule 751 of Pakistan Prison Rules, a Judicial Inquiry was conducted
by a Magistrate 1st Class for determining the causes of death in jail.
The Medical Officer opined the cause of death of said prisoner as
‘cardio-pulmonary arrest'. However, he was of the view that the
exact cause of death could not be determined without a post mortem.
However, the mother of the deceased did not agree to the post mortem
and insisted that the dead body of her son be handed over for burial.
15. Gul Masih, a resident of Chak No. 46/NB, District Sargodha was
accused of having used derogatory remarks and defiling the sacred name of
the Holy Prophet. Sajjad Hussain s/o Rahim Bakhsh (complainant) resident
of the same village reported the matter to the Police Station, Satellite
Town, Sargodha and a Criminal Case under section 259 C, Pakistan Penal
Code was therefore registered against accused Gul Masih. After
investigation by police, the case was tried by the Court of Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Sargodha. Mr. Gul Masih was found guilty
and sentenced to death along with a fine of Rs 5,000. However, death
sentence was not confirmed by the High Court. Presently his appeal is
pending in the Lahore High Court.
16. It may be mentioned that Gul Masih was convicted by the Court of
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sargodha, after due process of
law and in accordance with the provisions of the penal laws of the land.
All citizens of Pakistan, irrespective of their religious beliefs, are
subject to the same law, and are treated equally in accordance with the
laws of the land.
17. As for the case of Salamat Masih, Rehmat Masih and Manzoor Masih,
as reported by the Punjab Government, Salamat son of Allah Ditta is an
accused in Case FIR No. 56/93 U/S 295-C Police Station Ladha, District
Gujranwala. Salamat Masih accused along with co-accused M/S Rehmat Masih
S/O Nanak Masih and Manzoor S/O Noor Masih were seen writing blasphemous
inscriptions on the wall of a mosque in village Ratta Dhotran. The
eye-witnesses include the Pesh Imam of the Mosque and two other persons
of the locality, one of whom lodged an FIR at the Police Station Ladha.
After preliminary investigation, the Police arrested the three accused
persons and proceeded in the matter in accordance with the laws of the
land. The accused were found guilty during investigation by Police and
the case, therefore, was sent up for trial in the Court of Additional
District and Session Judge, Gujranwala.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 62
18. All the accused were lodged as under trial prisoners in District
Prison Gujranwala under the orders of the trial court. Accused
Salamat Masih, a minor, was detained in the juvenile section of the same
prison. He was not kept with adults. The accused Salamat Masih has been
granted bail in this case by the Court of Session, Gujranwala and was
released from jail on 13 November 1993.
19. Brief facts of Niamat Ahmer's case are that on 6 January 1992,
at 10 a.m., Razzaq Masih and Hanooke Gil went to the Office of District
Education Officer (D.E.O.), People's Colony, Faisalabad to see
Niamat Ahmer. Niamat Ahmer and his companions were scheduled to meet the
D.E.O. in connection with his transfer. Niamat Ahmer went to use the
nearby toilet. After some time his companions heard loud cries. They
rushed towards the toilet and saw one Farooq Ahmed, son of Noor Muhammad,
caste Sheikh, resident of Chak No. 242/RB, inflicting knife blows upon
Niamat Ahmer. The accused along with bloodstained knife was caught by
Razzaq Masih and Hanooke Gil. Niamat Ahmer succumbed to his injuries
then and there. The motive attributed to the occurrence was that the
deceased allegedly used derogatory remarks against the Holy Prophet
(Peace Be Upon Him) during his period of service as a teacher.
20. A murder case was registered at the request of Waqar Ahmer, brother
of Niamat Ahmer, resident of 727/F Gulistan Colony, Faisalabad. After
the necessary investigation the accused was arraigned on 20 January 1992,
and the case is pending trial in court.
21. The above incident was an isolated action of an individual fanatic
who is facing trial in the court and the allegations/fears of religious
persecution against Christians in Pakistan are unfounded.
22. As Pakistani citizens, members of the Christian community have the
right to profess their religion, and to establish, maintain and manage
their religious institutions. They also have due representation in the
National Assembly. They enjoy full freedom of opinion and expression, as
is available to the other citizens of the country and, like all other
Pakistanis, they also have the liberty to seek remedy from the courts
under article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Courts in Pakistan,
like in any other democratic country, are free, and cases are decided in
accordance with the laws of the land.
23. As regards the allegations of discrimination against Hindus and the
destruction of some Hindu temples in Pakistan, it may be pointed out that
the charges of discrimination against Hindus or any other minorities are
unfounded. The unfortunate incident of destruction of some Hindu temples
in Pakistan was the result of a popular backlash that followed in
Pakistan after the demolition of the historic Babri Mosque in India.
The fact that the demolition of Babri Mosque was a pre-planned wilful act
has been documented by Mr. Kuldeep Nayyar, a prominent Indian journalist,
who in the 8 December 1992 issue of the Nation wrote that ‘India's
Intelligence Bureau had informed Prime Minister Narasimah Rao, one week
in advance that Babri Mosque was going to be demolished but still the
Indian Government simply did not do anything to protect the Mosque'.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 63
24. The spontaneous and popular backlash in Pakistan (and in other
Islamic countries) was a direct response of emotionally outraged Muslims
to the demolition of the Babri Mosque, which in no way was condoned by
the Government. In Pakistan, the damage to the Hindu temples was
condemned by all religious, political and other leaders of opinion,
unlike in India, where political parties like the Bhartia Janata Party
(BJP) and the Shiv Sena applauded the demolition of the Babri Mosque.
Pakistan Government took immediate steps and committed itself to the
repair of the damaged temples, work on some of which has already been
completed and the other temples are being repaired. As opposed to the
immediate action taken by the Government of Pakistan the pledges by the
Indian Government to reconstruct the Babri Mosque have yet to be
fulfilled.
25. It is reiterated that the Government of Pakistan is fully committed
to protect and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of all
minorities living in Pakistan.”
II. CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
DECLARATION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF INTOLERANCE
AND OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION OR BELIEF
22. On 21 April 1994, the Special Rapporteur sent all States a note verbale
drawing their attention to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1994/18 and
inviting Governments to communicate any new information falling within that
mandate, as well as any other observations they might wish to formulate on the
subject.
23. The Rapporteur has received replies from the following 19 Governments:
Argentina, China, Croatia, Ethiopia, Greece, Guyana, Indonesia, Jamaica,
Luxembourg, Monaco, Morocco, Philippines, Qatar, Romania, Spain, Sri Lanka,
Sudan, Sweden and Venezuela. Given the modest number of replies and the
variety of the information, the Special Rapporteur decided to compile the
texts in the report by country rather than to present an analytical summary by
subject, for which more complete and more specific information from more
countries would have been required.
24. Furthermore, in cases of particularly long replies, such as that of the
Sudan, given the constraints involved in publication, the Special Rapporteur
summarized the information. In addition, when the information concerned
States and/or individuals, the Rapporteur decided not to reproduce it, but to
treat it confidentially, as an allegation.
25. Most of the replies from Governments referred to Constitutions, relevant
laws and regulations, to the right to religion and traditions related to the
question of freedom of religion or belief; to legal measures taken to combat
intolerance and discrimination in that regard; and to government policies.
26. The information communicated deals primarily with the following subjects:
(a) Protection and promotion of the right to freedom of thought,
conscience, religion or belief and related human rights, such as freedom of
expression, information, assembly, association and equality before the law;
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 64
(b) Protection and promotion of the right to manifest one's religion or
belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching; of the right to peaceful
assembly and association in connection with a religion or belief; of the right
to teach a religion or belief in places suitable for those purposes; and of
the right to observe days of rest and to celebrate holidays and ceremonies in
accordance with the precepts of one's religion or belief;
(c) Prevention and elimination of discrimination on the grounds of
religion or belief and, in particular, protection against discrimination in
the areas of education, access to public posts, employment, the practice of a
profession, and marriage;
(d) Legal measures for dealing with offences related to religious
beliefs or feelings and protection of the places, ceremonies and traditions
linked to religion or belief;
(e) Conscientious objection to military service;
(f) Education, including in particular the religious education of
children and adults, and provisions and practices in that field; and
(g) Legal restrictions on the above-mentioned rights.
ARGENTINA
27. On 2 June 1994, the Permanent Mission of the Argentine Republic to the
United Nations Office at Geneva transmitted the following general information
to the Special Rapporteur:
“The Argentine Government has submitted to Congress a draft law on
religious freedom which sets forth the contents of that right in the
light of consistent national case-law, commitments under the human rights
instruments in force in the country and international law as expressed in
the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
Without ruling out the possibility of communicating the text at a
later date, we will refer here to the major principles of the draft law,
which is currently before the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Worship of
the House of Deputies and which has already been passed by the Senate.
The draft law consists of 22 articles divided into six chapters on
the following subjects: (i) basic principles; (ii) relations with the
Apostolic Roman Catholic Church; (iii) the Register of Churches and
Denominations; (iv) the Consultative Council for Religious Questions;
(v) protection of religious freedom; and (vi) transitional provisions.
In its current form, the draft law derogates both from the law
currently in force on the subject, Act No. 21745, approved and
promulgated on 10 February 1978, and from regulatory Decree No. 2037/79.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 65
Chapter I, entitled Basic Principles, reaffirms the applicability
in Argentina of the principle of religious freedom (art. 1), gives
examples of the rights deriving therefrom (art. 2), enunciates the rights
of churches, denominations or religious communities (art. 3) , describes
the restrictions which may legitimately be placed on religious freedom
(art. 4) and indicates cases where that freedom is not protected
(art. 5) . It marks the first time that the law has dealt with the
contents of the right to religious freedom.
In reaffirming the applicability of the principle of religious
freedom, article 1 is based on articles 14 and 20 of the Argentine
Constitution, which recognizes the right of all those residing in the
country freely to practise the religion of their choice. It also
reaffirms the principle of equality set forth in article 16 of the
Constitution and prohibits all inequality or discrimination based
on religious beliefs, confirming the provisions of Act No. 23592
of 3 August 1988, on discrimination.
The only exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination are to
be found in article 76 of the Constitution, which, among other
eligibility requirements for the presidency of the Republic, lists
belonging to the Apostolic Roman Catholic faith, and in the provisions of
the provincial Constitutions, specifically that of Catamarca, which
establishes the same eligibility requirement for the post of governor.
It should be pointed out in that connection that Act No. 23049, on the
need for constitutional reform, expressly refers to article 76. The
elections to the Constitutional Convention were held on 10 April 1994;
that convention is due to start on 25 May.
Article 2 specifically enumerates the various aspects of religious
freedom, in conformity with the provisions of article 12, paragraph 1, of
the American Convention on Human Rights, and article 18, paragraph 1, of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which
are in force in the country, as well as the Declaration on the
Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on
Religion or Belief.
As currently drafted, the text is much more detailed than any of
the other above-mentioned international provisions and also has the
advantage of not being restrictive. The terminology used in those texts
for the contents of religious freedom is, however, somewhat different.
Article 2, paragraph 1, of the draft law deals expressly with cases where
an individual renounces his religious beliefs without replacing them with
new ones. Although the international provisions are worded a little
differently, they all have the same objective, namely, that ‘everyone has
the right to leave one religion or belief and to adopt another or to
remain without any at all'. (See Elimination of all forms of intolerance
and discrimination based on religion or belief , Elizabeth Odio Benito,
Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination
and Protection of Minorities, Study Series No. 2, 1989, Sales
No. E.89.IV.3, para. 21.)
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 66
The traditionally recognized right for parents and legal guardians
to choose religious education for their children or wards in accordance
with their beliefs, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Justice
of Argentina in the Schvartz case of 1957, Judgement No. 239:367, among
others, is supplemented by the right of curators.
In this connection, it should be recalled that article 14 of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989, in force in Argentina
since 4 January 1991, stipulates that States parties shall respect ‘the
right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion' and
‘the rights and duties of the parents and, where applicable, legal
guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or
her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the
child'.
Article 3 states that, without prejudice to the rights to which
their members are entitled, churches, denominations or religious
communities have very specific rights which are enumerated in four
subparagraphs and correspond, respectively, to the provisions of
article 6 (a) , (b) , (d) , (i) and (g) of the 1981 United Nations
Declaration.
In describing the restrictions which may legitimately be placed on
religious freedom, article 4 states: ‘The only limitations on the
exercise of the rights deriving from the freedom of religion and of
worship are the right of others to exercise their own freedoms and the
limitations necessary for the maintenance of public order, health and
morals' .
That article should be read in the light of article 12,
paragraph 3, of the American Convention; article 18, paragraph 3, of the
International Covenant; article 1, paragraph 3, of the Declaration; and
article 14, paragraph 3, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
all of which refer to limitations prescribed by law and necessary for
protecting public safety, public order, public health and morals and the
fundamental freedoms and rights of others.
According to two other paragraphs of article 4, in the eye of the
law, no exemptions are granted, on the grounds of professing to hold
given religious beliefs, to the duty to carry out obligations of a
public nature imposed by a Constitution or the law; and the right to
conscientious objection is governed by a special law, which implies that
it is the authorities' intention to ensure that the right is guaranteed.
The law defines its scope of application by specifying that it does
not protect ‘activities and entities involved in the study of
astrophysical, psychic or parapsychological phenomena, divining,
astrology or the dissemination of purely philosophical, humanist or
spiritualist values; satanic rites; or with any related experiments that
might be conducted'. Without going into the complex and thorny problem
posed by the definition of ‘religion', in some manner the draft defines
the boundaries outside of which such activities fall.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 67
Similarly, the draft states that ‘any public use which may be made
of names, outward signs or emblems commonly associated with a church or
denomination, other than that for which it is intended, is also not
protected, except where the party concerned gives its express consent' .
The law thus excludes from its scope any misuse of signs, giving another
legal argument to anyone who institutes proceedings to enforce such a
right.
Chapter II of the draft law deals with relations between the State
and the Apostolic Roman Catholic Church, calling for them to be governed,
as is currently the case, by the principles of autonomy and cooperation
set forth in the agreement signed between the Holy See and the Argentine
Republic on 10 October 1966 and confirmed by Act No. 17032.
The registry of churches and denominations is the subject of
Chapter III, in which substantive reforms are proposed to current
legislation, which was basically limited to reproducing the provisions of
Decrees Nos. 1127/59, 3446/62 and 7110/63.
Article 7, which states that ‘Churches, religious communities and
denominations have legal personality in their own right, once they are
listed in the registry maintained by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Worship', is important because of its innovative nature. It also
stipulates that ‘being listed in the registry is optional' and that
‘not being listed does not prevent the entity in question from enjoying
freedom of association, its members from exercising the rights to which
they are entitled by this law or the State from exercising its policing
power' .
The draft law completely modifies the existing regime, which, under
the provisions of Act No. 21745 and Regulatory Decree No. 2037/79,
requires all religious organizations active in the country to be listed.
Being listed in the registry must not only precede any activity, but is a
requirement for recognition by the State and a condition for the granting
of legal personality or the founding and existence of the association as
a subject at law, thus immediately leading to the conclusion that
recognition by the State is tantamount to founding and that only those
groups which are recognized and listed in the registry are authorized in
the national territory.
In the draft law, by contrast, being listed in the registry goes
hand in hand with the granting of legal personality within the meaning of
article 33, paragraph 3, of the Civil Code. The optional nature of the
listing process, and the right not to be listed, which derives from it,
do not mean that worship is prohibited, but simply that congregations and
ministers are regarded as groups of persons exercising their right to
religious freedom - and this does not exempt them from the exercise by
the State of its policing power.
Article 8 sets forth guidelines to be followed by the Executive in
drafting regulations on the registry. In material terms, the church or
religious community asking to be listed must meet at least one of the
following requirements: (a) demonstrate that it is present in at least
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 68
three provinces or districts of the national territory; (b) represent
either a church or an official denomination of a State that maintains
diplomatic relations with the Argentine Republic or the delegation in
Argentina of a patriarchate headquartered abroad; (c) show proof of a
secular presence in the country; or (d) show proof of a minimum number of
adherents, equivalent to 10 per cent of the total population of the
province or provinces in which it is active.
This represents a significant change to the existing regime, in
that it is not intended that different entities which are part of the
same group should be listed in the proposed registry. Article 8,
paragraph 6, expressly states that ‘associations or entities which are
not of a strictly religious nature and cultural, educational, service or
aid entities - even if the latter are founded on the basis of their
members, religious affinities, or in order to publish or disseminate
religious opinions - are not listed in the registry, without prejudice to
the right of the churches or denominations which do list themselves in
the registry to organize, create or run such associations' .
According to article 8, paragraph 7, the listing may be cancelled
only at the request of the party concerned, in accordance with a decision
by the court or the administration following an investigation in which
the rights of the defence are guaranteed. Along the same lines, if the
seriousness of the offence does not justify cancelling the listing, then
the supervising authority may impose penalties (a warning or suspension
of the listing) , which derive from the same administrative investigation.
The optional nature of the listing clearly reflects a certain
generosity of spirit which goes hand in hand with religious freedom, but
being listed in the registry also means a number of advantages for
churches, religious communities or denominations, as stated in article 9,
including tax advantages and exemptions authorized by law, the status of
a public-interest establishment, immunity from seizure and inalienability
of religious premises and objects. Article 10 grants regulatory autonomy
to the denominations which have listed themselves.
The criterion of the denomination's presence in the country, which
was mentioned in connection with article 8, paragraph 1, is to be found
in article 1, according to which the Executive has discretionary power to
conclude cooperation agreements with denominations which are listed in
the registry and which, by virtue of their presence throughout the world,
their traditional activities in the country, the stability of their
beliefs and the number of their members, offer guarantees of permanence
in the country', it being understood that the Legislature must approve
those agreements if they are not solely within the competence of the
Executive.
Chapter IV of the draft law concerns the establishment of a
consultative council for religious questions, which is part of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship is honorary in nature and the
membership of which is as faithful a reflection as possible of the
religious spectrum in the country. It has advisory functions with the
State and individuals and is called on to take part in the drafting or
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 69
amendment of regulations for the implementation of the law in question.
Its members are named to a three-year term by the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and Worship, following consultation with the main denominations
and as long as the denominations to which the designated persons belong
have no objections, even if they are serving in their personal capacity.
The protection of religious freedom is the subject of chapter V,
which governs applications for amparo against acts of the State or
individuals. In terms reminiscent of article 1 of Act No. 16986
applicable to amparo proceedings, courts specialized in civil cases and
federal commercial cases may hear cases which arise in this regard.
The transitional provisions of chapter VI deal with churches or
denominations listed in the registry in conformity with Act No. 21745 to
which a delay of two years is granted, starting from the entry into force
of the new Act, at the expiration of which time they may ask to be listed
in the registry established by that Act if they fulfil the necessary
requirements. None the less, denominations with at least 5,000 members
and which have continued to be active ever since they were listed in the
previous registry are exempt from that requirement.
Article 18 stipulates that religious denominations which, on the
date of entry into force of the new Act, enjoy legal personality as civil
or other associations that is not in keeping with their religious
structure and which are listed in the new registry may transfer assets
registered in the name of the association for their own benefit and are
exempted from the taxes and duties levied on the transfer and conveyance
of property, provided that they obtain the approval of their governing
bodies and the transfer takes place within one year of the entry into
force of the Act.
As far as existing legislation is concerned, the new Act will
repeal Act No. 21745 and amend article 2346 of the Civil Code, in which
the term ‘dissidents' is replaced by the words ‘churches and religious
communities or denominations', and article 3740 of the Code, in which
the words ‘Protestant minister' are replaced by the words ‘minister of
worship' . “
CHINA
28. On 10 June 1994, the Permanent Mission of the People's Republic of China
to the United Nations Office at Geneva sent the following general information
to the Special Rapporteur:
“In China, citizens enjoy religious freedom without any form of
interference from the State, the community or individuals. Believers and
non-believers are equal both politically and before the law. They have
the same rights and must also assume the obligations established by the
Constitution. Constitutional law is unambiguous on this point.
Article 36 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China
stipulates that: ‘Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy
freedom of religious belief. No State organ, public organization or
individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in,
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 70
any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in,
or do not believe in, any religion.' Moreover, in China, the National
Regional Autonomy Act, the Penal Code, the Civil Code, the Electoral
Code, the Military Service Code, the Compulsory Education Act and the Act
on the Organization of Rural Committees clearly and specifically
prescribe protection for freedom of worship and equal rights for
believers. Where violation of religious rights is concerned, article 147
of the Penal Code stipulates that: ‘State officials who infringe
citizens' freedom of belief or who violate the customs of national
minorities may, in the most serious cases, be sentenced to a maximum of
two years' imprisonment or to a short-term prison sentence. Anyone who
forcibly prevents lawful religious activities, obliges believers to give
up their religion, compels a citizen to practise any form of worship,
unlawfully closes or demolishes lawful places of worship or other
religious installations, infringes democratic rights, or individual
freedom and fails in his duty shall be punished by the law.' The
above-mentioned codes and decrees constitute the legal guarantees,
ensuring respect for and the protection of citizens' freedom of worship.
The Government of China has always respected and protected
citizens' right to and freedom of worship. In January 1991, it enacted
regulations on the religious activities of aliens living in the territory
of the People's Republic of China and a regulation relating to places
of worship. The enactment of these two regulations further
institutionalizes and legalizes Chinese policy in respect of worship
and promotes the global and fair application of religious policy by the
State agencies concerned and by their staff.
For many years, the Government has made considerable efforts to
promote and protect the development of religion in China. There are
47 religious institutes in China: Buddhist institutes and Koranic
schools, the Protestant Faculty of Theology in Nanking, Catholic
philosophical and theological institutes and Taoist institutes.
Since 1980, approximately 2,000 young people have graduated from
these institutes, which have also sent over 100 students to continue
their studies in 12 countries and regions of the world. All religions
have their own publications; they publish their own religious texts.
Over 9 million copies of the Bible have been published. Nowadays,
200,000 people work in the religious field in China. In addition, many
people are conducting research and working in connection with religion in
all the major sociological and scientific research institutes, as well as
in other higher education establishments.
The Government of China has adopted a set of educational measures
to ensure that society as a whole understands the importance of citizens'
freedom of worship. For example, secondary-school textbooks contain
chapters exclusively devoted to China's policy on freedom of worship.
In 1993, one of the subjects in the national higher-education
entry exam was the policy of freedom of worship. As a result of the
Government's correct religious policy and its strict application, it
has been possible for religious activities to continue and increase,
international contacts are developing and religion enjoys the support
of society as a whole.”
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 71
CROATIA
29. On 16 June 1994, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Croatia sent the following information to the Special Rapporteur:
“The Constitution of the Republic of Croatia, (Part III -
Fundamental Freedoms and Human Rights), the Constitutional Law on the
Human Rights and Freedoms and the Rights of National and Ethnic
Communities or Minorities and other laws (e.g. Criminal Code) guarantee
the fundamental freedoms and human rights to all individuals without
distinction of any kind such as race, colour sex, language, religion,
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth,
education or other status. The fundamental freedoms and human rights may
only be restricted by law in order to secure the protection of the
fundamental freedoms and human rights of other people and of the public
order, morality and health. Even in the case of war or an immediate
danger to the independence and unity of the Republic of Croatia, or in
the event of some natural disaster, possible restrictions must not cause
inequality of persons due to race, colour, sex, religion, language,
national or social origin and the right to freedom of thought, conscience
and religion may not be restricted or derogated.
Article 40 of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of
conscience and religion and free public profession of religion and other
convictions. Religious communities are free to conduct public religious
service and to open schools and social institutions. In the primary and
secondary schools religion is being taught since 1991 as an optional
subject. During the 1992/93 school year, members of many religious
communities e.g. the Catholic Church, Serbian Orthodox Church, Islamic
Religious Community, Jewish Community, Adventist Christian Church, Church
of Jesus Christ, The Evangelist Church, The Baptist Church, Evangelist
Church and the Church of God were able to attend instruction for their
respective religions. This programme is financed by the Croatian
Government.
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia has a duty to
protect constitutional human rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by
the Constitution. So far the Constitutional Court has passed several
decisions by which the laws that were not in conformity with the
Constitution and guaranteed human rights were amended.
In order to ensure the enjoyment of the right to perform religious
service, the Constitutional Court abolished article 27 of the Family Law
and permitted marriage in church before one couple is married according
the provisions of this law.
According to article 7 of the Constitution conscientious objection
is guaranteed to all those who for religious or moral beliefs are not
willing to participate in the performance of military duties in the armed
forces. Several articles of the Law on Defence were discussed before the
Constitutional Court in order to secure proper implementation of
article 7.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 72
In spite of its effort to ensure the equality of all religions and
to encourage ethnic and religious tolerance, the Republic of Croatia
became the victim of a brutal Serbian aggression, which has resulted in a
violation of guaranteed freedoms and human rights in respect of many
citizens of Croatia. The Republic of Croatia has become a victim of the
heinous crime of ‘ethnic cleansing' and a deliberate campaign of national
and religious hatred instigated by Serbian extremists and the so-called
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) . Targets of
violations were the sacral objects in the Republic of Croatia and,
according to incomplete data (because part of the Croatian territory is
still beyond control of the Croatian Government) , 574 of them were
damaged and destroyed by the Serbian extremists and the Yugoslav Army.
The Government of the Republic of Croatia is making every effort to
combat prejudice in order to restore ethnic harmony and to encourage
tolerance and understanding among all citizens of Croatia, in particular
tolerance between Croats and part of Croatia's Serbian minority. One of
the measures designed to encourage understanding and tolerance in respect
of freedom of religion or belief is the organization of forums for
discussion, seminars round table discussions, symposiums and religious
manifestations.”
SPAIN
30. On 15 June 1994, the Permanent Mission of Spain to the United Nations
Office at Geneva sent the Special Rapporteur a communication from the
Department of Religious Affairs of the Ministry of Justice and the Interior,
dated 24 May 1994, the text reads:
“The guarantees adopted by Spain with regard to freedom of
conscience, religion and worship for individuals and for the religious
communities to which they belong derive from the 1978 Spanish
Constitution and the additional regulations thereto, the most important
of which is the Organization Act on Religious Freedom of 5 July 1980.
The Constitution embodies the principles of freedom of religion and
equality of religions, which are the basis of relations between the State
and citizens, on the one hand, and between the State and religious
denominations on the other, subject to no other restrictions than those
dictated by respect for the rights of others and the need to preserve
public order in a democratic and pluralist society. Freedom of thought,
conscience and religion are public freedoms and fundamental rights, which
the authorities are required to respect and which, if they are violated,
may justify an application for amparo before the Constitutional Court.
The right to religious freedom is manifested in the right of
everyone to profess a religious belief, to change his belief or to
abandon it and even, if he so wishes, not to profess any belief, without
constraint, and in the right not to be compelled to make a declaration
about his ideology, religion or belief, not to practise a religion or to
receive religious instruction against his will, and not to be
discriminated against on the basis of his professed religion or his
failure to profess any.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 73
This legislation protects the right to religious freedom,
guarantees its exercise and prevents attitudes and forms of religious
intolerance. Violations of religious freedom by individuals or different
religious denominations may nevertheless occur, but, whenever they are
reported, an investigation is carried out, legal proceedings are
instituted and the administrative measures provided for by law are
adopted. For example, the Minister of Justice has, on several occasions,
requested the Attorney-General to carry out an investigation and, as
appropriate, to prosecute the perpetrators of such offences, particularly
sect-type groups.
Cooperation between the State and the various religious
denominations in conformity with the Constitution is regular and
stable and promotes the pursuit of common aims, such as understanding,
tolerance and respect for religious freedom. This is also the aim of
the Advisory Commission on Religious Freedom, a research, information
and consultative body made up of the representatives of the main
religions, experts on religious matters and representatives of the
Administration.”
ETHIOPIA
31. On 21 June 1994, the Permanent Mission of the Transitional Government of
Ethiopia to the United Nations Office at Geneva sent the following general
information to the Special Rapporteur:
“In Ethiopia, religion is separate from the State and the
Transitional Period Charter of Ethiopia based on the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights has recognized individual human rights
without any limitation. Under article 1 of the Charter, it is stipulated
that every individual shall have ‘the freedom of conscience, expression,
association and peaceable assembly' . The draft constitution has also
recognized the freedom of conscience of every citizen. In order to
guarantee the individual human rights and for prevalence of the rule of
law an independent judiciary has been established.”
GRE E CE
32. On 14 September 1994, the Permanent Mission of Greece to the
United Nations Office at Geneva sent the Special Rapporteur two communications
from the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Justice, the text of which
is given below:
“A. Reply by the Ministry of Education
In Greece, no violence is exercised by members of the prevailing
religion towards members of other religions.
Heterodox teachers are appointed to teach in public schools, in
accordance with the provisions of Laws 1771/1988 and 1566/1985.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 74
By virtue of the provisions of Laws 1363/1938, 1672/1939 and Royal
Decree 20.5/2.61939, licences for Praying Houses are granted to other
religious denominations.
No religious orthodox organization in Greece obstructs the right of
freedom of religious conscience of any non-orthodox.
B. Reply by the Ministry of Justice
1. The Constitution of Greece guarantees equality in enjoying the
fundamental human rights and freedoms. As a rule, guarantees for the
protection of these rights are given to all people, irrespective of
nationality, race, language and religious or political beliefs.
2. In particular, article 5, paragraph 1, ensures the right to free
development of the personality and free participation in the social,
financial and political life of the country, provided that the exercise
of this right does not infringe upon the rights of others nor does it
violate the Constitution and bonos mores.
3. Furthermore, article 13 of the Constitution secures freedom of
religion in its two manifestations, i.e. freedom of religious conscience
and freedom of worship. Religious freedom is not only secured for
Greeks, but also for anyone within the Greek territory.
Article 13 provides that:
1. Freedom of religious conscience is inviolable. Enjoyment of
individual and civil rights does not depend on the individual's
religious beliefs.
2. All known religions shall be free and their rites of worship
shall be performed unhindered and under the protection of law. The
practice of rites of worship is not allowed to offend public order
or moral principles. Proselytism is prohibited.
3. The ministers of all known religions shall be subject to the
same supervision by the State and to the same obligations towards
it as those of the prevailing religion.
4. No person shall be exempt from discharging his obligations to
the State or may refuse to comply with the laws on account of his
religious convictions.
From the contents of the above constitutional provision it is clear
that freedom of religion is protected in the case of a known religion,
the exercise of which does not offend public order or moral principles
and on the condition that no proselytism takes place, the latter being
explicitly prohibited.
According to Laws 1363/1938 and 1672/1939, proselytism is ‘the
direct or indirect attempt to penetrate into the religious conscience of
a heterodox person, with a view to altering its contents, through all
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 75
kinds of offer or promise . . . by use of deceptive means, by abusing that
person's inexperience or confidence or by taking advantage of his needs,
mental weakness or naivete' .
4. It should also be added here that Greece has ratified almost all
international conventions on human rights. In this respect, mention is
made of the 1950 European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms, article 14 of which provides inter alia , that
enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized by the Convention must be
safeguarded without distinction of sex, race, colour, language,
religion, etc. Greece has also ratified the 1966 International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
The above international conventions, as of the time they are sanctioned,
constitute domestic law, are ipso lure implemented by the Greek courts
and public authorities, and have increased validity by virtue of
article 28, paragraph 1, of the Constitution, which stipulates that:
1. The generally acknowledged rules of international law, as
well as international conventions, as of the time they are
sanctioned by law and become operative according to the conditions
therein, shall be an integral part of domestic Greek law and shall
prevail over any contrary provision of the law. The rules of
international law and of international conventions shall be
applicable to aliens only under the condition of reciprocity.
On account of that, all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the
Greek Courts, be they Greeks or foreigners, are protected by the above
domestic and international law provisions and may have recourse, in case
of violation of these provisions, before the competent judicial
authorities.
Law 927/1979 ‘on the punishment of acts or activities aiming at
racial discrimination' has also established similar protection against
discrimination. By virtue of article 24 of Law 1419/84, discrimination
based on religion, discrimination on the ground of racial or national
origin was added and it is regulated by the provisions of the said Law.
According to the provisions of the above legislation, anyone shall
be sentenced to be imprisoned and fined, who:
(a) Publicly, either orally or through the press or by written
text or illustrations or by any other means, intentionally instigates
acts or activities which may create discrimination, hatred or violence
against persons or groups of persons on the sole ground of their racial
or national origin or their religion;
(b) Forms organizations or participates in ones seeking organized
propaganda or any form of activity aiming at racial discrimination;
(c) Publicly, either orally or through the press or by way of
written texts or illustrations or by any other means, expresses offensive
views against a person or group of persons, on the ground of their racial
or national origin or their religion;
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 76
(d) Although professionally offering goods or services, refuses
to offer these to a person on the sole ground of his or her racial or
national origin or his or her religion, or anyone who links the offering
to a condition related to racial or national origin or the religion of a
certain person.
5. In the case of violation of the said provisions by State employees
in the exercise of their duties, both the State employees and the State
itself bear responsibility. State employees bear disciplinary
responsibility, criminal responsibility not being excluded according to
the law.
As a general rule, civil liability is borne by the State. The
implementation of the provisions relevant to civil liability of the State
does not depend on the fault (malice or negligence) of the employee who
has proceeded to the illegal and detrimental omission or act.”
GUYANA
33. On 17 June 1994, the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Guyana to the
United Nations Headquarters sent the Special Rapporteur the following general
information:
“The Government wishes to state that article 145.1 of the
Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana provides for every
person to enjoy freedom of conscience. This freedom is further explained
as the freedom of thought and religion; the freedom to change one's
religion; and the freedom to propagate one's religion or belief in
worship, teaching, practise and observance. The text of article 145
is given below.
In practice, these provisions are evidenced by the annual
declaration of national holidays by the Government in observance of
major religious events relating to all religious denominations.
The Government further wishes to emphasize that Guyanese practise
their religion in a peaceful environment, with due respect for each
other's beliefs.
The Government therefore commends the Commission on Human
Rights for addressing this issue and reiterates its support for
resolution 1994/18.
Protection of freedom of conscience
(Article 145 of the Constitution)
145. (1) Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered
in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, and for the purposes
of this article the said freedom includes freedom of thought and of
religion, freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom,
either alone or in community with others, and both in public and in
private, to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in
worship, teaching, practise and observance.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 77
(2) No religious community shall be prevented from providing
religious instruction for persons of that community.
(3) Except with his own consent (or, if he is a person who
has not attained the age of 18 years, the consent of his guardian) ,
no person attending any place of education shall be required to
receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any
religious ceremony or observance if that instruction, ceremony or
observance relates to a religion which is not his own.
(4) No person shall be compelled to take any oath which is
contrary to his religion or belief or to take any oath in a manner
which is contrary to his religion or belief.
(5) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any
law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of
this article to the extent that the law in question makes
provision:
(a) which is reasonably required:
(i) in the interests of defence, public safety,
public order, public morality or public
health; or
(ii) for the purpose of protecting the rights and
freedoms of other persons, including the
right to observe and practise any religion
without the unsolicited intervention of
members of any other religion; or
(b) with respect to standards or qualifications to be
required in relation to places of education
including any instruction (not being religious
instruction) given at such places.
(6) References in this article to a religion shall be
construed as including references to a religious denomination, and
cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.”
INDONESIA
34. On 27 June 1994, the Permanent Mission of Indonesia to the United Nations
Office at Geneva sent the following general information to the Special
Rapporteur:
“Before the implementational aspects of the Declaration in
Indonesia are addressed, it should first be recalled that Indonesia,
as the largest archipelagic State in the world, inhabited by almost
190 million people composed of hundreds of ethnic groups holding a
variety of religions and beliefs in God, fully subscribes to the
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 78
fundamental principle that religious tolerance is the very foundation
upon which the unity of the people of Indonesia rests. The notion of
majority and minority does not exist in Indonesia and this is reflected
both in the Constitution and in daily life. Indonesia is quite fortunate
in that it is endowed with a spirit of religious tolerance which is
deeply rooted in the cultural life of its heterogeneous people.
Therefore it is only natural that the newly-born State of Indonesia,
which was proclaimed in 1945, has crystallized this strong and
refined culture into a basic religious policy which fully respects and
guarantees freedom of religion and belief. This policy is transparently
stipulated in the Pancasila (five basic principles) , the state
philosophy, the Indonesian Constitution of 1945 and other relevant
national regulations.
Pancasila, the philosophical basis of the Indonesian State,
comprising five inseparable and interrelated principles, avouches the
principle of Belief in the One and Only God as its very first principle.
According to this principle, all different religions and faiths in
Indonesia are to be centred around one fundamental credo: Belief in God
Almighty, the One, Supreme God. The main thrust of this principle is
that every human being in Indonesia, no matter from which religious
denomination or faith he or she may be, shall respect all other religions
and beliefs, for the sake of harmony, tolerance and peace. Equally
important is the fact that freedom of religion and belief shall be
guaranteed and promoted by the Government. This principle is
further reinforced by the 1945 Constitution, especially article 29,
paragraph 2, which firmly stipulates that ‘the State shall guarantee
the freedom of every citizen to adhere to his respective religion and
to perform his religious duties in conformity with that religion and
that faith'.
Although the basic principles respecting and guaranteeing the
freedom of religion and belief are not charted in detail in the
Constitution, the People and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia
are proud of the fact that the spirit of religious tolerance that has
proved crucial in unifying the different religions and beliefs in
Indonesia is to be incorporated in the Declaration on the Elimination
of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion
or Belief adopted some years after the Constitution of 1945 came into
being.
The Government has taken the necessary administrative and judicial
measures to translate those principles contained in the State philosophy
and the 1945 Constitution into reality within the framework of the
Guidelines of State Policy formulated every five years. As is set down
in the 1993-1998 Guidelines of State Policy, one of the main objectives
of development in the religious sector is to improve the quality of the
moral and religious life of the Indonesian people and community with a
view to creating harmony, tolerance and balance in human life just as
individuals must strive to achieve them in their relationship with
society, the environment and God.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 79
The attainment of this objective has been supported by various core
programmes, to be implemented under the coordination of the Ministry of
Religious Affairs. These programmes are:
1. The Programme for the Enhancement of the Structure of Religious
Life;
2. The Programme for Information and Guidance in Religious Life;
3. The Programme for the Enhancement of the Services of the
Haj Pilgrims;
4. The Programme for the Management of Religious Education in the
Primary and Secondary Schools;
5. The Programme for the Management of Religious Teaching in Higher
Education;
6. The Programme of Education and Training for Religious Staff;
7. The Programme on the Role of Women;
8. The Programme on Religious Research.
In addition, the Government, through the Ministry of Education, has
stipulated that the national education system must include compulsory
courses on religion from primary school right through to university
level. While private institutions are given ample opportunity to
establish schools associated with a certain religion, they are prohibited
from barring students of other religious denominations from studying in
such schools.
It is noteworthy that the core programmes emphasize the role of
education as an important element in the comprehensive measures aimed at
achieving the objective set by the Guidelines of State Policy. In this
regard, education, whether from the strict point of view of the academic
curriculum or in the broader context of nation-building, constitutes the
most effective means of enlightening people, especially the young
generation, on the importance of full respect for, and tolerance of,
other religions and their respective disciples, as a part of the cultural
heritage of the Indonesian people.
In this connection, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia
strongly supports the conclusions of the report of the Special Rapporteur
to the Commission on Human Rights at its fiftieth session.
‘Education could be the key instrument for combating
discrimination and intolerance. It could contribute decisively
towards instilling the values that focus on human rights and on the
emergence, both among individuals and groups, of attitudes and
behaviour exhibiting tolerance and non-discrimination and thus
participate in disseminating the culture of human rights. The
school has a vital place in the educational system. Therefore,
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 80
special attention should be paid the world over to what school
curricula impart about religious freedom or tolerance particularly.
The Special Rapporteur is deeply convinced that lasting progress
with regard to tolerance and non-discrimination in the matter of
religion or belief could be achieved first and foremost through the
school. ‘
The Government of the Republic of Indonesia is equally supportive
of the proposed survey on the possible formulation of school curricula
and international school strategy aimed at combating religious
intolerance. In this connection, the positive experiences of all
States in dealing with the issue may also be utilized as important
contributions.
The experience of Indonesia in promoting harmony and religious
tolerance as social values is worth sharing. Measures to sensitize and
promote such values are first and foremost focused on children and the
younger generation, widely recognized as future defenders and guardians
of those values. Aside from formal educational institutions, others such
as parents, informal leaders, self-help social organizations and
traditional religious boarding schools play an important role in
undertaking such measures.
In conclusion, while the spirit of religious tolerance and its
furtherance and the full enjoyment of freedom of religion and belief are
enshrined in the State philosophy and the 1945 Constitution, the
Government of the Republic of Indonesia never fails to take necessary and
effective measures geared towards achieving the promotion and protection
of the freedom of religion and belief and guaranteeing religious
tolerance.”
JAMA l CA
35. On 8 August 1994, the Permanent Mission of Jamaica to the United Nations
Office at Geneva sent the Special Rapporteur the comments of the Department of
the Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs, the text of which reads:
“Jamaica's major legislation in the area of the implementation of
the 1981 Declaration lies in the Constitution (Sect. 21), which states:
(1) Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the
enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, and for the purposes of
this Section the said freedom includes freedom of thought and of
religion, freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom,
either alone or in community with others, and both in public and in
private, to propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching,
practice and observance.
(2) Except with his own consent (or, if he is a minor, the consent of
his parent or guardian) , no person attending any place of education
shall be required to receive religious instruction or to take part
in or attend any religious ceremony or observance if that
instruction, ceremony or observance relates to a religion or a
religious body or denomination other than his own.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 81
(3) The Constitution of a religious body or denomination shall not be
altered except with the consent of that governing authority of that
body or denomination.
(4) No religious body or denomination shall be prevented from providing
religious instructions for persons of that body or denomination
whether or not that body or denomination is in receipt of any
government subsidy, grant or other form of financial assistance
designed to meet, in whole or in part, the cost of such course of
education.
(5) No person shall be compelled to take any oath which is contrary to
his religion or belief or to take any oath in a manner which is
contrary to his religion or belief.
(6) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall
be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section
to the extent that the law in question makes provision which is
reasonably required:
(a) in the interest of defence, public safety, public order,
public morality or public health,
(b) for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of
other persons, including the right to observe and practise
any religion without the unsolicited intervention of members
of any other religion.
This section is one of the entrenched provisions of the
Constitution which means in this case that should any legislation be
passed to alter that section, it is subject to the following process:
(i) a period of three months must elapse between the introduction
of the Bill into the House of Representatives and the
commencement of the first debate on the whole text of that
Bill in that House and a further period of three months has
elapsed between the conclusion of that debate and the passing
of that Bill by that House.
(ii) the Bill shall not be deemed to be passed in either House
unless at the final vote thereon it is supported by the votes
of not less than two thirds of all the members of that
House - a much more stringent requirement than for Bills
altering sections of the Constitution not Entrenched which
require the votes of a majority of all the members of that
House.
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (6) of 21, it is not
anticipated that laws would be passed derogating from the right of
freedom of religion.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 82
Should a person feel that his freedom of religion is being
infringed, he may proceed under Section 25 of the Constitution, which
reads as follows:
(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, if any
person alleges that any of the provisions of sections 14 to 24
(inclusive) of this Constitution has been, is being or likely to be
contravened in relation to him, then, without prejudice to any
other action with respect to the same matter which is lawfully
available, that persons may apply to the Supreme Court for redress.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction to hear and
determine any application made by any person in pursuance of
subsection (1) of this section and may make such orders, issue such
writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for
the purpose of enforcing, or securing the enforcement of, any of
the provisions of the said sections 14 to 24 (inclusive) to the
protection of which the person concerned is entitled:
Provided that the Supreme Court shall not exercise its powers under
this subsection if it is satisfied that adequate means of redress
for the contravention alleged are or have been available to the
person concerned under any other law.
(3) JIIy person aggrieved by any determination of the Supreme Court
under this section may appeal to the Court of Appeal.
(4) Parliament may make provision, or may authorize the making of
provision, with respect to the practice and procedure of any court
for the purposes of this section and may confer upon that Court
such powers or may authorize the conferment thereon of such powers,
in addition to those conferred by this section as may appear to be
necessary or desirable for the purpose of enabling that court more
effectively to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by this
section.
Other items of legislation in this regard may be the following:
‘18 (1) It shall not be required as a condition of admission
or attendance of any pupil in a public educational institution:
(a) that he shall attend or abstain from attending any Sunday
School or place of religious worship;
(b) that he shall, if his parent objects, attend any religious
observance or any instruction in religious subjects at such
institution or elsewhere;
(c) that he shall attend such institution on any day specially
set apart for religious worship by the religious body to
which he belongs.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 83
(2) If the parent of any pupil attending a public
educational institution requests that such pupil be excused from
attendance at any religious observance or any instruction in
religious subjects at such institution or elsewhere, then, until
such request is withdrawn, the pupil shall be excused from such
attendance without forfeiting any of the other benefits of such
institution.
(3) Where the parent of any pupil who is a boarder at a
public educational institution requests that the pupil be permitted
to attend worship in accordance with the tenets of a particular
religious denomination on Sundays or other days exclusively set
apart for religious observance by the religious body to which his
parent belongs, or to receive religious instruction in accordance
with such tenets outside school hours, the Managers or Governors of
the institution shall make arrangements for affording to the pupil
reasonable opportunities for so however, that such arrangements
shall not entail expenditure by the Minister of the Managers or
Governors.
(4) Subject to the provisions of this section, the school
day in every public educational institution shall include time for
collective worship on the part of all pupils in attendance at the
institution, and the arrangements made therefore shall provide for
a single act of worship attended by all such pupils unless, in the
opinion of the Managers or Governors, the premises of the
institution are such as to make it impracticable to assemble the
pupils for such purpose.
(5) A copy of this section printed in large type shall be
kept posted up in a conspicuous place in every public educational
institution. ‘
Section 2 of the Disabilities Removal (Jews) Law 1830 which:
‘All persons professing the Jewish religion are entitled to
exercise and enjoy the same rights, privileges, immunities and
advantages to which Her Majesty's other natural born subjects are
entitled within this island, any law, custom or usage to the
contrary notwithstanding. Provided always that nothing in this law
contained shall be construed to impeach or affect any title to real
estate or other right or title whatsoever or of any person being of
the Jewish religion or persons claiming under persons of the Jewish
religion.'
Section 5 (h) of the Towns and Communities Act states that it is an
offence if any person
‘shall wilfully disturb any meeting or assembly, or any
congregation assembled for religious worship, or for any religious
service or rite in any burial ground, or disturb or molest any
person thereat.'
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 84
(4) The Muslim Marriage Act and the Hindu Marriage Act may be
viewed as examples of accommodating within Jamaica other religious and
attendant practices. In the rear of marriage, a marriage valid under
other religions might, due to lack of compliance with regard to form or
capacity under common law, be regarded as null and void under common law.
This Act attempts to improve on that situation and is an example of a
positive move to remove some amount of what might well be called
discrimination. “
LUXEMBOURG
36. On 21 June 1994, the following general information was sent to the
Special Rapporteur:
“The Constitution of Luxembourg guarantees freedom of worship,
freedom to practise religion in public, freedom of conscience and freedom
to express one's religious opinions. However, offences committed in
connection with the exercise of these freedoms are punishable. Criminal
penalties apply to persons who compel or prevent one or more persons from
worshipping, from attending worship or from observing certain religious
festivals or certain days of rest.”
MOROCCO
37. In July 1994, the Special Rapporteur received the following general
information from the Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of Morocco to the
United Nations Office at Geneva:
“The Ministry for Awgaf and Islamic affairs has the honour to
recall that the Constitution, line of conduct, legislation and traditions
of the Kingdom of Morocco are all based on respect for human rights and
are in harmony with the spirit of tolerance of Islamic law, which was the
first to consecrate and encourage respect for human rights and to call
for tolerance and coexistence within that spirit, before any
constitutions, any texts of positive law or any international charters
and declarations.
Furthermore, since these principles are applied to Muslims and
non-Muslims alike, under Islam the non-Muslim subjects of a Moslem State
or a State of Moslem obedience enjoy the same rights and incur the same
duties as Muslims. The State has to defend them in the same way as
Muslim subjects and apply the same laws to both, except in the case of
laws relating to religion, where the State respects the beliefs of
non-Muslims.
These principles are clearly embodied in the Koran, one verse of
which states that there should be no constraint in religion and that
right will be distinguished from wrong.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 85
While the note attached to the Special Rapporteur's letter mentions
the fact that many countries experience serious conflicts and
demonstrations and painful outbreaks of violence caused by religion or
beliefs, our country, thank God, has been known throughout its history as
an oasis of security, stability, serenity and peace, since Moroccans from
generation to generation have kept the same religion, persuasion and
belief while respecting other religions and beliefs among them and
rejecting any form of racial discrimination, religious intolerance and
religious bigotry.”
MONACO
38. The Special Rapporteur received the following general information
on 10 June 1994:
“Title III, article 23, of the Constitution of 17 December 1962,
concerning fundamental rights and freedoms and freedom of religion and
public worship, is worded as follows:
Freedom of religion and of public worship, and also freedom of
expression in all matters, shall be guaranteed, subject to the right to
prosecute any offences committed in the exercise of the said freedoms.
No one may be compelled to participate in the rites or ceremonies of any
religion or to observe its days of rest.
The Prince's Government has always ensured that this constitutional
principle is respected. As a result, no violation has been found and
hence none reported to any court.
Moreover, all bodies or associations of a religious nature have,
upon request, obtained whatever support they wanted from the Monegasque
authorities.
Some examples of requests, mainly from Catholic educational
establishments, which have been taken into consideration, include:
The free offer of premises (the cost of management and maintenance
being borne by the administrative services);
The stipends of the Catholic clergy are fully borne by the State;
Operating subsidies are allocated;
Non-Catholic cultural associations are provided with free
facilities for their activities, especially if these are
charitable;
Private education of a religious nature receives an annual subsidy
from the State; this came to 36 million francs in 1994 and covered
the full operating, equipment and investment costs of three
schools.”
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 86
PHILIPPINES
39. On 4 August 1994, the Permanent Mission of the Philippines to the
United Nations Office at Geneva transmitted to the Special Rapporteur
the following comments by the Department of Justice and the National
Security Council, both dated 2 June 1994; the text of the comments is
as follows:
“A. Comments of the Department of Justice
1. No restrictions of any kind may be imposed upon man's inner
thoughts or moral consciousness or his attitude towards the
universe or its creator. However, external manifestations of
thought, conscience or religion may be subject to legitimate
limitations. On this matter, the 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines provides that:
‘No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment
of religious beliefs and worship without discrimination or preference
shall always be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights.' (Sect. 5, art. 111) .
As aptly stated in the case of Gonzales vs. Central Azucarera de
Tarlac Labor Union :
‘Members of the Inglesia ni Kristo cannot be dismissed from
employment by reason of their resignation from a labor union with a
closed shop agreement with the company. The law granting such exemption
on religious grounds is constitutional. To that all-embracing coverage
of the closed shop agreement, Republic Act 3350 introduced an exception,
when it added the following proviso: but such agreement shall not cover
members of any religious sect which prohibits affiliation of their
members in any such labor organization.' (139 SCRA 30) .
In the case of German vs. Barangan , it was held that:
‘Exercise of right to religious freedom must be done in good
faith without any ulterior motive. While it is beyond debate that
every citizen has the undeniable and inviolable right to religious
freedom, the exercise thereof, and all of the fundamental rights
for that matter, must be done in good faith. As article 19 of the
Civil Code stipulates:
“Every person must, in the exercise of the rights and in
the performance of his duties . . . observe honesty and good faith.
Thus, freedom to translate religious belief into action may be
curtailed only to the extent warranted by clear and present danger” . ‘
(135 SCRA 514)
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 87
2. The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines provides for the
punishment of any public officer or employee who prevents or disturbs the
ceremonies or any manifestation of any religion or performs acts
notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful. It provides:
‘The penalty of prison correctional in its minimum period
shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall
prevent or disturb the ceremonies or manifestation of any religion.
If the crime shall have been committed with violence or
threats, the penalty shall be prison correctional in its medium and
maximum periods.' (art. 132, Revised Penal Code)
‘The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prison
correctional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who
in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration
of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive
to the feelings of the faithful.' (art. 133, Revised Penal Code)
3. The Civil Code of the Philippines subjects a person to damages
for obstructing or violating the freedom of religion, in these terms:
‘JIIy public officer or employee or any private individual,
who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in
any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and
liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for
damages.
‘ (1) Freedom of religion
(Art. 32, Civil Code of the Philippines) .
4. The following provisions of the 1987 Constitution of the
Philippines guarantee the separation of Church and State and the freedom
of religious profession and worship.
‘The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.'
(sect. 6, art. II)
‘Charitable institutions, churches, parsonages or convents
appurtenant thereto, mosques and non-profit cemeteries, and all
lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly or exclusively
used for religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be
exempt from taxation.' (sect. 28 (3) , art. VI)
‘No public money or property shall ever be appropriated,
applied, paid or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit
or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian
institution, or system or religion or for the use, benefit or
support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious
teacher or dignitary as such, except when the priest, preacher,
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 88
minister or dignitary is assigned to armed forces, or to any penal
institution or government orphanage or leprosarium. (sect. 29 (2) ,
art. VI)
‘As the option expressed in writing by the parents or
guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children
or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular
class hours by instructions designated or approved by the religious
authorities or the religion to which the children or wards belong,
without additional cost to the Government' (sect. 3 (3),
art. XIV) .“
“B. Comments of the National Security Council
1. In keeping with our Constitution and in line with its commitment to
promote the people's welfare, the Philippines Government has adhered to
guaranteeing full respect for human rights, including the right and
freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs.
2. The Government, led by President Fidel V. Ramos, who comes from the
minority Protestant faith, has respected the beliefs and practices of the
various religious groups in the country. It has reached out to all
sectors of society regardless of their religious persuasions, from the
dominant Catholics to the minority Muslims and indigenous sects.
3. Under the present Administration, no one has ever been penalized or
barred from exercising his/her civil and political rights because of
his/her religious beliefs.
4. Filipinos, in general, have come to terms with the existence of
various religious groups in the country and have accepted as a fact of
life their legitimate manifestations and expressions. The proliferation
of literally thousands of new indigenous or independent churches (as
distinguished from the established mainline denominations) best indicate
the Filipinos' religious tolerance and the Government's steadfast policy
to safeguard without discrimination the exercise of religious freedoms.
To a large extent, the development of such a tolerant predisposition may
be traced to the liberal democratic system in the country and to the
educational curriculum that championed respect for the belief of others.
5. JII independent Commission on Human Rights has authority to
investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human
rights violations involving civil and political rights. The Government
has not been made to account for any complaint on religious intolerance
or discrimination.
6. From the foregoing, we could glean that a confluence of factors
account for the fostering of religious tolerance and harmony. These
include:
6.1 The Government's political resolve to guarantee religious
rights and freedoms;
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 89
6.2 The people's level maturity stemming from their recognition
that religious pluralism is not or should not be a hindrance
to social unity;
6.3 Education, in its formal and informal sense, as a means of
instilling respect and understanding for the beliefs of other
people;
6.4 The creation of an independent watchdog that monitors
compliance with human rights laws and convention and
investigates complaints of human rights violations.”
QATAR
40. On 21 July 1994, the Special Rapporteur received the following general
information from the Permanent Mission of the State of Qatar to the
United Nations Office at Geneva:
“The provisional Constitution of the State of Qatar, as amended,
stipulates as follows:
Article 9 : All persons shall enjoy equal public rights and shall be
subject to equal public duties without distinction on grounds of race,
sex or religion.
Article 13 : The freedom of publication and the press shall be guaranteed
in accordance with the law.
Moreover, the Penal Code of the State of Qatar, published under
Act No. 14 of 1971, stipulates as follows:
Article 306 : All persons destroying, degrading or desecrating a place of
worship or any object held sacred by any human community whatever for the
purpose of offending that community's religion, or who commit such acts
knowing that that human community is entitled to consider that such
destruction, degradation or desecration constitutes an offence to its
religion, shall be liable to a prison sentence of not more than two years
or a fine of not more than 2,000 rials or to both these penalties.”
ROMANIA
41. On 29 June 1994, the Special Rapporteur received the following general
information:
“After the revolution of December 1989, religion in Romania
achieved a status of real autonomy. At present, denominations are free
and independent; the State recognizes and guarantees the exercise of
human rights, including religious freedoms. All denominations are
considered equal, before the law and the public authorities, with no
privileges or discrimination.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 90
In Romania, 15 denominations have been given official recognition:
the Romanian Orthodox Church, the Romanian Church United to Rome
(Greek-Catholic) , made official by decree No. 9 of the Provisional
Council of National Union (CPtJN) of 30 December 1989, the Roman Catholic
Church, the Reformed Church, the Augustinian Evangelical Church, the
Synodic-Presbyterian Evangelical Church, the Unitarian Church, the
Armenian Church, the Christian Church of Ancient Rite, the Muslim
religion, the Mosaic religion, the Baptist Church, the Seventh Day
Adventist Church, the Pentecostal Church and the Christian Church After
the Gospel. There are some further 120 religious associations which are
either independent or attached to the various denominations.
Denominations are free at present to appoint their leaders and
ministers, with no State interference. Church ministers are trained in
theological schools, faculties and institutes available to the
denominations in accordance with their real requirements. Denominations
are free to use the mother tongue of believers in religious services.
Freedom of conscience and religion is guaranteed by the Romanian
Constitution, which establishes the conditions for the expression of this
freedom in its article 29:
Article 29 :
1. Freedom of thought, opinion, and religious belief may not be
abridged in any form whatsoever. No one may be compelled to
embrace an opinion or religion contrary to his own beliefs.
2. Freedom of conscience shall be guaranteed. It shall be
exercised only in a spirit of tolerance and mutual respect.
3. Religious denominations shall be free and organized in
accordance with their own statutes, in compliance with the law.
4. Any forms, means or acts of religious hatemongering are
prohibited in the relations among denominations.
5. Religious denominations shall be autonomous from the State
and shall enjoy its support, including facilitation of religious
assistance in the army, in hospitals, prisons, nursing homes and
orphanages.
6. Parents or legal tutors have the right to ensure such
education as is in accordance with their own convictions to the
minors for whom they bear responsibility.
Article 32 of the Constitution guarantees the right to religious
education, as follows: the State shall ensure freedom of religious
education, in accordance with the specific requirements of each religious
denomination. In public schools, religious education shall be organized
and guaranteed by law.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 91
In accordance with constitutional principles, a new draft law on
religious denominations and religious freedoms in Romania has been
prepared and will be submitted to the Romanian Parliament for debate
after consultation with the institutions concerned.
In 1992, a Religious Affairs Department was set up under Government
decree No. 595; within the central administration, this institution will
be responsible for supporting all religious denominations on an equal
basis, providing a link between the religious denominations and the
central or local bodies of the public administration as a means of
solving their particular problems and contributing to the development of
education in denominational schools. Through this department, the State
contributes monthly amounts for the payment of salaries of denominational
staff and theological teachers and each year allocates funds for the
construction, restoration and conservation of places of worship and
religious property administered by the latter.
Religious education has spread and diversified considerably in
Romania.
Starting in the 1990/1991 school year, moral and religious
education, referred to as ‘religion', was introduced as an optional
subject in State schools, in classes I to VIII. In the 1993/1994 school
year, 86 per cent of pupils in classes I to VIII attended religion
classes. All religious denominations recognized in Romania organize
religious studies, in accordance with parents' options. For the
1993/1994 school year, 89.81 per cent of options were Orthodox,
3.9 per cent Roman Catholic, 2.9 per cent Reformist, 0.5 per cent
Greek-Catholic, 0.9 per cent Pentecostal, 0.4 per cent Baptist and
Adventist and 0.3 per cent Evangelical.
Religious teachers are recommended by the various religious
denominations and paid either by the Ministry of Education for classes or
study groups of more than 10 pupils or by the religious denominations for
groups of fewer than 10 pupils.
Religious teaching has been incorporated into school texts and the
school curriculum.
In secondary education, optional classes in religious history may
be held for classes IX to XIII.
Starting from the 1990/1991 school year, all religious
denominations in Romania have had the possibility, at their request,
of holding theological seminars in secondary schools and theological
institutes. Nearly all the religious denominations (except the Ancient
Rite Christians and the Mosaics) have organized theological teaching
institutions, which are entirely financed by the Romanian State.
The studies followed by pupils in State educational establishments
and in theological institutions are equivalent.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 92
A National Advisory Commission for Pre-University Theological and
Religious Education, including representatives of the religious
denominations, the Religious Affairs Department and the Ministry of
Education, has been set up to supervise the application of the law
concerning religious education.
Furthermore, religions may organize the religious education of
their believers through any other means they deem necessary, with no
interference from the State.
In a spirit of inter-denominational tolerance, a major contribution
to the religious education of young people is the weekly programming by
the national television station, which provides up-to-date information on
the activities of the various religious groups in Romania and abroad.
Subsequent to the Revolution of December 1989, the Romanian State
initiated a series of measures to redress the abuses of the former
regime. One of these measures was Decree-Law No. 9, dated
31 December 1989, officially recognizing the Romanian Church United
with Rome (Greek-Catholic) .
Decree-Law No. 126 of 24 April 1990 was adopted by the Provisional
Council of National Union to settle the matter of the property formerly
owned by the Romanian Church United with Rome. It stipulates that the
assets that were taken over by the State under Decree No. 358/1948 and
are currently State property are, with the exception of the landed
estates, returned to the Romanian Church United with Rome in their
present condition.
In conformity with this Act, a mixed commission composed of
representatives of the Government and of the Greek-Catholic Church
identified a portion of the Church's former property. As a consequence,
the Government adopted Decree No. 466/1992, by which 80 buildings and
urban plots of land were restored to the Greek-Catholic Church.
Decree No. 126/1990 also specifies that a joint committee made up
of representatives of the clergy of both denominations will establish the
legal status of churches and of church halls that formerly belonged to
the Greek-Catholic Church and are currently administered by the Orthodox
Church.”
SUDAN
42. On 21 June 1994, the Permanent Mission of the Republic of the Sudan
transmitted to the Special Rapporteur, for information, copies of
Constitutional Decrees Nos. 7, 8 and 9, issued by the Revolution Command
Council in 1993, a copy of the Religious Affairs and Wakfs* Act, 1980, and of
the Non-Muslims Marriage Act, 1926. These texts have been summarized or
quoted in the following paragraphs.
* Gift or bequest of goods or property to the Islamic State in perpetuity
for religious works or the public weal.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 93
43. Chapter I of Constitutional Decree No. 7 entitled “Principles,
regulations and constitutional developments” contains the principles guiding
the State's policies, which are divided into seven sections: 1. Religion;
2. National unity; 3. Form of government; 4. The judicial system; 5. The
economy; 6. Society; and 7. Foreign policy. Part 1, which directly concerns
religion, reads as follows:
“1. Religion
Islam is the guiding religion of the largest majority of the
Sudanese people. It is the basis of the laws, regulations and policies
of the State. But other revealed religions like Christianity, or
religious traditional beliefs may freely be adopted by anyone,
and the freedom of religion is to be guaranteed by the State and
its laws.”
Chapter II, part 1, of Decree No. 7 stipulates:
“1. Rights and duties
It is the duty of a religious citizen to be honest and truthful,
and he has the right to choose his religion without any compulsion, and
not to be discriminated against because of his faith, beliefs, social or
financial standing. It is the duty of the citizen to contribute his
thoughts and advice, and it is his right to have freedom of expression
and to participate in public life in accordance with the law. It is the
citizen's right to earn his living through fair competition, and not to
have his possessions confiscated except in accordance with the law. The
citizen has the right to freedom of movement and residence.”
Chapter III of the Decree deals with the President of the Republic, the
Vice-President, the States' Sectoral Congresses and the General Congresses of
the Political System, elections and the organization of the National Assembly
and the elected States' assemblies.
44. Constitutional Decree No. 8 is entitled “Appointment of the President of
the Republic” and Constitutional Decree No. 9, “Transfer of powers”.
45. The Act entitled “Religious affairs and Wakfs Act, 1980” consists of
three parts: I. Preliminary; II. The general structure of the religious
affairs and Wakfs; and III. General provisions”.
Part I stipulates as follows:
“2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
‘The Council' means the High Council of Religious Affairs and
Wakfs;
‘General Secretariat' means the technical and administrative organ
entrusted with implementing the policies of the Council;
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 94
‘Chairman of the Council' means the Chairman of the High Council of
Religious Affairs and Wakfs, and Wakfs Trustee;
‘Province Council' means the Council of Religious Affairs and Wakfs
which is established under this Act in each province.
3. The State shall patronize the religious affairs and Wakfs by
support and direction.”
The following are excerpts from part II:
“4. The general structure of the religious affairs and wakfs shall be
constituted of the following:
(a) the High Council of Religious Affairs and Wakfs;
(b) the Province Council of Religious Affairs and Wakfs;
(c) Religious Affairs Committees constituted by the Council of
the Province Council;
(d) Wakfs Committees constituted by the Council or the Province
Council;
(e) Mosques Committees constituted by the Council or the Province
Council;
(f) the General Secretariat which assumes the implementation of
the functions assigned to the Council.
5. (1) There shall be established a Council to be known as ‘The High
Council of Religious Affairs and Wakfs', which shall have corporate
personality, perpetual succession and a common seal. It may sue or be
sued in its own name.
(2) The seat of the Council shall be in Khartoum.
(3) The Council shall be constituted as follows:
(a) Chairman of the Council, to be appointed by the
President of the Republic who shall specify his
emoluments by an order under his hand;
(b) the Secretary-General of the Council to be appointed by
the President of the Republic in consultation with the
Chairman of the Council;
(c) any other members appointed by the President of the
Republic in consultation with the Chairman of the
Council.
(4) The term of membership of the Council shall be three years.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 95
(5) The Council shall be responsible to the President of the
Republic for the performance of its business.
(6) The Council shall aim at the preservation of religious values
and deepening their understanding and practice in society for approaching
God and benefiting the society. It also aims at strengthening the
personal motives in individuals for serving the religion, the country
and humanity, at dissemination of the spirit of fraternity, love and
self-denial among citizens and development of their spiritual
capabilities and rallying them as an incentive towards what is ideal and
best and as safeguard against the tyranny of materialistic values and all
the drawbacks of development. It strives, in this field, to preserve the
cultural identity of the nation and direct it to achieve the Islamic
style in its life together with due regard to the rights of non-Muslims,
abiding in the same by ease, graduality and flexibility. Without
prejudice to the generality of the foregoing the Council shall have the
following objects:
(a) dissemination of public and specialized religions education
and consolidate it at all its levels in preparation of the
learned in the religion to perform their message of religious
enlightenment and guidance in implementation of the objects
of the Council;
(b) dissemination of sound religious awareness, preservation of
the cultural heritage of the nation and instilling the
religious values in the conscience of individuals and groups
by the various means of publicity, information and culture;
(c) rallying potentialities and capabilities to patronize the
religious utilities by self effort at the level of the
various classes of the society;
(d) striving to encourage research and publication in the field
of religious studies in general;
(e) encouraging the citizens to entrust their property for
charitable goodness and benevolent works.
The Council shall have the following functions:
(a) laying down the general policies, plans and programmes for
the religious affairs and wakfs;
(b) general supervision of religious institutions and places of
worship and organizing the activity and employing them in the most ideal
way to serve the objectives of the religion in worship and dealing;
(c) organizing of the religions message, developing its methods,
laying down its programmes and training the missionaries therefor
together with patronizing the religions research and participation in the
conferences pertaining to religious work;
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 96
(d) general supervision of religious activity, directing it and
making the regulations organizing the same;
(e) management of the Islamic trusts;
(f) supervising the pilgrimage affairs;
(g) organizing the specialized religious education and developing
the same;
(h) patronizing the Christian affairs and other religious and
good beliefs in cooperation with the public organizations and
institutions in this field;
(i) performing the functions required by the participation of
the Sudan in the Islamic African Centre in Khartoum;
(j) laying down the general budget of the Religious Affairs
and Wakfs and submitting the same to the competent bodies for
approval;
(k) laying down the plans and programmes for places of worship,
maintaining and organizing the same to perform their message in all the
educational and cultural affairs and providing religious guides and
directors and training them;
(1) developing and investing the trust's property and utilizing
their returns in the purposes for which they are entrusted and the other
lawful ways;
(m) laying down the plan and programme to implement the national
plan in the field of Religious Affairs and Wakfs;
(n) the Council may obtain by way of gift, legacy or otherwise
any money or other property whether immovable or movable and keep the
same and deal therein in any way of lawful dealing to achieve its
objects. “
46. The Non-Muslim Marriage Act, 1926 contains the following sections:
“Application”, “Invalid and voidable marriages”, “Effect of marriage under the
Act”, “Marriage districts - Registrars - Places registered for celebration of
marriages”, “Preliminaries to marriage”, “Consent to marriage”, “Celebration
of marriage”, “Register and evidence of marriages”, “Jurisdiction of civil
courts”, “Penalties” and “Miscellaneous”. The section entitled “Invalid and
voidable marriages” contains subsections indicating the grounds for nullifying
a marriage; the following are the titles of these subsections: “Previous
subsisting marriage”; “Impediments on account of consanguinity or affinity”;
“Informality”; “Consent of party to marriage defective”; “Marriage by male
under fifteen or female under thirteen” .
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 97
SRI LANKA
47. The following information of a general nature was transmitted to the
Special Rapporteur on 20 November 1994:
“Sri Lanka is a multiracial and multireligious nation. According
to the census of 1992, the total population of the island was
17.6 million. The composition of the population according to religion is
as follows:
Buddhists 69.3%
Hindus 15.5%
Christians 7.6%
Muslims 7.5%
Others 0.1%
Throughout many centuries these people have lived together in peace
and harmony. Buddhist temples, Hindu kovils, Muslim mosques, and
Christian churches exist side by side in Sri Lanka and members of one
community not only pay their respect to the others, but most often invoke
the blessings of other faiths. Thus many Buddhist shrines have sections
devoted to Hindu gods and statues of Lord Buddha are found in Hindu
shrines.
Days of significance to Buddhists, Hindus, Christians and followers
of Islam have all been declared public holidays. (Thus all full-moon
poya days, Sinhala and Tamil New Year, Deepavali, Maha Sivarathri,
Thai Pongal, Hadj, Ramazan, the Prophet Mohamed's Birthday, Christmas,
Good Friday and Easter are holidays in Sri Lanka.) In fact, even in the
prisons in Sri Lanka provision has been made from the early 1930s for
practice of all the major religions.
Religious studies form part of the school curriculum from grades 1
to 10 and all students have the opportunity of learning their religion in
school.
The State print and electronic media give equal emphasis to all
religions and celebrate festivals of all the religions with appropriate
news coverage and programmes.
Constitutional provisions
The Government of Sri Lanka is firmly committed to promoting and
fostering all religions.
The directive principles of State policy which guide Parliament,
the President and the Cabinet of Ministries in the enactment of laws and
governance of Sri Lanka provide that the State shall strengthen national
unity by promoting cooperation and mutual confidence among all sections
of the people, including racial, religious, linguistic and other groups,
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 98
and shall take effective steps in the field of teaching, education and
information in order to eliminate discrimination and prejudice
(art. 27 (5) of the Constitution) .
Furthermore, article 27 (11) of the Constitution states that the
State shall create the necessary economic and social environment to
enable people of religious faiths to make a reality of their religious
principles. Within this policy framework, the fundamental rights chapter
of the Constitution contains a number of specific articles which seek to
protect religious freedom. Article 10 of the Constitution guarantees the
freedom of thought, conscience and religion to every person in Sri Lanka.
Article 12 (2) provides that no citizen shall be discriminated against on
grounds of religion. Article 12 (13) provides that no person shall be
subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with
regard to access to shops, public restaurants, hotels or places of public
entertainment on grounds of religion. Article 14 guarantees the freedom
to manifest a religion or belief by practice. Article 15 (2) states that
freedom of speech and publication may be restricted in the interest of
racial and religious harmony. This provision is particularly important
since it recognizes that partisan and defamatory speeches which might
incite religious antagonism and hatred must be prevented in a
multireligious society.
Remedies
1. Supreme Court jurisdiction
Article 17 read together with article 126 of the Constitution
provides for the enforcement of these rights. Infringement or imminent
infringement of these rights whether by executive or administrative
action is justiciable in the highest court in the land and the court has
a wide discretion with regard to the relief it may grant. It is
noteworthy, however, that there has not been a single allegation of
discrimination on the ground of religion before the Supreme Court of
Sri Lanka. This is eloquent testimony to the high degree of religious
tolerance which prevails in Sri Lanka.
2. The Commission for the Elimination of Discrimination and
Monitoring of Fundamental Rights
Apart from the Supreme Court, the Commission for the Elimination of
Discrimination and Monitoring of Fundamental Rights has the authority to
hear and adjudicate upon allegations of religious discrimination by means
of mediation and conciliation. Where settlement is not possible it is
authorized to report the matter to the President.
The Commission in 1992 heard seven complaints of religious
discrimination out of a total of 882 complaints. According to the
Director of Human Rights, religious discrimination was not established in
any of the cases.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 99
Offences against religion
The Penal Code of Sri Lanka makes the following acts relating to
religion criminal offences punishable with imprisonment or a fine or
both:
1. Injuring or defiling a place of worship with intent to insult the
religion of any class of persons (sect. 290) .
2. JIIy act in relation to any place of worship or object held sacred
by any class with the intention of wounding the religious feelings of any
class (sect. 290A) .
3. Voluntarily disturbing a religious assembly (sect. 291).
4. Uttering any words, sounds or making any gestures in the presence
of any person with the deliberate intention of wounding religious
feelings (sect. 291A) .
5. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious
feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs
(sect. 291B) .“
SWEDEN
48. On 17 June 1994, the Permanent Mission of Sweden transmitted to the
Special Rapporteur information broadly outlining the constitutional and legal
system in Sweden for the guarantee of freedom of thought, conscience, religion
and belief; the text reads:
“Chapter 1 of the Instrument of Government (IG) , one of the Swedish
constitutional laws, contains a section (2) which deals with certain
social, economic and cultural rights and lays down the fundamental basis
upon which the State should exercise public power. It reads as follows:
‘Public power shall be exercised with respect for the equal
worth of all and for the freedom and dignity of the individual.
The personal, economic and cultural welfare of the individual
shall be fundamental aims of public activity. In particular, it
shall be incumbent upon the public administration to secure the
right to work, housing and education, and to promote social care
and social security and a good living environment.
The public administration shall promote the ideals of
democracy as guidelines in all sectors of society. The public
administration shall guarantee equal rights to men and women and
protect the private and family lives of the individual.
Opportunities should be promoted for ethnic, linguistic and
religious minorities to preserve and develop a cultural and social
life of their own. ‘
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 100
Chapter 2 of the IG contains an enumeration of a number of legally
binding fundamental rights and freedoms. Some of them are absolute, and
may only be restricted or abolished by means of an amendment to the
Constitution. One of these absolute rights and freedoms is freedom of
worship. (Sect. 1:6) .
Section 2 provides for protection against all coercion to divulge
an opinion in any political, religious, cultural or other similar
connection and protection against all coercion to participate in any
meeting for the formation of opinion or in any demonstration or other
expression of opinion or to belong to any political association,
religious congregation or other association for opinions of the nature
referred to in the first sentence.
Among other rights and freedoms guaranteed by chapter 2 of the IG
but which may be restricted through law enacted by Parliament are freedom
of speech (sect. 1:1); freedom of information (sect. 1:2); freedom of
assembly (sect 1:3) and freedom of association (sect. 1:5) .
The scope for restricting these constitutional rights is strictly
limited. Under chapter 2, section 12 of the IG the restriction must
satisfy a purpose acceptable in a democratic society. It must not exceed
what is necessary with regard to the reason which has prompted it, nor
may it pose a threat to the free formation of opinion as one of the
foundations of a democracy. A constitutional right or freedom may not be
restricted solely because of a citizen's political, religious, cultural
or similar views. Finally, no restriction may be imposed which is
discriminatory.
Further limitations on the possibility of imposing restrictions
apply to certain constitutional rights and freedoms. For example,
restrictions of freedom of association are permitted only with respect to
organized groups of a military or similar nature, or which engage in
racial persecution.
There are also special rules instructing Parliament how to enact
laws which restrict these rights and freedoms.
The rights and freedoms laid down in chapter 2 of the IG apply,
with a few exceptions, to the community at large, i.e. society. This
means that central government (the State) and local authorities (the
municipalities) may not invade anyone's rights and freedoms by imposing
punishment or exercising physical force unless chapter 2 so permits.
Protection from assault by private persons is to be found in ordinary
law, inter alia the provision of the Penal Code dealing with punishment
for persecution of a population group, whereby a person threatens or
expresses contempt for a population group or other such group with
allusion to its race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, or
religious faith.
Chapter 2 of the IG also prohibits laws and other regulations which
disfavour anyone who because of race, skin colour or ethnic origin
belongs to a minority (sect. 15) .
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 101
The clauses on rights and freedoms in the IG chiefly protect
persons who are Swedish citizens. Aliens in Sweden are on a fully equal
footing with Swedish citizens with regard to some of the rights and
freedoms (sect. 20, para. 1) , inter alia , protection against all coercion
to participate in any meeting for the formation of opinion or in any
demonstration or other expression of opinion, or to belong to any
religious congregation or other association (sect. 2, second sentence)
and protection against discrimination on grounds of race, skin colour or
ethnic origin (sect. 15) .
Concerning most of the other rights and freedoms, aliens are ranked
equally with Swedish citizens, except as otherwise prescribed by special
rules of law (sect. 20, para. 2) . Among others freedom of speech,
information, assembly, association and worship (sects. 1:1-3 and 1:5-6)
and protection against all coercion to divulge an opinion (sect. 2, first
sentence) .
In this context it should also be mentioned that the Swedish
Parliament recently adopted a law which incorporates the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
and Protocols Nos. 1-8 and decided that the former Swedish reservation to
the second sentence in article 2 of the first protocol concerning the
respect of the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in
conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions, shall
be deleted.
The Swedish dualistic system implies that Sweden's international
undertakings have to be implemented by incorporation or transformation
into internal law or administrative regulations in order to be enforced
by the authorities concerned. Therefore the incorporation means that,
when the law enters into force in January 1995, it will be a part of the
Swedish internal law and that private individuals can rely directly on
the Convention before Swedish courts, tribunals and administrative
authorities will be able to apply it in their decisions.
Since 1986 there has been an Ombudsman against Ethnic
Discrimination (DO) . The DO's field of activity encompasses the whole
scope of society except for private life. The DO shall pay special
attention to ethnic discrimination on the labour market.”
VENEZUELA
49. On 3 August 1994, the Permanent Mission of Venezuela to the
United Nations Office at Geneva transmitted to the Special Rapporteur the
observations of the Government of Venezuela on the question of religious
intolerance, the text of which reads as follows:
“Under Venezuelan law, the basic provisions on this question
are set forth in the Constitution and Penal Code.
Article 65 of the Constitution stipulates that everyone
has the right to profess his religious faith and to practise his
religion privately or publicly, provided it is not contrary to the
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 102
public order or to good customs. Religious faiths shall be subject to
the supreme inspection of the National Executive, in conformity with the
law. No one may invoke religious beliefs or disciplines in order to
avoid complying with the laws or to prevent another from exercising his
rights.
Chapter II of the Penal Code, entitled ‘Offences against freedom
of worship', stipulates the following:
Article 168 : Whosoever, with a view to obstructing a religion
that is lawfully established or about to be established in
the Republic, prevents or disturbs the holding of religious
functions or ceremonies, shall be liable to a prison term
of S to 45 days.
If the act is accompanied by threats, violence, insults or
expressions of contempt, the length of imprisonment shall be
45 days to 15 months.
Article 170 : Whosoever, out of scorn for a religion established or
about to be established in the Republic, destroys, ill-treats or
defiles in any way whatsoever, in a public place, objects used by
that religion, and any individual who ill-treats or insults any
member of that religion's clergy, shall be liable to a prison term
of 45 days to 15 months. If the offence has been committed against
any clergyman in the exercise of or because of his functions,
the sentence laid down for this offence shall be increased by
one sixth.
Article 171 : Whosoever, in a place of worship or a cemetery,
damages or defiles monuments, paintings, stones, steles,
inscriptions or tumuli, shall be liable to a prison term of
one to six months or a fine of 150 to 1,500 bolivars.
Freedom of thought
This freedom does not even need to be legally guaranteed, for, as
long as thought is not externalized, it cannot be controlled and, when it
is externalized, it enters the domain of freedom of expression and
opinion.
In this connection, article 66 of the Constitution stipulates:
‘Everyone has the right to express his thoughts by the spoken word or in
writing and to make use of any means of dissemination, without prior
censorship; but statements which constitute offences are subject to
punishment, according to law' .
JIIonymity is not permitted. Likewise, propaganda for war, that
which offends public morals, and that for the purpose of inciting
disobedience of the laws shall not be permitted, but this shall not
repress analysis or criticism of legal principles.
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 103
We interpret religious tolerance as meaning ‘The attitude by which
everyone is left free to practise the religion he professes' .
In this context, religious tolerance should not be interpreted as
being a discretionary act and an act of free will. In the legal sphere,
according to constitutional and legal provisions, religious tolerance
represents a duty (we are speaking of the respect and consideration that
other religions are due) .
As regards the legal order, article 43 of the Constitution provides
that: ‘Everyone has the right to the free development of his
personality, with no other limitations than those deriving from the
rights of others and from the public and social order' .
Together with article 65 mentioned above, article 79 of the
Constitution follows this line of ideas; its text stipulates the right to
devote oneself to science.
Venezuelan society displays an ongoing and deep respect for
personal convictions and the dissemination of ideas. There is a climate
of harmonious coexistence as regards religious freedom and the various
religions make every effort to occupy their own area of society while
agreeing that others have the right to spread a different message.
Because of this, the community activities conducted by these
organizations are often done on a joint basis, and this makes them more
effective in achieving common goals.
This cultural basis, to which we have referred, is the most solid
foundation for one of the pillars of the democratic system in force. For
this reason, the State acts within the framework of the limits provided
by the Constitution and refrains from intervening in the observance of
the country's various religions or encouraging people to join any
religion in particular.
Without any doubt, the Catholic religion is in first place from the
numerical point of view, a situation that justifies its broader network
of relations with the State, which are, however, kept to a bare minimum
and do not represent special protection or preference that would
introduce inequalities into the requirements for respecting and
practising a religion. For that reason, the existence of an agreement
between the Republic of Venezuela and the Holy See ( Modus Vivendi )
should not be interpreted as an act of discrimination, nor should the
fact that the law relating to missions refers only to Catholic missions.
These facts are simply the result of a preponderance that the State would
not hesitate to recognize other religions as having if the current
situation were to change. Furthermore, this preponderance does not
lead to the State granting benefits or prerogatives to any religious
organization.
An illustration of the Venezuelan State's neutral position towards
religious beliefs is that of the educational establishments supported by
the State. These establishments have no paid staff who are obliged to
dispense religious education and, in establishments where the Church can
E/CN. 4/1995/91/Add. 1
page 104
offer such services, the freedom of the pupil and his parents is always
respected, for it is not compulsory for all pupils to attend classes in
religious instruction. Therefore, on a point that has been regarded as
particularly relevant by the international organizations, religious
freedom is not impaired.
In conclusion, it may be stated that the neutrality of the
Venezuelan State ensures full freedom of religious faith and the
development of religious beliefs in conformity with the dignity of
the human person and the requirements of a democratic and civilized
society.”
