58th Session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights

Geneva (18 March-26 April 2002)

Statement of Mr Pierre-Henri Imbert,
Director General of Human Rights of the Council of Europe

Mr Chairman,

I am grateful for this renewed opportunity to bring to the Commission on Human Rights some of the achievements and perspectives of the Council of Europe. Of course, my statement is not the only occasion for providing this information. I refer, in particular, to the statement made last week by Mr Antanas Vallionis, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Lithuania, as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, and to statements of delegations of member States of the Council of Europe.

I will focus on some selected issues which I believe are of mutual and topical interest to both the Commission on Human Rights and the Council of Europe. Further information on our work is available outside the meeting room.

Terrorism

The horrendous events of 11 September 2001 have not failed to influence the work of the Council of Europe, as it has that of other organisations. The Committee of Ministers rapidly adopted a comprehensive set of decisions to tackle some of the major challenges international terrorism presents for our societies and for the international community. The Council of Europe believes that there is no single response to the threat of terrorism, but that measures to counter terrorism must be based on, and form part of, a comprehensive strategy, integrating the human rights dimension.

It may be tempting to see the fight against terrorism as an overriding aim in itself, to which human rights considerations must be subordinated. Such a view would be misguided and even potentially dangerous. During the recent urgent debate in our Parliamentary Assembly on this question, the Secretary General, Walter Schwimmer, stressed the need to avoid that anti-terror measures undermine democracy and human rights on the ground of defending them. Terrorists want to destroy democracy and fundamental human rights values. We should not help them to succeed. The fight against terrorism must not only be a fight against something, namely terrorism, but also for something: respect for human rights. It is wrong to think that we need to reduce or sacrifice human rights protection in order to fight terrorism. They can, and must, go hand in hand, for their objective is to preserve and protect peaceful democratic societies. In practical terms, this means that respect for human rights is not, and must not, be seen as an obstacle to fighting terrorism, but as an integral and indispensable part of it. This is also the essence of the unprecedented joint message adopted last November by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the OSCE Office for democratic institutions and human rights and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.

Since 11 September, the Council of Europe has adopted a three-pronged strategy for the fight against terrorism. The first element is reinforcing international legal cooperation. We are currently examining possible improvements to our legal instruments in this area, notably the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, and encouraging a maximum number of ratifications.

The second branch is ensuring that measures taken by States respect human rights standards and do not lead to abusive repression. The current work of our Steering Committee for Human Rights towards the establishment of human rights guidelines for measures against terrorism has attracted a good deal of attention, also in UN circles, and we are pleased with the participation of the Office of the High Commissioner in it. Our common interest in this matter is also borne out by the pertinent analysis made in the report that the High Commissioner on Human Rights has submitted to your Commission. I have no doubt that these guidelines, which seek to render operational the existing principles deriving from the European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, will show that this Convention does not prevent fighting terrorism effectively, quite the contrary. After all, human rights standards also contain positive obligations for States to protect the right to life of their populations. For this reason the only approach to follow for democracies is that integrating human rights and meticulous respect for fundamental freedoms. The fight against terrorism cannot justify any kinds of action with respect to detained persons or human rights defenders.

The third part of our strategy consists of addressing the various factors and societal conditions that push human beings to radical attitudes which may ultimately result in extreme forms of blind violence. Addressing these root causes should lead us to invest in democracy and human rights. Through its different sectors and institutions, the Council of Europe will participate actively with other organisations in the emerging intercultural and inter-religious dialogue between countries in different parts of the world, but also in Europe itself. As examples, mention can be made of the activities of Mr Gil-Robles, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the work of our North-South Centre for Global Interdependence and Solidarity and also the important achievements of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. Already two years ago, this Commission adopted a General Policy Recommendation on Combating Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims. Last week it launched an action programme on intercultural dialogue, on the occasion of the International Day for the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination.

The challenges posed by terrorism are huge, for individual countries and for the international community as a whole. This is the reason it appears indispensable to us to adopt the human rights-integrated approach that I have just outlined. I am sure that your Commission will promote that within the United Nations.

Mechanisms for the prevention of torture and other forms of ill-treatment

One of the items on your agenda is the question of torture and detention. The experience with the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture shows how helpful an international mechanism based on country visits to places of detention can be for ensuring that persons deprived of their liberty are treated in accordance with international standards.

Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention, which entered into force on 1 March 2002, makes it possible for non-member States of the Council of Europe to join this Convention. I wish to stress that the opening up of the Convention mechanism is not designed to turn this European instrument into a universal one. That would be an aspiration which is neither acceptable nor feasible for a regional instrument. In all likelihood, only a limited number of non-member States will be invited to adhere. States that are seeking to become members of the Council of Europe are obvious potential candidates. Further, certain States which are geographically close to the European continent, for example in the Mediterranean basin, might be invited to join the Convention. In other words, the European Protocol does not seek to replace a universal treaty mechanism, and its entry into force cannot, in good faith, be invoked in order to call into question the action taken by the United Nations in this field.

I would also like to add that the action of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) has totally belied certain initial fears that this European mechanism would only lead to unhelpful or even unfounded criticism of national policies and practices in the field of detention. While at the time those fears were undoubtedly due to the uniquely innovative character of a system of visits to places of detention, the practice of the last ten years has shown that the States Parties cooperate with the CPT also because they recognise the benefit they can draw from its useful expertise and constructive recommendations for improving detention conditions where necessary. The independent nature of this treaty body, its expertise and its free access to any place of detention have no doubt contributed to its credibility and the high regard in which it is held among the States Parties. The number of ratifications has rapidly grown and today, all except the two newest member States are Parties. This means that the mechanism successfully operates across the Continent, with respect to countries with widely diverse social and economic conditions, in Germany as in Albania, in Sweden as in the Ukraine.

As you may know, the CPT reports are in principle confidential but we see a clear trend among States towards making them public. This is yet another sign that the cooperative nature of this mechanism is today fully understood and recognised.

May I add that we witness the same phenomenon with respect to the newest human rights treaty mechanism of the Council of Europe: the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. Here, too, any initial caution has given way to constructive and cooperative attitudes among the States Parties vis-à-vis the monitoring system, by accepting country visits by the Advisory Committee, early publication of the opinions of this independent expert committee, and the establishment of an ongoing dialogue with the States Parties. The Committee of Ministers has already adopted resolutions on the implementation of the Framework Convention in respect of 10 States.

Complaints mechanisms for social and economic rights

Mr Chairman,

Another area of common interest to both our Organisations is that of the international protection of social and economic rights. Like the United Nations, the Council of Europe considers that these rights are human rights, to be taken seriously and treated on a same footing with civil and political rights. Such is the consequence of the fundamental principle of indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. However, the realities in European societies show that also in Europe, we need to do more in order to give full effect to this principle.

While for several decades, the European Social Charter operated solely on the basis of a classic reporting system, the 1995 Collective Complaints Protocol has brought a new dimension to the work of the independent expert committee responsible for overseeing the application of the Charter. Since 1995, 11 States have accepted this mechanism and 11 collective complaints have been lodged, covering issues such as child labour, working conditions, health and safety at work, the right to organise and the prohibition of forced labour. The system works well, and in full complementarity with the traditional reporting system. This shows that there is no reason of principle why social rights should remain totally immune from a complaints-type protection machinery. On the contrary, creating such a system can make an important contribution towards making the indivisibility of all human rights a reality in practice. After all, social rights recognised under national legislation can usually also be invoked before national courts or other complaints bodies.

Trafficking in human beings

Trafficking in human beings has reached unprecedented levels in Europe. The grave concern which this abject phenomenon causes in countries across the Continent is translated in various activities of the Council of Europe. The Recommendation on trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation, adopted in 2000, is being followed up, notably in the framework of the Stability Pact for South-East Europe as part of the programme for penal reform. In view of the current scale of the problem and its links with organised crime, negotiations are now under way with a view to the possible drafting of a European Convention on trafficking in human beings. This Convention would be complementary to the Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime. Its main added value would lie in a more far-reaching control system. This initiative will be the theme of a special meeting which the Council of Europe will organise here in Geneva on 9 April next, in cooperation with the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Racism

Mr Chairman,

The Council of Europe participated in and contributed to, the Durban World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. We are keenly aware that the Conference was a difficult process but firmly believe that we should now all move on towards implementation of the recommendations that were adopted. The Council of Europe will certainly continue to pursue the anti-racism agenda at the European level. The majority of our member States have demonstrated their commitment to this by signing the recent anti-discrimination Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and we trust that the remaining governments will soon follow their example. A first meeting to discuss the implementation of the Durban Conference was held in Strasbourg at the end of February this year. Among the main topics discussed were possible assistance to our member States in the implementation of the World Conference results and the idea was launched that the Council of Europe could act as a point of contact with other regional groupings in the context of the implementation of Durban. We would welcome reactions from within the Commission to this idea with interest.

Abolition of the death penalty

Your Commission plays a crucial role through its debates and resolutions on the death penalty. I would like to stress how important this work is, in itself, but also as a reference for our own work, not least with States having Observer status with the Council of Europe, of which the United States and Japan still resort to this inhumane form of punishment. As you know, the last few member States of the Council of Europe which, while strictly respecting a moratorium on executions, still have this penalty in their criminal codes are preparing themselves to become fully abolitionist. Thus, Europe should soon become a truly death penalty free-zone not only in practice but also in law. Last month, the Council of Europe adopted a new Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, unconditionally abolishing the death penalty, even for crimes committed in time of war. A historic step but also a sign of the times, since it builds on the fact that none of the existing international criminal courts are allowed to impose the death penalty. I would simply invite you to recognise that the old revenge-based idea of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth is not any longer of this world and to support a strong Resolution on this question. In order to combat crime, we need justice, not revenge. There is no question that an international consensus against the death penalty is gaining momentum and any country serious about human rights should, at the very least, institute a moratorium on executions. After all, what kind of an example do States give when they respond to killing by killing? How can that be the way forward to less violent and more peaceful societies?

Mr Chairman,

Allow me to end my statement with a few general observations on the nature of the human rights work of the Council of Europe. I believe in fact that your Commission will recognise some resemblance between some of the challenges we face and the challenges it faces.

More and more, the Council of Europe is called upon to deal with highly political issues that arise in and sometimes between its member States. Today, we cannot but address major human rights issues, comparable to those faced by the United Nations, which were largely unknown to our work as recently as 10 years ago. For example, we have issues on our agenda such as serious and massive violations, human rights protection in situations of conflict and tension, thorny issues relating to minority rights, political interferences with media freedoms, harassment of the political opposition or threats to the independence of the judiciary. Among the country examples, I would mention the situation in Chechnya and the developments in Moldova. The Secretary General, acting as an organ of the European Convention on Human Rights, has used his powers under Article 52 to seek explanations as concerns each of these two situations. Another example is the situation in Cyprus, which has given rise to important judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, including in the inter-state case of Cyprus v. Turkey.

This is not the place to analyse in detail how the Council of Europe responds to these challenges. I would just highlight the following points.

On the one hand, our approach to the political issues that I just mentioned continues to be based on human rights. It is for this reason that the work of the European Court of Human Rights and the other treaty mechanisms is so important. I already mentioned the cases concerning the Cyprus situation.

On the other hand, the fact that there is a strong political dimension to a human rights issue does not stop it from being a human rights issue. On the contrary, a human rights-based approach can help to ensure that the problem is tackled in an even-handed manner, based upon objective fundamental standards that apply to all member States. Furthermore, there is no incompatibility between the operation of European treaty mechanisms for the protection of human rights and political examination of human rights situations, because the latter is based on the same standards and principles. Indeed, for some situations, a combination of political and treaty monitoring is desirable and even necessary. Whilst one cannot expect treaty mechanisms to solve on their own the political aspects of an issue that gives rise to human rights problems, their work does identify and clarify certain human rights principles that have to be complied with at all events, also where the political situation is difficult. The objectivity and independence of their findings provide an indisputable legal context for action by the political organs of the Council of Europe, which opens up opportunities for synergies between legal and political mechanisms.

The evolving nature of our work is reflected in the fact that, more and more, individual country situations are on the agenda of the Council of Europe. Apart from the examples already given, I would also refer to the question of political prisoners in Azerbaijan, which receives active political attention from both the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers, or to monitoring progress towards abolition of the death penalty in the three member States that still need to take that last step. More generally, this is true for the monitoring of compliance with commitments made by member States upon their accession to the Council of Europe. At this juncture, I am pleased to announce that, in a few weeks’ time, the Council of Europe will welcome Bosnia and Herzegovina as its 44th member State.

The fulfilment of commitments resulting from Council of Europe membership also largely determines our priorities as concerns assistance activities to member States. While we are bound to design and implement programmes to that effect, we are in regular contact with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights because it is important to identify areas where our respective priorities converge, thus creating opportunities for cooperation. We greatly value such informal contacts and, together with the OHCHR, seek to strengthen them. We find that regular high-level and even more frequent working level contacts are more useful than creating a formal cooperation framework which may quickly become too rigid. In addition, complementarity of action between our organisations also means respecting the competences, perspectives and working methods of each. This again underlines the value of regular informal contacts and exchange of information.

Mr Chairman,

As I hope my statement has shown, the Council of Europe has every reason to follow the work of your Commission with great interest, and to continue to strengthen its links with it.

In closing, I wish you a fruitful and successful session.

Thank you for your attention.