the advent of universal protection of human rights: theo van boven and the transformation of the un

Springer Biographies

The Advent ofUniversal Protectionof Human RightsTheo van Boven and theTransformation of the UN Role

BERTRAND RAMCHARAN

Springer Biographies

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13617

http://www.springer.com/series/13617

Bertrand Ramcharan

The Advent of UniversalProtection of Human RightsTheo van Boven and the Transformationof the UN Role

Bertrand RamcharanAirlie MountAlyth, UK

ISSN 2365-0613 ISSN 2365-0621 (electronic)Springer BiographiesISBN 978-3-030-02220-4 ISBN 978-3-030-02221-1 (eBook)https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02221-1

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018958717

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of thematerial is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or informationstorage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodologynow known or hereafter developed.The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publicationdoes not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevantprotective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in thisbook are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors orthe editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for anyerrors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictionalclaims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: Copyright, Theo van Boven

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AGThe registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02221-1

From left to right: Antoine van Dongen, Dutch Human Rights Delegate; Nigel Rodley, LegalAdvisor of Amnesty International; Theo van Boven, Professor of International Law (MaastrichtUniversity); Judge Jakob Moller, Head of the Petitions Branch in the UN Centre for Human Rights.Photo Taken in Oslo (1987) by Bertrand Ramcharan

Theo van Boven’s Plea for Justice

The Commission on Human Rights should bethe repository of the conscience of the UnitedNations as well as of its moral authority.Herein lies its potential in the United Nationssystem. It is the Commission’s responsibilityto work for justice in international andnational society and to give guidance indirections conducive to respect for humanrights and human dignity. It is also itsresponsibility to strive to bring back into linerecalcitrant members of the internationalcommunity who may depart from theinternational standards of conduct laid downin the human rights code. It is against thesetests of its responsibilities that theCommission should be measured.

Address at the opening meeting of the thirty-fifth session of the Commission on HumanRights. Geneva, 12 February, 1979

Questions of survival affect the vulnerable, thedisadvantaged, the dispossessed, the deprivedand many weak groups of society. Today’sworld is one which often demonstrates a lackof solidarity. Ideologies and practices

proliferate which are based on, andpropagate, unbounded freedom for thepowerful and the strong. The free play of theactivities of the powerful and the strong aswell as of naked market forces may, and oftendo, lead to the marginalization of the weak,the destruction of their rights and, oftenthreaten their very survival. ‘Survival of thefittest’ is an anti-human rights notion.Freedom is not only for the strong, but for theweak also, and any society which is incapableof demonstrating the will and the solidaritythat is necessary to provide and guaranteehuman rights for the weak also is a societywhich is far removed from the realization ofhuman rights.One sees daily, as one comes into contact withconcrete human rights problems, or indiscussions in human rights organs that manyproblems of human rights have economic rootcauses. It has been convincingly demonstratedthat most situations of racial discriminationare associated with economic exploitation.The discriminated, the disadvantaged, thedeprived or the down-trodden in many partsof the world, are often kept in suppressionbecause powerful, dominant groups orinterests benefit from their exploitation.

Address in Managua, Nicaragua,14 December, 1981

Foreword

First of all, I wish to express my appreciation to the author, who was my SpecialAssistant when I served as Director of the Division of Human Rights when weworked closely, and with whom I have enjoyed a deep friendship now over almostfive decades. I should also like to express my appreciation to the staff of the Divisionof Human Rights during my tenure as Director. I value all of their contributionsgreatly, and this book attests to our work together.

As a United Nations (UN) staff member engaged with my colleagues in commonendeavours to promote and protect human rights, I continued to be mindful of Article100 of the United Nations Charter. This provision articulates the duty that asinternational officials responsible only to the Organization they shall not seek orreceive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to theOrganization. This principle was highly valued by the sadly perished former Secre-tary-General Dag Hammarskjöld. It is counted as an integral part of his moral andpolitical code.

The publisher’s anonymous reader of the manuscript of this book, after positivelyassessing its ‘important contributions’, suggested that ‘. . . the reader wishes to knowsomething about the UN reaction concerning nowadays’ human rights violationsworldwide. Many people miss an adequate reaction by the UN. . . . Therefore [one]should give an assessment of today’s situation. What are the tasks for the successorsof Theo van Boven to give the UN a voice again? What are the next steps concerningthe stronger involvement of the UN?’ This is an important comment and, with theconcurrence of the book’s author, I shall try to devote a good deal of this foreword toresponding it.

It is good to recall that my period as Director coincided with the human rightsleadership of President Jimmy Carter in the USA and which helped provide apositive environment in seeking to develop the protection capacity of the UN inthe field of human rights. It may also be recalled that President Carter articulated aForeign Policy giving priority to respect human rights worldwide. Many friends inthe world of human rights NGOs joined in this endeavour, and I am grateful to all ofthem for their support for the efforts recounted in this book.

ix

Since this book presents at some length the various initiatives I undertook to helpdevelop a protection capacity at the UN, I will leave it to the reader to acquaintherself or himself with my efforts. I will concentrate on addressing the issue of thecontemporary voice and protection capacity of the United Nations in an era when,unfortunately, gross violations of human rights are rampant all over the world.

It will be seen from the pages of this book that I sought to plead and actthroughout my tenure as Director that the UN should do its utmost to help preventand stop violations of human rights and should strive for justice, redress andreparation for the victims. I must therefore say that it troubles me deeply to see thecontinuing and shocking violations of human rights that are taking place in so manyparts of the world and to see the absence of justice for the victims.

How should the UN deal with the contemporary crisis of protection? Thefundamental problem for the UN is that the very governments that control it arethe ones that commit severe violations of human rights. And nowadays, as wasrecently proposed in the UN Human Rights Council, powerful countries such asChina and Russia insist on ‘cooperation and dialogue’ rather than principled denun-ciation of gross violations of human rights.

How can the UN overcome this? UN fact-finders, collectively known as ‘specialprocedures’, each year compile reports of gross violations by numerous countries allover the world. But their work is largely unknown to the general public. This is anurgent problem that needs to be tackled. The UN should do more to publicize thefindings of its fact-finders.

One way of doing this would be for the Office of High Commissioner for HumanRights to compile each year a report summarizing the allegations against the variouscountries, together with, if available, reference to the responses of the countriesconcerned. Such a world report on gross violations of human rights could bedisseminated widely and given high profile by the media.

High Commissioners for Human Rights do speak out often against allegations ofgross violations of human rights. But in the future they should do more to helpprevent such violations and to bring them to an end as swiftly as possible. Greaterfocus is called for on the preventive role of the High Commissioner.

The UN Secretary-General is, or should be, the moral leader of the world. Thedynamic exercise of the good offices of the Secretary-General can make a usefulcontribution. For example, as we write, four million people, Muslims, are in dangerof being expelled from the Indian State of Assam, where they have lived for a longtime. If this happens it will be a blot on the image of the UN and its Secretary-General. The Secretary-General should use his good offices to the maximum to helpprevent such an outcome.

The UN Human Rights Council does some good work, but it is also a politicizedbody. Its Universal Periodic Review system is uncommitted and many governmentssimply go through the process pro forma. Based on the documentation assembled forthe periodic review, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights(OHCHR) should publish every 5 years a World Report on National ProtectionSystems, outlining what each country is doing to prevent gross violations and to

x Foreword

protect human rights and identifying gaps in the national protection system of eachcountry.

While the Human Rights Council criticizes some countries repeatedly, it fails tocriticize numerous other countries that are committing gross violations of humanrights. This makes the system inequitable. The UN Secretary-General should launcha World Court Against Gross Violations of Human Rights to which he could refersituations when the Human Rights Council fails to take action.

The UN Security Council can also play a stronger role. For example, when aCommission of Inquiry reported, with superb documentation and reasoning, oncriminal violations of human rights being committed in North Korea, the SecurityCouncil should take action, which it declined to do in the North Korean case.

On the promotion side, the international community can help the United Nationsto disseminate human rights and to promote human rights education worldwide insupport of a universal culture of human rights. More is to be done by supporters ofthe United Nations to help disseminate human rights norms and to promote humanrights education.

A concrete project that research institutions might help with would be to assembleand disseminate, especially in local languages, to every national court a ‘Handbookof the Jurisprudence of United Nations expert bodies’, such as the Human RightsCommittee, on the jurisprudence of international human rights law. At the end of theday, we must look to national courts to protect human rights and providing them withthe international jurisprudence would help in this regard.

There is thus much fresh thinking required to take forward the quest for protectionthat is summarized in this book. I hope that this book will help to stimulate suchreflection.

University of Maastricht, Maastricht,The Netherlands4 August 2018

Theo van Boven

Foreword xi

Preface

When the United Nations Charter was drafted at San Francisco in 1945, the majorpowers decided that the world body should be granted the competence only to promoteinternational cooperation for the universal realization of human rights. They rejected theidea that the Organization should be given competence to protect human rights as well.The Security Council, which has mandatory powers under Chapter 7 of the Charter, wasconfined to dealing with issues of international peace and security, not human rights.

As thousands of petitions streamed in to the UN from victims of human rightsviolations in different parts of the world, especially from Eastern Europe, theCommission of Human Rights, again led by the major powers, and presided overby Mrs Eleanor Roosevelt of the USA, decided in 1947 that it lacked competence todeal with these petitions. Petitions received were filed without action.

As the Commission on Human Rights set about the task entrusted to it in theCharter to draft an International Bill of Rights, it decided that the Bill would consistof three parts: a declaration, one or more treaties and measures of implementation.1

But a limited scope was given to implementation. Implementation would be mainlyfor national governments. Internationally, designated UN bodies would considernational reports, and optional petitions and fact-finding procedures were chosen,which, to this day, do not have universal acceptance. Protection was still not in sight.

As newly independent countries entered the United Nations in the 1960s, theyinitiated the establishment of Special Committees of the General Assembly dealingwith apartheid and with decolonization. Petitions were considered and hearingsorganized. A limited measure of protection thus began at the UN, but it was confinedto designated areas.

In the middle of the 1960s, the newly independent countries pressed for the Commis-sion on Human Rights to start dealing with violations of human rights.2 In consequence,

1See Schwelb (1959), on the impact of the Universal Declaration.2See Jensen (2016) and Burke (2013). Unfortunately, Jensen does not treat the developments in the1960s concerning the handling of allegations of gross violations of human rights.

xiii

the Commission on Human Rights inscribed on its agenda in 1967 an item, ‘Question ofviolations of human rights in any part of the world, particularly colonial and dependentterritories.’ The Commission began an annual debate on this item in which governmentsand NGOs could voice their concerns over alleged violations of human rights.

The Commission on Human Rights would sometimes adopt resolutionsexpressing concern and, in two instances, designated fact-finders to look into allegedviolations of human rights in Southern Africa and in the Palestinian territoriesoccupied by Israel during the Arab-Israel war of 1967. In 1975, the Commissionestablished a fact-finding group to look into allegations of violations of human rightsafter the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende inChile. In a few instances, the Commission sent a telegram to governmentsexpressing concern over reported violations.3

In 1970, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the parent body of theCommission on Human Rights, established a confidential procedure under which theCommission could take limited action on petitions that appeared to reveal a consis-tent pattern of reliably attested gross violations of human rights. The Commissionconsidered the first set of such situations in 1975.4

This was basically the situation when Theodoor Cornelis van Boven took over asDirector of the Division of Human Rights in the spring of 1977. At this time, twotreaty-based bodies, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination andthe Human Rights Committee, had just begun the process of considering nationalreports under their respective treaties.

During the 5 years he served as Director of the UN Division of Human Rights(1977), Theo van Boven led the transformation of the role of the UN in responding toallegations of gross violations of human rights and pioneered the advent of universalprotection for the first time in the history of the world body. This book is an accountof how he led this transformation. It shows him:

• Providing leadership in the quest for protection.• Proposing idea after idea for UN protection of the victims of gross violations of

human rights. These included the establishment of thematic and country rappor-teurs and working groups and ideas that would come to be implemented later forthe establishment of field offices and field representatives.

• Charting course towards the establishment of a UN forum for indigenous peoplesthe world over to bring their claims for justice.

• Giving voice to the victims of gross violations.• Promoting international cooperation for more, and effective, national institutions

for the protection of human rights.• Leading initiatives for the establishment of regional institutions for the protection

of human rights in Africa and in Asia and the Pacific.• Practising partnership for the promotion and protection of human rights with

NGOs, UN agencies and regional organizations.

3See Ramcharan (1988).4See Schreiber (1975), on UN practice in the field of human rights protection at this time, andMoller (1979), on the UN petition system at that time.

xiv Preface

• Engaging in good offices and diplomacy on behalf of victims.• Urging that the UN must deal not only with the symptoms of gross violations, but

with their root causes as well, notably lack of political, economic and socialjustice.

• Launching a World Information Campaign for the Protection of Human Rights.• Spearheading the process that led to the upgrading of the Division of Human

Rights to a Centre for Human Rights.

Without a doubt, van Boven led the advent of universal protection andtransformed the role of the United Nations in dealing with human rights. To thisday, the protection actors and procedures in use at the UN led, as from 1994, by aHigh Commissioner for Human Rights are largely those brought in by van Boven. Itis a remarkable achievement, and the story is told in the pages that follow.

It took considerable courage and independence to bring these dynamic policiesabout. Writing in 1992 about the role of the UN Secretariat, van Boven recalled:

During the 1978 session of the Commission [onHumanRights] the representative of the USSR[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics] insisted repeatedly that, in view of relevant GeneralAssembly resolutions, the Division of Human Rights had to comply with the principle ofequitable geographical distribution of posts, and that this principle should apply not onlywith respect to the Secretariat as a whole but to each division or administrative unit. AsDirectorof the Division [of HumanRights], I replied in essence that, in the light of the various criteria forthe employment of staff laid down in Article 101 of the Charter and the wording of the relevantAssembly resolutions, the principle was applicable to the Secretariat as a whole but notautomatically to each and every individual unit of the Secretariat. I also insisted that thedistribution and utilization of staff in the various units of the Secretariat is a question of internaladministration and efficiency and that the work of the Division had to be organized in the mostefficient and rational manner. The real motivation of the USSR’s complaint was their wish tosee an East European staff member assigned to the Communications Unit which handlescomplaints from individuals and private groups, including, naturally, complaints pertainingto the USSR. The management of the Division never yielded to this desire of the USSR. At thefollowing session of the Commission the Soviet delegate repeated the same criticism and alsomade other remarks critical of the leadership of theDivision. These related tomatters such as theviews expressed in opening statements and at press briefings, the circulation of NGO docu-ments critical of General Assembly Resolutions. . .etc. (Italics added).5

Alyth, UK Bertrand Ramcharan

References

Burke, R (2013) Decolonization and the Evolution of International Human Rights.Pennsylvania University Press, Philadelphia

Coomans F, et al, (Eds.) (2000) Human Rights from Exclusion to Inclusion; Prin-ciples and Practice. An Anthology of the Work of Theo van Boven. Kluwer LawInternational, The Hague

5See Coomans et al. (2000), p. 163.

Preface xv

Jensen SLB (2016) The Making of International Human Rights. The 1960s, Decol-onization and the Reconstruction of Global Values. Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press, 2016

Moller, JT (1979) Petitioning the United Nations. Universal Human Rights 1: 57-72Ramcharan BG (1988) The Concept and Present Status of the International Protec-

tion of Human Rights. Martinus Nijhoff, The HagueSchreiber, Marc (1975) La Pratique Recente Des Nations Unies Dans Le Domaine

De La Protection Des Droits De L’Homme, Collected Courses of The HagueAcademy of International, II: 298-398

Schwelb E (1959) The Influence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights onInternational and National Law. American Society of International Law Pro-ceedings: 217-229

xvi Preface

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Leadership in the Quest for Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.2 Leadership and Key Protection Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.2.1 The Human Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2.2 The Centrality of Human Rights and Human Rights

Strategies of Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2.3 The Protection of Human Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.3 Flagrant Violations of Human Rights Scandalize Any Notionof World Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.3.1 Dealing with Urgent Situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.3.2 Direct Contacts and Dialogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.3.3 Widespread, Deliberate Killings: Appointment of a

Thematic Rapporteur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.3.4 Fact-Finding; Field Officers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.3.5 The Protection of Vulnerable Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.3.6 Combatting Racism and Racial Discrimination . . . . . . . 112.3.7 Information and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.3.8 Strengthening the Human Rights Secretariat . . . . . . . . . 11

2.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

xvii

3 Breakthroughs in Universal Protection at the UN: CountryInvestigations, Thematic Investigations, Protection of HumanRights Defenders. Initiative for a High Commissioner . . . . . . . . . . . 153.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.2 Special Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.2.1 The First Country Rapporteur: Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163.2.2 The First Thematic Investigation: Disappearances . . . . . 193.2.3 The First Thematic Rapporteur: Arbitrary and Summary

Executions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233.3 Establishment of the Working Group on Indigenous Issues

and Protection of Human Rights Defenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253.4 Initiative for the Establishment of the Post of UN High

Commissioner for Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4 Breakthroughs in Protection of the Vulnerable:Indigenous Peoples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314.2 World Order and the Protection of the Vulnerable . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.2.1 Gross Violations: Children’s Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334.2.2 Victims of Slavery and Slavery-Like Practices . . . . . . . 344.2.3 Victims of Female Genital Mutilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354.2.4 Establishment of the Working Group on Indigenous

Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5 Voice for the Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435.2 The Cries of the Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.2.1 Justice and Conscience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445.2.2 Disregard of Gross Violations of Human Rights . . . . . . 45

5.3 The Human Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465.3.1 Protection of Human Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

5.4 Indication of Protective Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

6 The Push for National Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516.2 Major Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

6.2.1 At the General Assembly in 1977 and the Commissionon Human Rights in 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

6.2.2 The 1978 Seminar on National and Local Institutionsfor the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights . . . . 53

xviii Contents

6.2.3 The Guidelines Prepared by the 1978 Seminar . . . . . . . 546.2.4 The Paris Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

6.3 The UN and National Human Rights Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

7 The Push for Regional Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597.2 Policy Initiatives Aimed at Establishing Regional Protection

Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607.2.1 Re-activating Efforts for the Establishment of Further

Regional Commissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607.2.2 Initiative for an African Commission on Human and

Peoples’ Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607.2.3 Monrovia (Liberia) Seminar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617.2.4 Advice on the Establishment of a Regional Commission

for Asia and the Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627.2.5 Initiative for an Asian Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 647.2.6 Encouragement of Arab Regional Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . 66

7.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

8 Human Rights Good Offices and Diplomacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698.2 Exercise of Good Offices and Diplomacy in the Support

of Petitions Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698.2.1 van Boven and the Petitions Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

8.3 Exercise of Good Offices in Geneva and New York . . . . . . . . . . 748.4 Submission of Cases for the Exercise of Good Offices

by the Secretary-General of the Under-Secretary-Generalin Charge of the Human Rights Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 758.4.1 Providing a File of Cases for Good Offices Action

When the Secretary-General Visited Governments . . . . 768.5 Encouraging Recognition by the Commission on Human Rights

of the Potential Role of Good Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 778.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

9 Partnership for Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 799.2 Bringing NGOs into the UN Protection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

9.2.1 Defending the Right of NGOs to Make Writtenand Oral Submissions About Gross Violationsof Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

9.2.2 Defending the Right of NGOs to Choose TheirRepresentatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Contents xix

9.2.3 Maintaining Relations of Confidence with the Leadersof NGOs for the Advancement of Protection . . . . . . . . 81

9.2.4 Cooperating Closely with NGO Representativesin the Shaping of Protection Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

9.2.5 Discreet Relations with NGO Representatives in theProcess of Handling Petitions About Situations of GrossViolations of Man Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

9.2.6 Partnering with NGOs in Dealing with ThematicViolations Such as Racism and Racial Discrimination . . . 83

9.3 Human Rights Defenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 849.4 Transmittal of Petitions by UN Field Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 859.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

10 Tackling the Root Causes as Well as the Symptomsof Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8710.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8710.2 Dealing with Root Causes as Well as Symptoms

of Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8710.3 The Human Factor in Relation to Structural Issues . . . . . . . . . . 88

10.3.1 Implementation of Economic, Socialand Cultural Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

10.3.2 Study on the Right to Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9010.3.3 Draft Declaration on the Rights to Development . . . . . . 91

10.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

11 A World Information Campaign for the Protectionof Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9911.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9911.2 The Grass Roots Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10011.3 Public Information for Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

11.3.1 A Survey of UN Information Centres on Their Needsfor Information Materials on Human Rights . . . . . . . . . 101

11.3.2 Joint Task Force on the Enhancement of PublicInformation Activities in the Field of Human Rights . . . 102

11.3.3 Policy Resolutions in the Commissionon Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

11.3.4 The World Public Information Campaign on HumanRights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

11.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

12 Overall Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

13 Afterword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

xx Contents

Annex A: van Boven’s Vision Statement, 1977: Problemsand Strategies in the Area of Human Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Annex B: van Boven Breaks the Ban on NGOs Raising GrossViolations Before the Commission on Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Annex C: Effective Action Against Mass and Flagrant Violationsof Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Annex D: Good Offices Role of the Secretary-General in the Fieldof Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Annex E: Draft Resolution on the Establishment of the Postof UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Annex F: Division of Human Rights Draft Resolution, 1980,on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances Leadingto the Establishment of the First Global Investigative Group,Marking the Advent of Universal Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Annex G: Division of Human Rights Draft Resolution, 1980,on the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, Leadingto the Adoption of a Declaration and Establishment of a GlobalProtective Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Annex H: Division of Human Rights Draft Resolution, 1981,on the Establishment of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations,a Global Protective Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Annex I: Division of Human Rights Draft Resolution, 1982,on Arbitrary and Summary Executions Leading to the Establishmentof a Global Protective Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Annex J: Division of Human Rights Draft Resolution, 1980,on the Development of Public Information Activities in the Fieldof Human Rights (Leading to a World Campaign) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Annex K: Division of Human Rights Draft Declaration on the Rightto Development, 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Contents xxi

Abbreviations

ECOSOC Economic and Social Council (of the UN)AICHR ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission of Human RightsFAO Food and Agriculture OrganizationGANHRI Global Alliance for NHRIsICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsICERD International Convention on the Elimination of Racial DiscriminationICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural RightsILO International Labour OrganizationNGO Non-governmental OrganizationNHRI National Human Rights InstitutionOAS Organization of American StatesOHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human RightsUN United NationsUNESCO United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural OrganizationUNICs United Nations Information CentresUSSR Union of Soviet Socialist RepublicsWHO World Health Organization

xxiii

Chapter 1Introduction

Abstract Upon joining the UN to take forward a human rights policy agenda, Theovan Boven marshalled his compassion, courage, education, intellect, strong princi-ples and pragmatism to shape policies that would orient the UN towards realprotection of human rights.

Keywords Theo van Boven, joining the Division of Human Rights · Human Rightsand the Cold War · Policy innovations aimed at protection of human rights

By the time Theodoor Cornelis van Boven became Director of the UN Division ofHuman Rights at the age of forty-three, he had been a student of human rights,studied at the Southern Methodist University in Texas, earned a doctorate on thetopic of religious freedom, had been a member of the Dutch Ministry of ForeignAffairs for nearly two decades, had taught human rights at the University ofAmsterdam, had been at the side of the Dutch human rights representative at theUN General Assembly and the UN Commission on Human Rights, Father Beaufort,and had himself been both Dutch representative on the Commission on HumanRights and a member of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination andProtection ofMinorities. Besides, he had played an active part in theWorld Councilof Churches and had close relations with members and leaders of non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) such as Amnesty International, the International Commissionof Jurists, the International League for Human Rights, and the International Feder-ation of Human Rights.

He was a principled man of deep religious and moral convictions while being, atthe same time, friendly and engaging, at times even jolly. A good human being, heloved ice-cream and the occasional cigar after a meal. He was married to thebeautiful and supportive Anne-Marie and had two lovely children, a son and adaughter.

He believed in the mission of the UN and came to the secretariat wanting to makea difference. At the start of his tenure, when he asked this author to be “a one-manthink-tank” in his immediate office he told him: “I am not going to make this a

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018B. Ramcharan, The Advent of Universal Protection of Human Rights,Springer Biographies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02221-1_1

1

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/978-3-030-02221-1_1&domain=pdf

career; I am going to do the best I can and then move on. So, please don’t hold meback”.

At about the time he joined the Division of Human Rights, he had just written anessay in a book in honour of Dutch Professor of International law A.J.P. Tammes onthe topic, “Partners in the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights”.1 He arguedthere that the UN must work in close cooperation with those bodies that couldcontribute to the human rights cause, particularly human rights NGOs. He gavepractical expression to this in his on-going consultations with NGO representativessuch as Martin Ennals, Secretary-General of Amnesty International, NiallMacDermot, Secretary-General of the International Commission of Jurists, RobertaCohen, Executive Director of the International League for Human Rights, andothers.

He also kept in close touch with the human rights leadership of UN SpecializedAgencies such as International Labour Organisation (ILO), United Nations Edu-cational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the World Health Orga-nization (WHO), and with the heads of the regional human rights bodies at theCouncil of Europe and the Organisation of American States (OAS). During histenure, he had annual meetings with the human rights leadership of the principalregional organizations and UN specialized agencies dealing with human rights. Heworked closely with delegates, experts, and Ambassadors serving in Geneva. Heorganized regular receptions at his home for these different actors and also organizedor attended working luncheons and dinners with them.

In short, he practiced partnership, even if the world was, at the time, quitecomplex, with the Cold War in full swing and with the two adversaries in the ColdWar, the East and the West, locking horns on human rights issues.

To take forward a human rights policy agenda required intellect, policies, cour-age, consultations, leadership and a principled as well as a pragmatic approach. vanBoven drew on all of these.

One of his first concerns as he came into office was to neutralize a resolutionadopted by the ECOSOC just before he arrived that had directed that NGOs couldnot circulate written submissions or make oral statements in the Commission onHuman Rights that were critical of governments. He asked this author to give priorityto this issue. The end result was a policy that effectively neutralized the resolution, apolicy that we shall relate in a subsequent chapter.

From the outset of his tenure, van Boven began highlighting the need for the UNto take action to deal with gross violations of human rights. His approach, whenaddressing the opening sessions of the Commission on Human Rights in particular,was to set out a major objective and two or three supplementary ones. He soughtaction from the Commission to respond to situations of gross violations of humanrights, to take urgent action on such situations, to organize fact-finding missions, toengage in a dialogue with governments.

1van Boven (1977), pp. 55–71.

2 1 Introduction

van Boven’s method was to propose an initiative and to have in readiness a draftresolution on the action required, prepared in consultation with key delegations andNGOs. This way, a friendly delegation or delegations could sponsor and steer aresolution to passage. Two early examples of this, which we shall discuss later in thisbook, were the initiatives to establish a Working Group to investigate situations ofEnforced Disappearances, and to appoint the first-ever rapporteur to engage in fact-finding on a country situation, the special rapporteur on the situation of human rightsin Chile.

The practice in those days was that the Director of the Human Rights Divisionmade an introductory statement at the start of each substantive item on the agenda ofthe Commission, the Sub-Commission, or the Social and Humanitarian Committeeof the General Assembly. In these statements, van Boven would make substantivesuggestions as to how the issue might be tackled.

van Boven launched initiatives in a variety of areas. This was a rolling processover the five years and involved action within the secretariat, such as the establish-ment of a task-force on public information activities in the field of human rights, goodoffices actions to deal with individual petitions, proposals for regional commissionson human rights in Africa, and in Asia and the Pacific, ideas for ‘direct contacts’ withGovernments in capitals over situations of international concern, approaches to theinfluential Non-Aligned Movement on its human rights policy, the developmenthuman rights education and information, and a variety of other initiatives.

In this book we shall present these initiatives thematically, keeping in mind thatideas were launched in a rolling process over the 5 years. In the first chapter we shallset out his leadership ideas in the quest for protection. In Chap. 2 we shall set out hispush for national protection through encouragement of more, and more effective,national human rights institutions (NHRIs). In Chap. 3 we shall discuss his push forregional institutions in Africa, and in Asia and the Pacific, while, in Chap. 4 we shalldiscuss his push for action within the United Nations. In Chap. 5 we shall see himserving as a voice for the victims of violations of human rights. In Chap. 6 we shalldiscuss his practice of human rights good offices and diplomacy. In Chap. 7, we shalldiscuss his pursuit of partnership with the broader human rights movement. InChap. 8, we discuss a historic initiative leading to the establishment of the WorkingGroup on Indigenous Issues. In Chap. 9, we shall look at his programmaticapproach, namely that the UN must deal not only with the symptoms of humanrights violations but also with their root causes. In the final chapter, Chap. 10, weshall discuss his initiatives for the dissemination of information on human rights andfor the development of human rights education. We round the book off with someconcluding observations.

We append a short list of references relevant to the topics discussed in this book.

Reference

van Boven TC (1977) “Partners in the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights”, in NetherlandsInternational Law Review 24: 55–71.

Reference 3

Chapter 2Leadership in the Quest for Protection

Abstract Theo van Boven’s leadership sparked important policy innovations thattransformed the United Nations capacity to engage in the protection of human rights.Whereas victims of violations of human rights had been petitioning the UN for along time, it was during van Boven’s tenure that the UN developed the policies,mechanisms and procedures that finally enabled the UN to hear these petitions and toact on them.

Keywords The human factor · UN protection of human rights · The petitionssystem · Special procedures · Dealing with urgent situations · Fact finding

2.1 Introduction

One sees throughout Theodoor van Boven’s tenure as Director of the Division ofHuman Rights courageous leadership in a determined quest for better international,regional and national protection of human rights. He kept calling for effectiveprotection and made successive proposals as to how this could be done. Several ofhis ideas were adopted, such as the designation of rapporteurs or working groups toexamine situations of gross violations, or to examine thematic phenomena such asenforced and involuntary disappearances; arbitrary and summary executions; theestablishment of a working group on the rights of indigenous populations; and theundertaking of direct contacts and dialogue with governments of countries wheregross violations of human rights were allegedly taking place. Even where they werenot immediately implemented at the time, they influenced subsequent actions on, forexample, the consideration of urgent situations, the designation of fact-finders, theappointment of field offices, and regional representatives.

In this chapter we provide illustrations of van Boven’s leadership in the quest forprotection.


5


2.2 Leadership and Key Protection Strategies

2.2.1 The Human Factor

van Boven told the Commission on Human Rights in his opening address in 1981:

The interdependence between human rights, peace and development means that freedomfrom fear and freedom from want belong as much to the heart of the concept of human rightsas political freedoms. This same interdependence assumes and requires that the widerrecognition and acceptance of the human factor be made the central theme in all humanendeavours. One of the most important challenges for the United Nations is the elaborationand implementation of approaches to problems, and strategies for solving them, which arebased on respect for human rights.

In all human activities, we should begin by identifying the human factor and ascertainingwhat those activities will involve for human beings and how their human rights will beaffected.1

2.2.2 The Centrality of Human Rights and Human RightsStrategies of Governance

van Boven appealed to the Social and Humanitarian Committee (the Third Com-mittee) of the UN General Assembly in 1977:

I tend to think it is not recognized enough how central and crucial human rights, and relatedhumanitarian and social factors, have been in reshaping the structures of international societyand, to a certain extent also, of national societies. The great international issues of our timescan all be framed, argued, and contested on the terrain of human rights – issues of war andpeace, self-determination, colonialism, racism, apartheid, the preservation and conservationof the environment, development, population, food, poverty, the establishment of a newinternational economic order, a new social order and new human orders.

. . .One of the most important challenges of our times is for us to work out human rights

approaches to problems and human rights strategies for solving them. Human rightsapproaches and strategies do not, on any reasoning, imply narrow perspectives. The Charterplaces the promotion and encouragement of respect for human rights prominently among theother fundamental purposes of the United Nations such as the maintenance of internationalpeace and security and the creation of conditions for economic and social progress anddevelopment. The interdependence between human rights, peace and development meansthat freedom from fear and freedom from want belong as much to the heart of the concept ofhuman rights as political freedoms. The same interdependence assumes and requires that thehuman factor be made the central theme in all our endeavours. Too often this human factor ismade subordinate to the whims of power, to economic and financial convenience and tomilitary considerations. Among the global issues which beset us, a profound and constantconcern for the individual human rights and freedoms of all humanity should have the

1van Boven (1982), p. 63.

6 2 Leadership in the Quest for Protection

highest priority. If we fail in our approach to this absolutely basic challenge, our success inother fields will be hollow indeed.2

2.2.3 The Protection of Human Life

van Boven’s opening address to the Commission on Human Rights on 1 February,1982, carried the title, ‘Protection of Human Life’. He stated, inter alia:

Over the past few years, I have had the opportunity of addressing the Commission on varioushuman rights concerns and particularly the urgency of dealing with violations of humanrights. . . . However, as I had occasion to say at the opening of the last session of theCommission, our debates tend to be somewhat abstract at times and somewhat distant fromreality. Today, I would like to touch on an issue which, on any account, must be consideredamong the most basic and fundamental questions on the human rights agenda: namely, thesecurity of human life and the need to stop deliberate violations of the right to life.3

The role of the Commission on Human Rights with respect to the right to life, is parexcellence to focus on the protection of the human person, physically and mentally, and toprevent deliberate killings perpetrated by organized power.4

We discuss the central submissions of this address in a later chapter.

2.3 Flagrant Violations of Human Rights Scandalize AnyNotion of World Order

In his opening address of 1981, van Boven told the Commission on Human Rights:

Gross violations of human rights which occur in various parts of the world scandalize anynotion of world order. For if we believe in the equality and interdependence of all humanbeings and if we believe in the duty of solidarity in the realization of human rights, we cannotrest content when human rights are being flagrantly violated in any part of the world.Nevertheless, as I have had occasion to point out to the Commission before, our methodsfor tackling violations of human rights are still in their infancy and are often inadequate todeal with the problem faced.

. . .[I]n many instances since the end of the Second World War, violations of humanrights occurring within countries have resulted in levels of human suffering far greater thanthose ensuing from many disputes or conflicts between two or more States. In one country,for example, the Commission was informed by an expert rapporteur that over a millionpersons had been killed.5 Reports pertaining to human rights situations in many othercountries reveal terrible human sufferings on massive scales. When such events occur,without adequate response by the United Nations, can there be any pretense that there is afunctioning world order or that the universal peace which it is one of the purposes of the

2van Boven (1982), pp. 15–17.3van Boven (1982), p. 63.4van Boven (1982), p. 76.5van Boven was referring here to Cambodia under Pol Pot.

2.3 Flagrant Violations of Human Rights Scandalize Any Notion of World Order 7

United Nations to strengthen, still exists? Do not serious violations of human rights, evenmore than threatening world peace, also violate it manifestly? In its modern concept, peace isa dynamic and indivisible concept and it is impossible to separate the internal, internationalor universal components.6

2.3.1 Dealing with Urgent Situations

In his opening address to the Commission on Human Rights in 1980, van Bovenasked it:

How . . . do we handle urgent situations, particularly between sessions of the Commission?. . .How do we identify situations of violations for the attention of the Commission? Is this

left too much to political convenience? Is there a case for the Commission to requestannually, probably from one of its members acting as special rapporteur, a ‘world reporton human rights’ to form the basis of its consideration of the item on situations of humanrights? Such a report, based on the international standards, would be in line with the globalapproach to human rights called for in resolution 32/130 of the General Assembly. (Empha-sis added).7

. . .Furthermore, after the Commission has identified a situation as being one about which it

should act, to what extent does it apply measured or balanced criteria in deciding upon theresponse to the situation? Is the decision to be taken left too much to individual govern-mental initiative, or is there a role for the Bureau of the Commission in weighing andmeasuring the response to be made?8

He returned to this theme in 1981:

I should like to touch. . .on one particularly important aspect of the United Nations responseto violations of human rights, namely, the handling of urgent situations. . . .I could point tomany situations of gross violations of human rights which found little or no place in the workof the Commission or of other United Nations organs, or, if they did, took many months – ifnot years – to reach there. This Commission meets once a year and then departs until its nextsession twelve months hence. While some situations are occasionally raised at the Economicand Social Council or the General Assembly, there is not on the agenda of either of thesebodies regularly, a general item on urgent situations of violations of human rights. The resultis that the anguished cries of human beings in many parts of the world all too often find noresponse in our midst. I am convinced that the United Nations must devise appropriate waysand means of responding as urgently as possible to situations of gross violations of humanrights which arise.9

6van Boven (1982), pp. 72–73.7van Boven (1982), pp. 65–66.8Ibid.9Ibid, p. 73.


2.3.2 Direct Contacts and Dialogue

van Boven suggested to the Commission on Human Rights in 1979:

Models of action for establishing more direct contacts between itself [the Commission] andGovernments experiencing difficulties in the field of human rights might. . .be considered. Insituations giving rise to international concern, for example, a member of the Commission oran international expert designated by it to enter into contact with the Government concernedmay be a useful way of bringing the presence of the international community to bear uponthe situation and of establishing a dialogue with the Government concerned, with a view toassisting it in the difficulties which it is encountering.10

2.3.3 Widespread, Deliberate Killings: Appointment of aThematic Rapporteur

van Boven addressed the subject of widespread, deliberate killings in his openingaddress to the Commission in 1982. We reproduce more of this address in a laterchapter. After presenting the problem to the Commission in some detail, he asked:

How are we to act? This, of course, is a matter for you, the representatives of States entrustedwith the powers of decision. I will simply indicate some of the options which appear to beavailable. The protection of human life and the prevention of killings could become onepriority theme of the Commission in its future programme and in taking up concretesituations involving gross and consistent violations of human rights. This theme couldalso be the focus of consideration in the context of the thirty-fifth anniversary of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights which is to be commemorated next year. Perhapsa Special Rapporteur could be designated to examine the question and situations of delib-erate killings and the taking of human lives by organized power and submit a report to theCommission at one of its future sessions. Perhaps a high-level meeting of experts could beconvened to examine these questions and situations and to report to the Commission onHuman Rights. These are just a few, very modest, thoughts which come to mind. Doubtlessyou will think of others. Of one thing I am sure, though, that is: unless the Commission onHuman Rights considers these questions urgently and takes appropriate and meaningfulaction, then it will hardly be deserving of its name and the cries, and the tears, and theanguish of people on the very edge of survival will be upon our heads, all of us.11

This was the origin of the first thematic special rapporteur, on arbitrary andsummary executions, whose establishment we discuss in a later chapter. It came ontop of van Boven’s initiatives to establish the first country rapporteur, on Chile, in1978, the foundations of the eventual Declaration and Special Representative onhuman rights defenders, in 1980 the Working Group on Enforced and InvoluntaryDisappearances in 1981, and the Working Group on Indigenous Issues in 1981, allof them historic breakthroughs for the universal protection of human rights. van

10Ibid., pp. 55–56.11van Boven (1982), pp. 83–84.


Boven also did his utmost to advance the proposal to establish the post of UN HighCommissioner for Human Rights.

2.3.4 Fact-Finding; Field Officers

Addressing the opening session of the Sub-Commission in 1978, van Boven told it:

Without a doubt, fact-finding on the spot adds a dimension which is often lacking in otherprocedures for tackling violations of human rights and I would therefore strongly encouragethe development of some form of United Nations presence in situations where violations ofhuman rights are alleged to be taking place. This could take the form, e.g., of emissaries fromhuman rights organs, representatives of the Secretary-General, or fact-finding bodies. Thestage has also probably come for the United Nations to consider the establishment ofregional representatives on human rights. In this connexion, the report of the Commissionon Human Rights on its thirty-fourth session contains the interesting suggestion that humanrights field officers should be appointed in various parts of the world. In the same report ofthe Commission, ‘the idea was advanced that permanent fact-finding machinery should beestablished’, and that ‘a permanent panel of experts could be established from which one ormore members could be drawn, as needed, and entrusted with ascertaining the facts inparticular situations.’12

2.3.5 The Protection of Vulnerable Groups

van Boven told the opening session of the Commission in 1981:

. . .[T]here is growing recognition of the need for the international community to act for theprotection of vulnerable groups such as children, women, migrants, victims of ethnic orracial oppression or indigenous populations. If a human rights programme has any relevanceto people, it should first and foremost be concerned with the vulnerable, the weak, theoppressed, the exploited. They always tend to be losers and also – if I may say this in passing– those who try to defend their rights and interests often find themselves standing on thelosing side. We should be concerned with these vulnerable groups and we should seek togive them the benefit of the full protection of the international community. The plight ofindigenous peoples is often a very acute one. Frequently they are the most underrepresentedparts of the population. They often have no voice in policies and decisions which directlyaffect their basic existence or even their survival and, in many instances, they are not asorganized into interest groups as other parts of the population. This places a specialresponsibility on the international community to examine their needs and to examine waysand means of protecting their rights.13

We discuss his efforts for the protection of vulnerable groups, notably indigenouspopulations, in a later chapter.

12van Boven (1982), pp. 93–94.13van Boven (1982), p. 74.


2.3.6 Combatting Racism and Racial Discrimination

Addressing the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection ofMinorities in 1977, van Boven told it:

It may. . .be desirable to begin thinking from now on about the programme for the future. . . .I am thinking of the programme of the Decade for Action to Combat Racism and RacialDiscrimination and the role the Sub-Commission can play in the implementation of theprogramme of the Decade. I am also thinking of how the Sub-Commission may contribute tothe thirtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There is still a widefield in front of us, a field for confirming and strengthening present activities, a field also fordevising new ways and means and new departures.14

2.3.7 Information and Education

Addressing the Social and Humanitarian Committee of the UN General Assembly in1977, van Boven told it:

It is essential to make people aware of their civil and political rights as well as theireconomic, social and cultural rights by way of education and information. The UnitedNations, Governments, and all other organs of society that work for an international andsocial order in which human rights will prevail, can only succeed in their efforts if they aresupported by the minds and the hearts of all the people and by their active participation andcommitment. I believe that at this session of the Third Committee we should give particularattention to ways and means of informing people at the grass-roots level of their rights and ofhow they can participate in promoting and defending those rights as well as the rights of theirfellow human beings. I also believe that the thirtieth anniversary of the Universal Declara-tion of Human Rights will provide a suitable occasion to stimulate this process of informa-tion and education with a view to strengthening the foundations of a just social andinternational order to which all persons and peoples on this globe are entitled.15

We discuss van Boven’s push for a world campaign on human rights in a laterchapter.

2.3.8 Strengthening the Human Rights Secretariat

van Boven worked assiduously for the strengthening of the human rights secretariatand for the elevation of the status of the Division of Human Rights. He told theCommission on Human Rights in 1980:

Role of the Secretariat

14van Boven (1982), p. 74.15van Boven (1982), p. 19.


The partnership between the Commission and the Secretariat has always been close. We,the members of the Division of Human Rights are fully conscious of the responsibilityentrusted to us to serve the Commission and the international community and we shall utilizeall of our endeavours to assist the Commission to the utmost in the performance of its tasks,with the standards of commitment, objectivity and integrity which the Commission isentitled to expect and which I, personally, am determined to insist upon.16

van Boven initiated a policy paper making the case for the upgrading of theDivision of Human Rights into a Centre for Human Rights. Guided by his leadership,the Italian delegation secured the adoption of resolutions in the Commission onHuman Rights and the General Assembly supporting the upgrading.

On 9 June, 1980, William B. Buffum, Under-Secretary-General, wrote toSecretary-General Kurt Waldheim:

1. You will recall that during our recent meeting in Geneva with Mr van Boven, wediscussed the implementation of General Assembly Resolution 34/47, Commission onHuman Rights Resolution 22 and Economic and Social Council Decision X, whichrequested you to consider the redesignation of the Division of Human Rights as a Centrefor Human Rights.

. . .In view of the strong support for redesignating the Division of Human Rights as a Centre

for Human Rights and the fact that it meets the relevant administrative criteria, I recommendthat you redesignate the Division as a Centre for Human Rights.

. . .

. . .I believe. . .that making the Division a Centre headed by an Assistant Secretary-General would be an effective way to divert further pressure to establish a position ofHigh Commissioner for Human Rights.17

In 1982, shortly after the departure of van Boven from the Secretariat, theDivision of Human Rights was upgraded to a Centre for Human Rights, headed byan Assistant-Secretary-General. It should be mentioned for the historical record thatvan Boven never saw the upgrading of the Division into a Centre as an argument fordiverting attention from the establishment of the post of High Commissioner. As wehave already mentioned, he strongly supported the establishment of the post of HighCommissioner. Further evidence of this is adduced in the next chapter.

2.4 Conclusion

The foregoing initiatives speak for themselves. One sees a dynamic quest to improvethe timeliness and effectiveness of UN response to gross violations of human rights,a quest that is still being pursued at the present time, some four decades later. vanBoven’s idea of the establishment of field offices and regional representatives took

16van Boven (1982), p. 66.17Memorandum from William B. Buffum, Under-Secretary-General to Secretary-General KurtWaldheim, 9 June, 1980, Copy of Memorandum in the possession of the author.


years to come to fruition, but their time finally came following the arrival of the firstUN High Commissioner for Human Rights in 1994.

References

Memorandum fromWilliam B. Buffum, Under-Secretary-General to Secretary-General Kurt Wald-heim, 9 June, 1980. Copy of Memorandum in the possession of the author

van Boven, TC (1982) People Matter. Edited by Hans Thoolen. Amsterdam, Meulenhoff

References 13

Chapter 3Breakthroughs in Universal Protectionat the UN: Country Investigations,Thematic Investigations, Protectionof Human Rights Defenders. Initiativefor a High Commissioner

Abstract van Boven pushed for the development of universal, uniform standards ofimplementation of human rights treaties by all member States of the UN. Whereas,Hammarskjold’s took the UN from a ‘talking shop’ to an organization of action, itmay be said that that Theodoor van Boven took the human rights programme of theUnited Nations into the era of responding to gross violations of human rights.

Keywords Development of special procedures · Protection of indigenous peoplesrights · Human rights defenders

3.1 Introduction

van Boven’s push for more effective UN protection was methodical and resolute. Hehad a distinct policy framework. First, he advocated uniform standards of imple-mentation of human rights treaties, meaning that the standard of accountabilityshould be the same for all countries. The International Covenants on Human Rightshad entered into force in 1976 and the General Assembly, in 1977, adopted aframework resolution on the implementation of the Covenants. This resolutionwas drafted in the Division of Human Rights and, as adopted by the GeneralAssembly, called for ‘uniform standards of implementation’ as the measure to beused when monitoring their implementation by States Parties.

Second, van Boven sought to promote UN policy and practice for responding togross violations of human rights. In Annex III to this book, we reproduce GeneralAssembly resolution 34/175, adopted in 1979, which stressed the importance of UNorgans, including the Commission on Human Rights, taking action on such viola-tions. This resolution was drafted in the Division of Human Rights.

Third, as we shall see in a later chapter, van Boven sought to develop the exerciseof the good offices of the UN Secretary-General for the protection of human rights.In Annex IV below, we reproduce a resolution of the Commission on Human Rightson this topic, again drafted in the Division of Human Rights.


15


Uniform standards of implementation, responding to gross violations of humanrights, and the exercise of the good offices of the Secretary-General were three ofvan Boven’s solid framework policies. Another was his effort to develop humanrights fact-finding. One could see this in his first address to the Commission onHuman Rights, in 1978 in which he analyzed the practice of the Commission andmade a specific suggestion for a way of enhancing UN protection through thedesignation of country rapporteurs to examine situations of alleged gross violationsof human rights. This statement, combined with related contacts with diplomats andNGO representatives, led to the appointment of the first country rapporteur, on Chile,a precedent that would be repeated numerous times later, and that still represents apillar of UN protection efforts to this day.

van Boven told the Commission on Human Rights in 1978:

The Commission has thus far applied the following methods in dealing with allegations ofviolations of human rights: (1) Public debate; (2) Pursuing urgent measures such as thesending of telegrams; (3) Making pronouncements on particular problems such as therealization of economic, social and cultural rights and the consequences of aid given toregimes violating human rights; (5) Gathering and analyzing data; (6) Considering commu-nications; (7) Appointment of special rapporteurs; (8) Appointment of working groups ofexperts to investigate particular situations.

He continued:

The experience of other international bodies has indicated that it is sometimes a usefulmethod to appoint a single member of an organ to study a situation and to offer good offices,advice or assistance. The Commission did this in 1967 when it appointed a SpecialRapporteur to study United Nations action in its efforts to eliminate the policy and practiceof apartheid. Perhaps the Commission should give some thought to utilizing this methodmore in the future. It would be one way of acquainting the Commission with the facts of asituation, of responding to the urgently felt need that the Commission is addressing asituation in a meaningful way, and of affording a meaningful opportunity for a dialoguebetween the Commission and the Government concerned.1

The Commission followed van Boven’s suggestion and, as we shall see in thenext section, appointed that year a special rapporteur to deal with the situation ofhuman rights in Chile, a model that has been used on numerous occasions since then.

3.2 Special Procedures

3.2.1 The First Country Rapporteur: Chile

The United Nations, in 1977, had three working groups in operation: one onapartheid South Africa, one on the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 war,and a third on Chile. The first and the third consisted of five members, while thesecond consisted of three members. What this meant was that any time the working

1van Boven (1982), p. 44.

16 3 Breakthroughs in Universal Protection at the UN: Country. . .

group moved, it had to be provided with interpretation and documentation facilitiesfor five or three members. This was cumbersome and expensive. The practice ofmultiple membership had come about in order to spread the responsibility for suchinvestigations among the different regional groups of the United Nations. Probablythe investigations would not have been established without multiple membership.

It was evident, however, that, because of logistics and cost, the United Nationscould not investigate gross violations of human rights in many countries with groupsof three or five. A formula had to be found to make more fact-finding exercisespossible in more countries, as needed.

The United Nations, in 1968, had experimented with the use of a single specialrapporteur, who had examined the situations in South Africa and the OccupiedTerritories, and the International Labour Organization had an established practiceof using single emissaries to look into complaints in particular countries. Mindful ofthese precedents, van Boven pondered whether one could introduce the model of thesingle rapporteur in the United Nations human rights programme.

van Boven discussed the idea with colleagues that one might replace the workinggroup on Chile with a single rapporteur. He went for the idea and launched it in hisopening address to the Commission on Human Rights in 1978. The Commissionaccepted the idea and the first country rapporteur was appointed that year to continuethe investigations into human rights violations in Chile. Mr. Justice AbdoulayeDieye of Senegal, who had been a member of the working group on Chile, wasappointed rapporteur.

Justice Dieye had a fine intellect and a strong personality and he took charge ofthe investigations into gross violations of human rights in Chile with a firm hand.Soon, however, he would be challenged in legal submissions by the Chileangovernment. It argued that written complaints received by the Secretariat shouldbe handled in accordance with the confidential procedures for dealing with petitions.It wished to superimpose on the special rapporteur the modalities of a confidentialinvestigation. The Argentine Government would also make similar submissionswhen they had to deal with investigators probing into allegations of enforced andinvoluntary disappearances in that country. At Justice Dieye’s request, we in theDivision of Human Rights did a legal response, which he included in his report to theGeneral Assembly. Justice Dieye argued that the United Nations had the competenceto determine the means and methods of responding to allegations of gross violationsof human rights in any given situation. If the competent body, in this instance theCommission on Human Rights, felt that a confidential investigation was called for itwas at liberty to decide accordingly. If it felt that a public investigation was called forit could go that route also. In any event, it was for a fact-finder to choose the meansand methods of inquiry he or she deemed appropriate in each instance.

This was the first time, as far as one is aware, that the doctrine of free choice ofapproach and methods had been articulated by a United Nations fact-finder. Newground had been covered by this position of Justice Dieye in his report.

Nowadays the existence and operations of the special procedures of the Commis-sion on Human Rights, rapporteurs, working groups and other experts, is well-established. But in the early days it required some struggle to put them on sound

3.2 Special Procedures 17

footing.2 Governments such as that of Chile resorted to all sorts of legal subterfugesto block them. Shortly after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of HumanRights in December, 1948, when theGeneral Assembly sought to deal with apartheidin South Africa, the South African Government had also pressed in its defence legalarguments that sought to deny the competence of the United Nations to look into itsinternal affairs. In a historic decision, the General Assembly had brushed aside itsobjections and established the competence of the United Nations to deal withviolations of human rights taking place inside a country.

Now it was Chile’s turn. In a letter of 15 March, 1979 to the Secretary-General ofthe United Nations it railed against ad hoc procedures which, it contended, had nolegal basis in the United Nations system. In a letter of 17 May, 1979 to SpecialRapporteur Dieye it informed him that in accordance with the principle of the legalequality of states embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, it would not acceptany action or proceeding by the United Nations which was of an ad hoc or ad casumnature. It would cooperate only in proceedings which were universal in character orapplied on a general basis.

Under van Boven’s leadership, we in the Division of Human Rights wrote a legalresponse to these submissions in which we argued that the competence of theGeneral Assembly under the Charter was determined by its membership as awhole and therefore the Chilean Government could not decide on its own that theprocedure decided upon by the General Assembly and the Commission on HumanRights was without legal basis in the United Nations. The Government of Chilecould not substitute its judgment of legality for the judgment duly and overwhelm-ingly pronounced by the membership of the United Nations. A similar argumentwould apply in the case of the Commission on Human Rights.

The legal opinion went on to argue that in the long-standing practice of the UnitedNations it had been repeatedly confirmed that the United Nations had wide compe-tence to deal with large-scale situations of violations of human rights. That had beenestablished since the inception of the United Nations and had been maintainedthroughout its existence in the various situations involving violations of humanrights it had dealt with in all parts of the world. It had also been well-establishedthat the United Nations might employ for dealing with situations of violations ofhuman rights all appropriate methods under the Charter, depending upon the cir-cumstances of each situation. Some situations were handled in the Security Councilor its subsidiary organs, in the General Assembly or its subsidiary organs, in theTrusteeship Council, in the Economic and Social Council, in the Commission onHuman Rights, or in other United Nations organs. Situations were sometimes raisedin open debate, or handled under procedures for dealing with communications, or aninvestigating committee or rapporteur might be appointed to look into a situation.“Whatever the method used, it was a clear principle that the United Nations mayutilize for each situation such methods or procedures as it considered best suited todeal with that situation.”

2See Bossuyt (1985).


The legal opinion concluded that a Government could not legitimately claim thatthe situation in its country should be examined under any particular procedure orprocedures, or under one procedure to the exclusion of others. The decision in eachcase was a matter for the United Nations, having regard to all the factors andcircumstances involved, including, as appropriate, the views of the Governmentconcerned.3 These principles were important for subsequent investigations. Similarlegal submissions would be made later when the Working Group on Enforced andInvoluntary Disappearances began its operations. The Division had to back it upalso in a similar manner.

On the death of Dag Hammarskjold in September, 1961, Walter Lippman wrotethat it had been one of Hammarskjold’s historic contributions to take the UnitedNations from a talking shop to an organization of action. A similar claim can bemade that Theodoor van Boven took the human rights programme of the UnitedNations into the era of responding to gross violations of human rights. But there wereobstructions and challenges all along the way. As van Boven’s Special Assistant thisauthor was one of those backing him up in supporting these early creations ofinvestigative mechanisms. We have published the various legal papers we draftedfor him in a book published in 1997 on The Principle of Legality in InternationalHuman Rights Institutions4 Backing up the investigative role of the United Nationsin dealing with situations of gross violations of human rights required resolve,research, discipline, and guts. That the enterprise succeeded we know nowadays. Itwas not so evident in those days. van Boven never flinched.

3.2.2 The First Thematic Investigation: Disappearances

It was at the General Assembly in 1978 that the United Nations first addressed theproblem of enforced and involuntary disappearances.5 The initiative came from theBritish and Canadian delegates to the Third Committee who approached van Boventhrough this author as Special Assistant to the Director of the Centre for HumanRights. I consulted van Boven and, together, Richard Edis of the United Kingdom,Daniel Livermore of Canada and I prepared what became resolution 33/173 of theGeneral Assembly, adopted on 20 November 1978.

At the Commission on Human Rights a few weeks later, in February/March,1979, delegations and NGO observers wished the Commission to express itself onthis pressing problem. The resistance of the then Argentinian Ambassador to theUnited Nations Office in Geneva, Gabriel Martinez, made that impossible. Let it beremembered it was only in 1978, thanks to ideas put forward by Theo van Boven that

3Division of Human Rights (1979), The legal opinion in response to the Government of Chile. Inpossession of the author.4Ramcharan (1997).5See Rodley (1986), for a discussion on UN practice at the time.


the Commission on Human Rights had appointed the first of the rapporteur ships oncountry-situations: that on Chile. Those were early days in the development ofUnited Nations fact-finding procedures and progress would come in carefullyprepared steps.

The General Assembly in 1979, again adopted a resolution recalling the concernsit had expressed the previous year. At the Commission on Human Rights in 1980delegations, NGOs and the Secretariat pooled their efforts in a remarkable commonendeavour to overcome the stubborn resistance of the Argentinian delegate to theCommission: Ambassador Martinez.

Ambassador Van den Heuvel of the US Mission in Geneva invited van Boven forlunch, accompanied by this author, to discuss how best to tackle the problem. vanBoven provided some tentative ideas in the form of a draft resolution and kept intouch with him as the process evolved.

At the Commission on Human Rights itself, the French delegate Mr. Pierre Justiti,a good friend, took the lead and floated a draft resolution that went in the direction ofreminding Governments of their responsibilities for law enforcement andapproached the issue in terms of the responsibility of the police for investigatingreports of disappearances. It was a well-meant initiative but was considered to beapproaching the problem from an ineffectual angle.6

At the technical level three persons would then join in turning around the ‘Justitidraft’ and coming up with an approach that would address the problem as one ofviolations of human rights that needed to be investigated, and which required theurgent action and human rights diplomacy of the United Nations. These threepersons were: The Canadian delegate, Dan Livermore, the Dutch delegate, Antoinevan Dongen and this author, in his capacity as Special Assistant to the Director of theDivision of Human Rights, working closely with van Boven. Together we succeededin getting Justiti to adopt a different approach and then made him part of a four-person team that drafted what was eventually adopted as Commission resolution20 (XXXVI) of 29 February, 1980, which established the Working Group onEnforced and Involuntary Disappearances.7

It was quite a task to get the resolution adopted by the Commission. The EasternEuropeans were askance. The Yugoslav delegate, Ivan Tosevski, helped. He becamea leading member of the working Group when it was established. The Africans weresitting on the fence on this issue. After consulting van Boven, this author prepared aspeech which he suggested to the Ghanian delegate to deliver on the issue. Hesucceeded. Africa was on board. Because of the speech, the Ghanian representative,Kwadwo Faka Nyamekye, subsequently became a member and Chairman of theWorking Group and afterwards Deputy Director of the Division of Human Rights.van Boven and this author worked with him closely for years. He was one of ourclose friends.

6A copy of the ‘Justiti draft’ is in the possession of the author.7See Livermore and Ramcharan (1990).


Canadian Ambassador Yvonne Beaulne played a leading role in getting theArgentinian delegate, Ambassador Martinez, to go along with the resolution. Hedeserves the most credit for the political leg-work to get the resolution adopted.Others helped a great deal. US delegate Jerome Shestack lobbied strongly in favourof the resolution.

Thus was born the first of the thematic procedures: a global investigation into aproblem which was then occasioning concern mainly in Argentina. Shaping theimplementation of the resolution occasioned some discussion within the Division ofHuman Rights. We had deliberately put into the resolution a paragraph on the needfor urgent action. How would this be rendered operational? van Boven and thisauthor took the view that the financial implications which the Secretariat submittedon the draft resolution should envisage four visits annually to different parts of theworld in order to respond to emergency situations. There was opposition within theDivision to this line of reasoning. Let’s be cautious, it was argued. Let’s not dealwith the question of urgent responses. van Boven insisted on his approach. From theinception, therefore, the need to take urgent action was registered in the Secretariat.

As the Chileans had done earlier, the Argentine Government also brought into itsarmoury of defence all sorts of subterfuges and legal submissions. In a note of10 September, 1980 to van Boven, the Argentinean Government submitted thatindividual petitions on alleged violations of human rights must fulfill various formalrequirements and that when they were transmitted to Governments their form shouldcorrespond with rules established by the Economic and Social Council for thehandling of petitions. What the Argentinean Government was basically saying wasthat complaints about disappearances in Argentina should not be handled by theWorking Group but under the milder confidential procedure for dealing with peti-tions (communications as they were termed in UN parlance).

The Government pressed this point when it argued that the establishment of theWorking Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances did not mean theadoption of an ad hoc system for the consideration of a particular type of complaint,something, it contended, that would go against the structure already specificallyaccepted by States. It was important to uphold the competence of theWorking Groupto deal with such complaints and, in consultation with van Boven, we in the Divisionof Human Rights wrote a legal opinion seeking to support this.

With van Boven’s leadership, we argued that, in support of the goal of improvingthe capacity of the United Nations to put a stop to gross violations of human rightswherever they might occur, various co-existing procedures had been established inorder to deal with different problems or situations. Since these various procedureshad been established by, upon the request of, or with the consent or approval ofhigher United Nations organs such as the General Assembly and the Economic andSocial Council, they were all of equal weight and independent status. To argue thatone procedure should be governed by another would be to frustrate the intention ofthe General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, and the Commission onHuman Rights in devising methods and approaches for dealing with specific problemor phenomena.


We pointed out that, in the case of theWorking Group on Enforced or InvoluntaryDisappearances, the General Assembly, in requesting the Commission on HumanRights to consider the question of disappeared persons with a view to makingappropriate recommendations, had been particularly concerned at reports of diffi-culties in obtaining reliable information from competent authorities as to the cir-cumstances of missing and disappeared persons. It was clear that the GeneralAssembly and the Commission intended to establish a special procedure for dealingwith the problems of missing and disappeared persons, which would be comple-mentary to other existing procedures and which would not be subordinated to anypre-existing procedure.

Thus it was that one sought to back-up the Working Group and to help lay thelegal underpinnings for developing the protection role of the United Nations in thefield of human rights. Let it be remembered that the drafters of the United NationsCharter consciously eschewed a protection role for the United Nations. It wouldhave to be developed through practice. During the days of the cold war that was notan easy task. But, with van Boven’s leadership, we went about with all the heart wecould muster.

During the Working Group’s early sessions, the issues which it faced included thefollowing: How to respond to a pressing human rights problem, how to deal with thefact that the Eastern Europeans were cautious in their approval of the Group and howto deal with Argentinian submissions on the methods of work of the Group. Becauseof the attitude of Eastern European, and bearing in mind that Yugoslavia was theonly country ready to designate a member to serve on the Working Group, theYugoslav member, Ivan Tosevsky a man known for his prudence in diplomacy, wasthe one who, more than the others, set the tone of the Group. His influence increasedafter the end of the first year when he became Chairman of the Working Group. Acareful approach thus emerged. The reasons for that approach must be understood inthe context in which it emerged: Eastern Europe would not go along with more.

The same careful approach influenced the Group’s attitude to the handling oftelegrams about potential cases of disappearances: the Group adopted the procedureof consultation among the members before action was undertaken on telegrams. Inlater stages the Chairman would occasionally authorize the Secretariat to take action.

The third issue which the Group had to deal with in its early stages concernedArgentinian submissions about the methods of work of the Group. In written sub-missions and in oral presentations the Argentinian Government argued that theGroup should apply to the complaints that it received the procedural and evidentiarycriteria contained in ECOSOC resolution 1503 (XLVIII).8 As mentioned earlier, wein the Division of Human Rights prepared a legal opinion refuting the submissions ofArgentina. The opinion argued that the Working Group was competent to determineits own methods of work. That became the position of the Group.

By 1985 the Working Group had contacted 38 governments with details aboutindividuals and the alleged time and place of their abduction. The government

8See Tardu (1980).


replies clarified about six percent of the more than 10,000 cases identified.9 Intransmitting cases of disappearances, the Working Group dealt exclusively withGovernments, basing itself on the principle that Governments must assume respon-sibility for any violation of human rights on their territory.

The Working Group retains cases on its files as long as the exact whereabouts ofthe missing persons has not been determined. This principle is not affected bychanges of Government in a given country. However, the Working Group acceptsthe closure of a case on its files when the competent authority specified in therelevant national law pronounced, with the concurrence of the relatives and otherinterested parties, on the presumption of death of a person reported missing.

The methods of the working group are carefully chosen. It is the first thematicgroup of its kind and it is important for it to set down a good model. It did. It also hada good complement of staff doing pioneering work in setting up data-banks ofpersons reported disappeared. Our colleagues Thomas Mc Carthy and MirtaTeitelbaum, acting under the guidance of van Boven, played an important part insetting down these careful methods of work which, naturally, evolved over time.

3.2.3 The First Thematic Rapporteur: Arbitraryand Summary Executions

The previous section told how the first thematic working group was established todeal with the problem of enforced and involuntary disappearances. The politicallobbying of the Argentine representatives had made it difficult to get a resolutionadopted condemning disappearances in that country. So, the approach was followedof tackling the problem globally as a way of getting at the Argentine situation.

van Boven and this author had tried this method at the outset of his term. Shortlybefore he joined as Director, in 1977, the Commission on Human Rights had adopteda resolution, proposed by the Iranian representative Manouchechr Ganji, that NGOs,in their written statements circulated at the Commission as official documents, couldnot accuse particular individual governments of violating human rights. This was aretrograde development and van Boven was determined to circumvent it. He askedthis author to find a way of doing so.

What van Boven had particularly in view was a practice whereby the Inter-Parliamentary Union, a serious and responsible body, would circulate writtenstatements pointing out violations of the rights of Parliamentarians in differentcountries. In the Division of Human Rights, we wrote a policy paper for vanBoven suggesting that if an NGO raised a phenomenon of violations and, by wayof illustration, referred to situations in individual countries we could allow circula-tion of the statement as an official document. It was the Secretariat that took thedecision whether to circulate a document or not as an official document.

9Tolley (1987), p. 105.


van Boven approved this approach and we briefed the Secretariat of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which then started circulating statements presenting globalproblems and illustrating them with examples from different countries. van Bovenhad thus pierced the no-circulation resolution and had introduced an importantnuance in the United Nations efforts to deal with gross violations of human rights:the thematic, global approach. This is the approach that was put into practice indealing with the problem of disappearances and it would be used next in dealing withthe problem of arbitrary and summary executions, which was then widespread, andremains so, in the world.

At the time, Amnesty International was leading a campaign against arbitrary andsummary executions and violations of this type were taking place in many parts ofthe world, particularly Asia, Africa, and Latin America. van Boven was greatlydistressed about this problem of arbitrary and summary executions and wished totake an initiative to address it. We discussed the idea of a thematic rapporteur onarbitrary and summary executions, the first time such a thematic rapporteur would betried.

The significance of the idea was that it would allow a more flexible mechanismthan the cumbersome five-member working group that had been established to dealwith the problem of disappearances. What we had done in moving from the workinggroup on Chile to the rapporteur on Chile we would now try with a thematicmandate.

van Boven never had any difficulties in running with new initiatives and hetherefore decided to advance the idea of a special rapporteur on arbitrary andsummary executions in his opening address to the Commission on Human Rightsin 1982. He made a special plea for the Commission to take action on this problemand floated the idea of a thematic mandate.

To get initiatives moving at the United Nations it is important to have a partner-ship among the Secretariat, Governments, and NGOs. Before mounting the initia-tive, we had been in close contact with key NGOs, particularly AmnestyInternational, and we had been in touch with key members of the Commission tosponsor a draft resolution calling for the appointment of a special rapporteur. TheDanish representative, our good friend Nils Dyrlund, was the lead delegate on this.

In the Division of Human Rights we worked on a draft resolution, got the inputsand clearance of van Boven, we discussed it with Dyrlund and keeping AmnestyInternational in the picture throughout. Dyrlund was an effective negotiator and hepiloted the resolution to successful passage. Significant new ground was thusbroken. The rapporteur would look at the problem globally, would be able toundertake urgent actions, would submit findings and recommendations to theCommission.

Amos Wako of Kenya was appointed the first rapporteur. Amos is our goodfriend. We had first met at a Seminar in Monrovia, Liberia, where the institutionalparts of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights had been drafted.

This was the first time that a thematic rapporteur had to shape a mandate. Howwould it be done? Amos had an able assistant, Ozamu Shiraishi, who helped himgather the factual materials and helped him draft the factual parts of his report. But a


policy framework was called for. This author discussed these issues with Amos andhelped draft the policy-oriented chapters with him.

Amos was courageous and was determined to present to the Commission countrysituations where arbitrary and summary executions were allegedly taking place. Thishe did and in his first report he sought clarification from 39 governments, mainlyThird World States. His report summarized information about alleged executionsoccurring after 1980 in eighteen different countries; for twenty-one situations thatreportedly occurred before 1980 the report named the countries without givingdetails. Fifteen governments responded to Wako’s inquiries, five held personalconversations with him, and twenty-four made no response. Wako reported thegovernments’ assorted denials and explanations either by summarizing their repliesor by reproducing the correspondence with them.10

A fire-storm erupted in the Commission when his report was published. Somegovernments wanted the report withdrawn and when, with our support, Amos wouldnot accept this, they wanted to adopt a resolution censoring him. Nils Dyrlund ofDenmark had by then moved on and the resolution on this topic was being run byDenmark’s successor on the Commission, Finland. Marjatta Raasi was the Finnishdelegate. We pleaded with her to reject the idea of a censure. Marjatta, who laterbecame Finnish Permanent Representative to the United Nations and President of theEconomic and Social Council, courageously fought against any censure. We mobi-lized friendly delegations to ward off any censure. Had the first thematic mandate-holder been censured, it could have marked the end of the thematic rapporteurs.

Fortunately the censure effort did not succeed and Amos Wako went on to be asuccessful special rapporteurs succeeded by others who have kept this crucialmandate alive ever since then!

3.3 Establishment of the Working Group on IndigenousIssues and Protection of Human Rights Defenders

Alongside the Special Rapporteur on Chile, the Working Group on Enforced andInvoluntary Disappearances, and the Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary and SummaryExecutions, the establishment of a Sub-Commission Working Group on Indigenousissues represented the fourth pillar of van Boven’s transformation of the protectioncapacity of the United Nations. Indigenous peoples the world over were undergoingall sorts of injustices, and the Working Group would lay the ground work forimproving their situation, including through the drafting a Declaration on the rightsof indigenous peoples. We relate the story of the establishment of this working groupin the next chapter.

It was under van Boven’s leadership that the first resolution on human rightsdefenders was drafted and adopted in 1980. This led, eventually, to the adoption of a

10Tolley (1987), pp. 108–109.

3.3 Establishment of the Working Group on Indigenous Issues and. . . 25

Declaration on human rights defenders, and a Special Representative, a globalthematic mechanism on this topic. We discuss this more fully in a later chapter.

3.4 Initiative for the Establishment of the Post of UN HighCommissioner for Human Rights

The foregoing were concrete breakthroughs in the advent of universal protection ofhuman rights at the United Nations. In 1993, at the World Conference on HumanRights held in Vienna, and at the General Assembly later that very year, a greatbreakthrough would be finally achieved: the establishment of the post of UN HighCommissioner for Human Rights. van Boven had almost achieved this breakthroughsixteen years earlier, at the General Assembly in 1977.

This was in fact van Boven’s first operational initiative as Director of the Divisionof Human Rights. The idea had been discussed for some years, as is traced in ourgood friend Roger Clark’s book on the subject.11 In 1977, van Boven approachedfriendly delegations with the suggestion that they propose the establishment of theposition that year. Norway decided to take the lead on this and its delegate, Ms MettaKonsheim, performed superbly in steering the initiative.

After consulting van Boven, this author prepared a draft resolution together withMs Konsheim, who consulted among Western partners and eventually tabled aresolution on the establishment of the post. One knew that the proposal would beopposed by the USSR and its supporters, but the Carter Administration, which hadcome into office in 1977 was supportive, and its Permanent Representative at theUN, Andrew Young, a freedom fighter alongside Reverend Martin Luther King,gave it his personal support.

When the draft resolution was discussed in the Third Committee of the GeneralAssembly, there was a protracted debate and Metta Konsheim continued to performably. Unfortunately, the initiative would be killed by officials of the USA itself.There are two arms of the US Government, the political arm elected by the peopleand the standing intelligence arm operating as a power in its own right.

The Carter Administration was very supportive of the proposal for the establish-ment of the office of UN High Commissioner, and at a crucial stage, in a nightmeeting of the Third Committee, Ambassador Andrew Young set aside his preparedspeech and made an impassioned off-the-cuff speech pleading for the adoption of theresolution. He had, he recalled, participated in the struggle for justice on the streetsof the USA as a close colleague of the Reverend Martin Luther King and he couldspeak from personal experience of the need to operationalize the UN’s role in theprotection of human rights.

We knew that while the US Administration was supporting the resolution, well-known persons in the UN Secretariat were actively and openly campaigning against

11Clark (1972).


the proposal in direct opposition to the policies of the US Government. The personleading the opposition to the proposal arranged for two Third World delegates, onefrom a West-African country and another, an Egyptian national then serving in thediplomatic service of Oman, to propose a procedural motion that no action should betaken on the draft resolution. At the height of the debate on the resolution, whichwould undoubtedly have passed, the delegate of Oman moved the no-action motionwhich, procedurally, took precedence to the substantive motion itself. The no-actionmotion passed by a slender majority, and the initiative perished until it wasresurrected sixteen years later.

In the decisive night meeting when the proposal was lost, Ambassadors of mostcountries, including Norway, came personally to the meeting. Unfortunately, theNorwegian Ambassador was not as versed in the subject as Metta Konsheim, and inthe debates on the resolution could not perform as competently as she could. Thiswas one of the reasons why the initiative failed in the end.

This had been a grand initiative by van Boven, at the very start of his term ofoffice, and it shows how ambitious he was to develop the operational capacities ofthe UN for the protection of human rights.

Five years later, in his statement to the Commission on Human Rights announc-ing that he would be leaving the United Nations Secretariat, van Boven stated:

. . .I am profoundly convinced that the establishment of the post of United Nations HighCommissioner for Human Rights could be of great value. I am fully aware that this is aproposal on which different views are held, but it is my conviction that a High Commis-sioner, acting in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter, can provide amuch-needed United Nations presence in situations of concern, can offer his/her goodoffices to Governments, and can conciliate in dealing with humanitarian problems.12

In the same statement, van Boven declared:

I have always felt that our primary duty is towards the peoples in whose name the UnitedNations Charter was written and I have maintained that whenever necessary we must speakout on matters of principle, regardless of whom we please or displease within or outside theOrganization13

3.5 Conclusion

In the years 1977–1982 the United Nations was transformed from promotion touniversal protection. The credit for this is due to one man: Theodoor van Boven. Thecourage and conviction of this man make him, in our view, the strongest humanrights leader the United Nations has ever had.

12van Boven (1982), pp. 8–9.13van Boven (1982), p. 8. (Emphasis added).

3.5 Conclusion 27

Howard Tolley, writing in 1987, commented:

Beginning in 1980 he should have said 1978, with the first country rapporteur on Chile] theCommission significantly expanded the protection activities initiated in 1967.14 Westernrepresentatives and moderate third world members fashioned four thematic approacheswhich publicly reported complaints against over forty governments. Those global proce-dures resulted in public reporting about situations which had previously been limited toconfidential monitoring. The Commission undertook country specific fact-finding missionsin twelve situations, and adopted general resolutions of exhortation and conciliation in manymore.15

When van Boven asked this author to be a ‘one-man think thank’ in his office heexpressly asked him not to hold him back: he would only stay a while in the HumanRights Division. He would give it all he could and then he would leave. He was ofthe view that one had to deal not only with the symptoms of human rights violationsbut with their root causes. But he was determined to deal with the symptoms and tostrengthen the capacity of the United Nations to deal with gross violations of humanrights.

He achieved a great deal and paid a high price for it—personally and in hisfamily. We all have great respect for this good, decent, honourable, courageous man,and this author was given a gift to be at his side for five years as his special assistant.I have remained in close touch with him ever since and, in many ways, he was mymodel when I performed the functions of High Commissioner many years later. Iconsidered my period to be van Boven II! I have told him so. We worked so closelytogether and I have the highest admiration for him. We were a team. His knowledgeof the substance and practice of human rights was deep. Whatever we took to him, healways enriched it.

van Boven provided an assessment of the developments discussed above in a1989 essay on “Creative and Dynamic Strategies for Using United Nations Institu-tions and Procedures”:

The approach of focusing on widespread practices of an evil nature which require the urgent,consistent and public attention of the international community has gained increasingmomentum through UN techniques and strategies for dealing with consistent patterns ofgross violations of human rights. In 1980 the Commission on Human Rights established aworking group to deal with questions relating to enforced or involuntary disappearances. In1982 the Commission appointed a Special Rapporteur on summary and arbitrary executions,and in 1985 the Commission appointed a Special Rapporteur in order to respond effectively

14Howard Tolley has written: “In thirteen years of public debate on violations since 1967] theCommission had only found the political will to apply special fact-finding procedures to threepariah regimes. Complaints about similar violations by other governments triggered politicaldivisions based on ideological alliances and bloc antagonisms that blocked meaningful scrutiny.Since the Commission appeared unlikely to undertake many country-based investigations,reformers proposed a new thematic procedure to investigate one type of violation wherever itoccurred. The problem of greatest concern in 1980 was involuntary disappearances, politicalabductions sponsored by several dictatorships, primarily in Latin America.”—Tolley(1987), p. 104.15Tolley (1987), p. 133.


to credible and reliable information regarding torture. A working group on the rights ofindigenous populations has functioned in the framework of the Sub-Commission since 1982.These new mechanisms, which aim to protect the integrity and inviolability of the humanperson, combine in practice some significant features. First, they avoid an unduly selectiveand political approach because they focus primarily on practices and not on countries,although it remains important for the sake of accountability that countries be named. Second,they pertain to those basic human rights which are considered peremptory norms ofinternational law. Third, they utilize reliable information from all relevant governmentaland nongovernmental sources and therefore constitute a bridge between human rightsrealities experienced by victims as well as their relatives and official international institu-tions. Fourth, their mandates are being carried out by persons who serve in their private andexpert capacity, which is conducive to the objectivity and impartiality of human rightsimplementation. Fifth, their mandates have allowed urgent actions vis-à-vis the authorities ofthe countries concerned, an innovation in UN human rights procedures which may save thelives of human beings. Sixth, as part of these special thematic procedures, fact-findingmissions to a considerable number of countries have been carried out, thus enriching thepractice and the experience of enquiries in situ and enabling the UN to relate more directlywith national and local societies and with concerned peoples and persons.16

References

Bossuyt MJ (1985) The Development of Special procedures of the United Nations Commission onHuman Rights. Human Rights Law Journal 6: 179–210

Clark RS (1972) A United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Hague, MartinusNijhoff, 1972

Coomans F, et al, (Eds.) (2000) Human Rights from Exclusion to Inclusion; Principles and Practice.An Anthology of the Work of Theo van Boven. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

Division of Human Rights (1979), Legal opinion in response to the Government of Chile. Inpossession of the author

Livermore JD, Ramcharan BG (1990) “‘Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances’: An Evaluationof a Decade of United Nations Action”, Canadian Human Rights Yearbook 6 (1989-1990):217–230

Ramcharan BG (1997) The Principle of Legality in International Human Rights Institutions.Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague

Rodley N (1986) UN Action Against ‘Disappearances’, Summary or Arbitrary Executions andTorture. Human Rights Quarterly 8: 700–730

Tardu ME (1980) United Nations Response to Gross Violations of Human Rights: The 1503Procedure. Santa Clara Law Review 20: 559–601

Tolley H (1987) The UN Commission on Human Rights. Westview Press, Boulder, Coloradovan Boven, TC (1982) People Matter. Amsterdam, Meulenhoff, 1982. (Edited by Hans Thoolen)

16See Coomans et al. (2000), pp. 100–101.

References 29

Chapter 4Breakthroughs in Protectionof the Vulnerable: Indigenous Peoples

Abstract Under van Boven’s tenure and leadership, one of the great chapters in theUN’s capacity to serve the most marginalized parts of humanity materialised throughhis policies and initiatives that led to the development of mechanisms and pro-cedures for the inclusion of indigenous peoples in the international system of nation-states. He served valiantly to improve also the economic, social and politicalconditions of minorities, women and other marginalized groups.

Keywords Indigenous peoples rights · Minority rights · Working Group onIndigenous Issues · Slavery and slave like conditions · Women’s rights

4.1 Introduction

Throughout his period as Director of the Division of Human Rights Theo van Bovenmade the protection of vulnerable people a central and running theme. He addressedthe issue on a number of occasions and took a particular interest in, among others,the protection of victims of slavery and slavery-like practices, as well as the victimsof female genital mutilation. He took dramatic action leading to the establishment ofa UN Working Group on Indigenous Issues. In this chapter we will address first hiscall for the protection of vulnerable groups in general and then the specific issues thathe singled out in particular.

4.2 World Order and the Protection of the Vulnerable

In his opening address to the Commission on Human Rights on 2 February, 1981,van Boven addressed the topic of ‘world order and the protection of vulnerablegroups’. He stated:

There is growing recognition of the need for the international community to act for theprotection of vulnerable groups such as children, women, migrants, victims of ethnic or


31


racial oppression or indigenous populations. If a human rights programme has any relevanceto people, it should first and foremost be concerned with the vulnerable, the weak, theoppressed, the exploited. They always tend to be losers and also – if I may say this in passing– those who try to defend their rights and interests often find themselves standing on thelosing side. We should be concerned with these vulnerable groups and we should seek togive them the benefit of the full protection of the international community. The plight ofindigenous peoples is often a very acute one. Frequently they are the most under-representedparts of the population, they often have no voice in policies and decisions which directlyaffect their basic existence or even their survival and, in many instances, they are not asorganized into interest groups as other parts of the population. This places a specialresponsibility on the international community to examine their needs and to examine waysand means of protecting their rights.1

van Boven devoted his opening address to the Sub-Commission on prevention ofDiscrimination and Protection of Minorities, on 17 August, 1981, to the topic, “ThePlight of the Vulnerable: Survival at Stake”.2 He commenced: “I should like to touchupon certain areas of the responsibilities of the Sub-Commission dealing first of allwith the area of the prevention of discrimination and the protection of minorities.”He addressed the topic, “Survival of the Fittest” and proceeded to say the following:

Notwithstanding . . . notable efforts of the Sub-Commission, problems of discriminationcontinue to present themselves in various forms and continue to affect various groups. Ishould like to refer, in particular, to discrimination encountered by vulnerable, disadvan-taged, dispossessed, deprived or weak groups of society. In the United Nations draft MediumTerm Plan for Human Rights, for 1984-1989 [submitted by van Boven] it is ‘envisaged thatparticular attention will be paid to discrimination suffered by vulnerable groups such asminorities, indigenous populations, migrants, children and women’. In today’s world theprevention of discrimination and protection of the rights of the vulnerable, disadvantaged,dispossessed, deprived or weak groups of society are coming more and more to assume apressing character. We live in a world where over 850 million people, who may beconsidered among the most dispossessed groups of the modern world, live below anyacceptable level of decency.

Questions of survival affect the vulnerable, the disadvantaged, the dispossessed, thedeprived and many weak groups of society. Today’s world is one which often demonstratesa lack of solidarity. Ideologies and practices proliferate which are based on, and propagate,unbounded freedom for the powerful and the strong. The free play of the activities of thepowerful and the strong as well as of naked market forces may, and often do, lead to themarginalization of the weak, the destruction of their rights and, often, threaten their verysurvival. ‘Survival of the fittest’ is an anti-human rights notion. Freedom is not only for thestrong, but for the weak also, and any society which is incapable of demonstrating the willand the solidarity that is necessary to provide and guarantee human rights for the weak is asociety which is far removed from the realization of human rights.3

van Boven continued to discuss the following pressing issues: The threat ofa nuclear catastrophe, economic exploitation, the rights of indigenous peoples,

1van Boven (1982), p. 74.2See Coomans et al. (2000), on van Boven’s advocacy for the vulnerable.3van Boven (1982), pp. 118–119.

32 4 Breakthroughs in Protection of the Vulnerable: Indigenous Peoples

Victims of gross violations of human rights, the need to protect human rightsdefenders, political prisoners and detainees.

His presentation on the need to protect indigenous peoples was historic and leddirectly to the establishment of the Working Group on Indigenous Issues. We recitethe part of his address calling for the protection of indigenous peoples later in thischapter.

4.2.1 Gross Violations: Children’s Rights

In an address at the opening of the International Forum on the Rights of the Child,held in Budapest, Hungary, on 1 June, 1979, van Boven highlighted the need to actvigorously for the protection of the rights of children:

It is a matter of experience that wherever and whenever there are massive violations ofhuman rights, the right of children are widely and seriously violated as well. This is borneout by United Nations investigations into the situations in particular countries or territorieswhich have been affected by policies such as apartheid, racial discrimination, colonialism,foreign occupation, military dictatorships or other forms of dictatorial rule, which makehuman welfare and human dignity subject to laws and practices of arbitrary governments orof harsh or cynical pseudo ideologies. United Nations investigations have revealed thatchildren suffer lasting and traumatic consequences as a result of violations perpetrated upontheir parents or families or which take place in the communities where they live. If, forexample, one or more parent or other relative is missing, detained for an indefinite period, orsubjected to torture, the scars are often to be found upon the children. Children often sufferfrom disruption of family life, lack of health care, malnutrition, lack of education andindoctrination in schools. The evidence shows that in some situations children are subjectedto discrimination in education facilities, or that systematic violations of human rights resultin high drop-out rates among school children. Under some systems of migrant and contractlabour, children suffer the consequences of broken homes or families experiencing longperiods of enforced separation. In some cases, the demolition of the homes of racial groupshave affected children the hardest. In situations such as those existing in southern Africathere is evidence of the repression of the cultural identity of children and students, as well asevidence of children and teenagers held in detention in solitary confinement and subjected topractices of torture. Elsewhere, the evidence reveals instances of large-scale killings ordeliberate starvation of children.

The investigations into gross violations of human rights also demonstrate how govern-mental policies of deliberate political repression, of economic and social laissez-faire, ofsystematic racial discrimination or of perverted or pseudo ideologies, are highly detrimentalto the spiritual well-being and social welfare of large masses of children. These policies oftenresult in sustaining patterns of injustices and discrimination, and in favouring the establishedand privileged sections of society at the expense of millions of human beings.4

4van Boven (1982), pp. 161–162.

4.2 World Order and the Protection of the Vulnerable 33

4.2.2 Victims of Slavery and Slavery-Like Practices

While slavery and inhumane practices have still not been eradicated, the UN hasdone much to expose them and to help stamp them out. And its efforts continue. vanBoven took a particular interest in this topic and gave it his heart-felt attention.

Early after its establishment, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights carriedout a study on slavery. Its findings were riveting, and it made several policyrecommendations to help eradicate and prevent this dastardly phenomenon.

In the 1970s, the Sub-Commission established a Working Group on Slavery andSlavery-Like Practices which met for five days a year. NGOs like the Anti-SlaverySociety brought their concerns before it. All manner of horrors were exposed inhearings in this group and brought to the attention of the world: slavery, forcedlabour, debt-bondage, child labour, sexual exploitation of children, and femalegenital mutilation.

Col. Montgomery of the Anti-Slavery Society was an eloquent voice pleading forjustice for the victims. Mrs Halima Warzazi, a member of the Sub-Commission,wrote a pioneering study on female genital mutilation which helped to bring thissearing problem to the attention of the world. It was this combined effort that helpedplace the international spotlight on this problem for the first time.

Evidence submitted to the Working Group on Slavery exposed the existence ofsome one million actual slaves in Mauritania. That was the start of a concertedinternational effort to eradicate this scourge from that country, an effort that is stillcontinuing.

Problems of debt bondage and child labour affecting millions of human beingswere exposed, particularly in Asia, and the United Nations human rights machinerybraced itself for the task of exposing these practices and calling for their eradication.This effort is still continuing.

The Human Rights Council continues the effort to this day with a SpecialRapporteur, a fact-finder, into the problem of sexual exploitation of children. TheRapporteur produces an annual report documenting the existence of these horren-dous practices and offering recommendations for their elimination.

In 2004, the then High Commissioner for Human Rights made a stirring plea, andled a concerted effort, for the establishment of another Special Rapporteur, on humantrafficking, especially women and children. This rapporteur also produces an annualreport into this growing phenomenon.

A United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women has pioneeredthe international effort to expose the many forms of violence and abuses to whichwomen are subjected and contributed to the United Nations campaign for justice forwomen.

There are several notable aspects about these efforts of the world body to helpprotect the victims of inhumane treatment. First, it was in the UN human rightsbodies, such as the Commission on Human Rights, its Sub-Commission, the Com-mission on the Status of Women, and bodies such as the Working Group on Slavery


and Slavery-Like Practices that these phenomena were aired and exposed andinternational campaigns begun to help root them out.

Second, the UN carried out study after study analysing the problems and comingup with policy recommendations. Third, the UN sent experts on the ground fordiscussions with Governments on their eradication. One such effort was undertakenby a Belgian human rights expert, our friend Professor Marc Bossuyt, who made aseries of visits to Mauritania to encourage the Government to accept the existence ofthe problem of widespread slavery and to take action towards its eradication.

Fourth, the UN continues to carry out fact-finding to expose the persistence ofthese practices and to monitor the efforts of Governments to stamp them out.

The Working Group on Slavery and Slavery-Like Practices was succeeded in2007 by a Special Rapporteur of the UN Human Rights Council on ContemporaryForms of Slavery.

4.2.3 Victims of Female Genital Mutilation

From its early years, the UN, took the lead against customs, ancient laws andpractices affecting the human dignity and rights of women. The issue was discussedin both the Commission on the Status of Women and the Commission on HumanRights in 1952. That year, the Commission on Human Rights examined the problemof operations based on customs, such as ‘clitoridectomy and infibulation’ in Trustand Non-Self-Governing Territories.

The Commission on Human Rights proceeded to declare that operations based oncustoms performed on girls and young women, as carried out in certain parts of theworld, were not only dangerous to health but seriously impaired the human dignityand rights of women. In 1954, the Commission on Human Rights expressed concernthat women were subject to customs, laws and practices inconsistent with theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights.

Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter orcause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. According to theWHO, more than 200 million girls and women alive today have been cut in30 countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, where FGM is concentrated.

The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women. Procedures can causesevere bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, as well ascomplications in childbirth and increased risk of new-born deaths. FGM is mostlycarried out on young girls between infancy and age 15. FGM, the WHO categori-cally asserts, “is a violation of human rights of girls and women.”

On 10 July 1958, on the initiative of the Commission on Human Rights, theEconomic and Social Council invited the WHO to undertake a study “of thepersistence of customs which subject girls to ritual operations” and of the measuresadopted or planned to put an end to these practices. The problem of these operationswas discussed at a UN seminar on the participation of women in public life held in1960 in Addis Abeba.


The ECOSOC drew the attention of the WHO to the report of this seminar,detailing this problem, and asked the WHO to take this report into consideration in astudy of the medical aspects of operations based on custom to which many womenwere still being subjected. However, the WHO, at that stage, took the position thatthe operations in question were based on “social and cultural backgrounds” andtherefore were outside its competence. It added that it would supply medicalinformation as part of any wider socio-economic study undertaken on this subject.The WHO has subsequently shifted its position and taken a leading roleagainst FGM.

After the advent of independence of African countries, some African women triedto draw attention to the dangers of FGM but the time was not ripe for such acontroversial question and there was a strong negative public reaction. For allpractical purposes, up to the 1970s the world still knew little about FGM. Then aFranco-Swiss human rights activist named Edmond Kaiser, well-known to vanBoven, representing the human rights organizations “Terre des Hommes” and“Sentinelles” (the latter devoted to combatting the prostitution, mutilation andslavery of children in developing countries), brought this problem to the attentionof the UN Commission on Human Rights in a series of statements.

With the backing of van Boven, this led to discussion of the problem of FGM inthe Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities,and in its Working Group on Slavery and Slavery-Like Practices. At the beginning ofthe 1980s, the Sub-Commission commissioned a study on this problem, undertakenby Mrs Halima Warzazi of Morocco, and established a Working Group on Tradi-tional Practices Affecting the Health of Women, also chaired by Mrs Warzazi. TheUN also organized in Khartoum in 1979, and in Senegal in 1984, seminars onTraditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children.

In 1986 the Working Group of the Sub-Commission provided a detailed report onFGM and other traditional practices in different parts of the world. The WorkingGroup recommended that campaigns of public education be carried out to combatharmful traditional practices.

Mrs Warzazi proceeded to serve as Special Rapporteur of the Commission onHuman Rights on this topic and submitted her final report to the Commission in 2005after working for some twenty years on this topic. She wrote that it was important tocontinue to pursue efforts to condemn all forms of violence against women and girls,which constitute a violation of their fundamental rights and a form of gender-baseddiscrimination. She recommended that “States should accelerate the drafting oflegislation that outlaws all forms of violence against women and girls, includingharmful traditional practices, and prescribe penalties that are commensurate with thegravity of such acts. These measures should, however, be accompanied by nationalinformation and awareness campaigns.”

But for the UN human rights programme, this problem would never havereceived the world-wide attention it now does. This author, as special assistant tothe head of the human rights secretariat, listened to several speeches by EdmondKaiser in the Commission on Human Rights. At the time, few people had anyawareness or understanding of the problem and it is to Edmond Kaiser that we


must give credit for having highlighted this problem in the 1970s and callingattention to it. At the UN Seminar in Dakar in 1984, Senegalese President AbdouDiouf paid tribute to his dedication in this cause.

On 20 December, 2012, the UN General Assembly unanimously passed a reso-lution banning the practice of Female Genital Mutilation. The resolution urgedcountries to condemn all harmful practices that affect women and girls, in particularfemale genital mutilation, and to take all necessary measures, including enforcinglegislation, awareness-raising and allocating sufficient resources to protect womenand girls from this form of violence. It called for special attention to protect andsupport women and girls who have been subjected to female genital mutilations, andthose at risk, including refugee women and women migrants.

In May, 2016, WHO, in collaboration with a UNFPA-UNICEF joint programmeon FGM, launched the first evidence-based guidelines on the management of healthcomplications from FGM. The guidelines were developed based on a systematicreview of the best available evidence on health interventions for women livingwith FGM.

4.2.4 Establishment of the Working Group on IndigenousPopulations

Indigenous peoples, several millions of them, exist in over eighty countries and theyhave long suffered, and continue to suffer, from numerous injustices. Until 1981they had no global forum to appear and plead for justice and respect for theirinalienable rights. In that year, Theo van Boven, made a stirring plea for theestablishment of a forum at the UN where indigenous peoples could appear, tell oftheir plight, and plead for justice.

In his opening address to the Sub-Commission, on 17 August, 1981, on ‘ThePlight of the Vulnerable: Survival at Stake’, van Boven, as mentioned above, made ahistoric statement calling for action to protect indigenous peoples. He stated:

The kinds of problems which I have been describing may be seen with particular poignancyin relation to the indigenous peoples of the world, who have been described somewhatimaginatively – and perhaps not without justification – as representing the fourth world: theworld on the margin, on the periphery. Indigenous peoples exist in various parts of the worldand present themselves in varying numbers and situations. They may range from a consid-erable part of the population or they may be a scattered few submerged in the hinterlands oftheir respective countries. Some have been chased from their ancestral lands and driven toareas where survival is harsh while others have been forced to co-exist in an often-undignified manner with their conquerors. Even in instances where they have managed toretain some of their lands up to now, these lands are coming under increasing encroachmentby powerful economic forces. In almost every instance the culture of indigenous peoples isunder serious threat. Their survival is at stake, sometimes physical and in many instancescultural.

Whatever their size, situation or location, indigenous peoples may be counted among themost vulnerable groups in today’s world. They are, for the most part, unorganized, that is tosay that they have not been able to organize themselves into lobby groups in their respective


countries. They often are unable to participate in the institutions which affect their lives.They often have no voices to speak for them, whether at the national or at the internationallevel. Fortunately, in recent years, some organizations of indigenous peoples have beenestablished which have worked nobly to make the world aware of their plight. Nevertheless,the majority of the world’s indigenous peoples remain silent sufferers whose voices arerarely heard, while they continue to suffer inhumanity, degradation, violation of their rightsand while they continue to approach the very frontiers of their continued survival.

The question may be asked, what is the responsibility of the international community forthose whose very rights of survival are in jeopardy. This question is particularly acute whenthe States concerned do not exercise their duty to guarantee protection to such vulnerablegroups. Is there not a special responsibility upon the international community and upon theUnited Nations to take measures to protect the human rights of these people and to save themfrom the dangers of extinction? Should not the international community assume a respon-sibility for their preservation, the enjoyment of their economic, social and cultural rights aswell as civil and political rights, the preservation of their culture and the protection of theirlands?

The question of the human rights of indigenous peoples has been on the internationalagenda for a long time. A number of years ago, this Sub-Commission, with the approval ofthe Commission on Human Rights and the Economic and Social Council, decided to initiatea comprehensive study on the human rights of indigenous peoples. This study has beenunder preparation for some time now and, this year, the Sub-Commission is seized with partsof the final version of the study. The question now arises as to whether the Sub-Commissionwill seek to move swiftly from the stage of studying to the stage of action, bearing in mindthat the plight of indigenous peoples is an acute one, and one which cannot afford thepassage of much more time before appropriate action. From various discussions of thisquestion, certain conclusions may be drawn which may be relevant to the Sub-Commission’sfuture deliberations on this matter. It has become clear, first of all, that there is need forfurther standard-setting regarding the human rights of indigenous peoples. It has alsobecome clear that indigenous peoples need an appropriate forum within the United Nationsto which they can address themselves on a regular basis and which may give regularconsideration to their problems. Thirdly, it has also become clear that there is need withinthe United Nations for an ongoing system of fact-finding into problems affecting theenjoyment of human rights by indigenous peoples. It may be asked whether the time is notripe for the Sub-Commission to request permission to establish, as it has done for theproblem of slavery, a regular working group on the human rights of indigenous peoples.5

(Italics added).

van Boven’s statement was the seminal event in the establishment of the WorkingGroup on Indigenous Issues. Under his leadership, and with the support of somemembers of the UN Sub-Commission on human rights, notably Asbjorn Eide ofNorway, this body established a Working Group on Indigenous Populations to meetfor five days a year, prior to the meetings of the Sub-Commission, and to listen to thepleas of indigenous peoples. This Group met for the first time in August, 1982, whenmore than 250 representatives of indigenous peoples from different parts of theworld came to the United Nations Office in Geneva, attired in their traditional dress,to tell their stories. They performed indigenous rites and dances on the grounds ofthe Palais des Nations in honour of the occasion.

5van Boven (1982), pp. 120–122.


The presence of these indigenous representatives in the UN Office in Geneva wasperhaps the most emotional moment thus far in the history of the United Nations. Itwas emotional for the indigenous representatives; and it was emotional for theexperts and international civil servants who had helped bring about the establishmentof the Working Group. These included indigenous representatives Leif Dunfjeld, aSami, and Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz an indigenous person from the USA. This had notbeen an easy passage. Powerful governments the world over were hostile to theestablishment of the Group and continued to stand guard over it for years.

Without a doubt, the establishment of the Sub-Commission’s Working Group onIndigenous Populations was one of the great, historic, breakthroughs for humanrights at the United Nations and one will always be proud of the initiative that led toits establishment.

In the 1960s, the Sub-Commission had requested one of its members, Mr JoseMartinez Cobo to prepare a study on discrimination against indigenous populations.Martinez-Cobo was assisted by a remarkably dedicated colleague, Mr AugustoWillemsen-Diaz. He prepared an encyclopaedic study that spanned over a decadebefore it was eventually completed.

Around this time, participants in the Commission on Human Rights were struckby the annual oral interventions of Mr Russel Means, speaking for the InternationalIndian Treaty Council. People were moved by the data he adduced on the livingconditions of indigenous people in comparison with others, their rate of imprison-ment compared with others, and their defenselessness before the law-enforcementforces.

van Boven had given his blessing to the establishment at the Geneva GraduateInstitute of International Studies of an International Forum on Human Rights, whichwas basically a discussion group that met from time to time. van Boven suggestedthe convening of a meeting of the Forum for a brainstorming on the protection ofindigenous peoples. At about this time we had met an American academic, RoxanneDunbar-Ortiz, an indigenous person who was interested in the protection of indig-enous peoples. With van Boven’s blessing, we asked her to give an introductorypresentation to the meeting of the Forum as a background to a policy discussion onoptions for the protection of indigenous populations. She agreed and did so. vanBoven was one of the participants and took a keen interest in the subject.

During the discussion, idea was floated that there be established a working groupof the Sub-Commission on indigenous populations. The idea had been mentioned atan international gathering of indigenous peoples in Geneva in 1975 but nothing hadcome of it, pending the conclusion of the Martinez-Cobo study.

After the brainstorming meeting van Boven decided not to wait for the comple-tion of the Martinez-Cobo study but to go forward with the idea of a working groupstraightaway. van Boven was an action person and he went for the idea keenly. In hisopening address to the Sub-Commission, in 1981, which we recounted above, hedealt with the plight of indigenous peoples and advocated the establishment of aworking group.

To take forward the idea of a working group, we in the Division of Human Rightsdrafted a resolution and then shared it with the Norwegian member of the Sub-


Commission, Asbjorn Eide. Eide remembers this well and, in his farewell address tothe Sub-Commission in 2003, some two decades later, he publicly acknowledgedour cooperation on the establishment of the working group.6

There were some good friends, from Western countries, supportive of our humanrights policies, who were guarded on this initiative. It touched the vital interests oftheir countries. We took their views into account, with Eide being now the negoti-ator. But he kept van Boven and me in the picture throughout and made nomodifications without discussing them with us first.

The idea of a working group of this kind in the Sub-Commission was somethingnew in the days of the cold war and it was not evident that the resolution would pass.Here Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz made an important contribution. She personallyengaged Third World members of the Sub-Commission, particularly its most seniorand active Third World member, Ahmed Khalifa, of Egypt, and persuaded the latterto support the resolution. Without this support the resolution would never have beenpassed. With Khalifa’s support, the resolution passed in the Sub-Commission andwas endorsed in the Commission the following year.

As mentioned above, one will never forget the first meeting of the WorkingGroup. Some 250 indigenous representatives, from different parts of the world, cameto Geneva to tell their stories and to advocate standards for the protection ofindigenous peoples. It had never happened before. It was an emotional momentfor them—and for all of us.

The working group initially devoted itself to two tasks: gathering information onthe plight of indigenous people; and working on standards for the protection ofindigenous populations.

The Working Group had many achievements. The first achievement of the Groupwas to record the submissions of indigenous representatives the world over on theirsituation and the injustices they were suffering. These stories were recorded in theannual reports of the Group and are now a part of history.

The second achievement of the Group was to work on the drafting of a UnitedNations declaration on the human rights of indigenous peoples. This was aprotracted process, as powerful governments sought to restrict the rights of indige-nous peoples. But in the end the effort succeeded, with the adoption by the GeneralAssembly in 2007 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.Indigenous peoples felt at the moment of its adoption, twenty-five years after theGroup first met, that they had received a ringing affirmation of their claims forjustice.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirmed that indige-nous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, ofall human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the

6In his farewell statement to the Sub-Commission on 15 August, 2004, Asbjorn Eide began: “Letme express my gratitude to see the Acting High Commissioner here. You were here, in a differentcapacity, when I first came to this body 22 years ago. You helped us then to find the way to open anew and innovative chapter when we established the Working Group on Indigenous populations,which started its work in 1982. . .” (Original statement in the possession of the author.)


United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international humanrights law. “Indigenous peoples are free and equal to all other peoples and individ-uals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise oftheir rights, in particular based on their indigenous origin or identity.” The hearts ofindigenous peoples swelled up with the recognition of these and other rights.

The third achievement of the Group was its study, and affirmation, of the validityof treaties that indigenous peoples had concluded with colonizing governments. TheUnited Nations studies on this topic now constitute a policy framework for govern-mental policies towards those treaties in different countries of the world.

The fourth achievement of the Group was the case it made for recognition of thecultural dimensions of development processes affecting indigenous peoples. Asrecognized in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, “Indigenouspeoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal,economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participatefully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of theState.”

The fifth achievement of the Group was its push for a specific forum within theeconomic and social sectors of the United Nations dedicated to the promotion ofdevelopment for indigenous peoples. This culminated in, 2002, with the establish-ment of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

The first meeting of this Forum, was also an emotional moment for indigenouspeoples and members of the UN Secretariat working on their issues. At this firstmeeting, an elderly member of a Canadian tribe from the Pacific North-Westaddressed the Permanent Forum in her native language, translating for herself asshe went along. This brought tears to the eyes of many present since she was the lastsurviving person who could speak her native language. When she passed on, thelanguage would disappear from the face of the earth!

The Working Group continued to work until 2006, when it was succeeded by aSpecial Rapporteur on indigenous rights. Without van Boven and the United Nationshuman rights programme indigenous peoples would not have been able to enter thehalls of the United Nations, to air their grievances and to plead for justice.

4.3 Conclusion

One has seen in this chapter leadership for protection of a rare kind. We saw vanBoven eloquently pleading for the protection of the weak and the vulnerable. Wesaw him supporting efforts for the protection of victims of slavery and slavery-likepractices. We saw him supporting efforts for the protection of victims of femalegenital mutilation. And we saw him write the future with his ideas for the protectionof indigenous peoples. All of van Boven’s ideas came to fruition: the establishmentof a UN working group on the rights of indigenous peoples; the drafting of standardssetting out the rights of indigenous peoples; and the emplacement of arrangementsfor systematic fact-finding into problems being experienced by indigenous peoples.

4.3 Conclusion 41

van Boven gave indigenous peoples a forum at the United Nations, standards fortheir protection, and on-going fact-finding arrangements. He truly transformed theUN human rights system and saw the advent, once again, of universal protection.

References

Coomans F, et al, (Eds.) (2000) Rendering Justice to the Vulnerable: Liber Amicorum in Honour ofTheo van Boven.

van Boven, TC (1982) People Matter. Amsterdam, Meulenhoff, 1982. (Edited by Hans Thoolen)


Chapter 5Voice for the Victims

Abstract van Boven was a tireless voice for the victims of human rights violations.He implored the Commission on Human Rights that it could not ignore the anxietybeing felt in large circles. He pointed to the structural conditions of human rightswork in the international system and but he believed the UN had to face it openly.The Commission had to be the repository of justice and consciences. He placed thehuman factor at the centre of all of his thinking and efforts. He pleaded, for theequality and interdependence of all human beings and that if UN Member Statesbelieved in the duty of solidarity in the realization of human rights, one could not restcontent when human rights are being flagrantly.

Keywords Keeping humans at the centre of the UN · Advocacy for victims ofviolations

5.1 Introduction

Throughout his tenure as head of the UN human rights programme van Bovenpleaded insistently and repeatedly for the victims of violations of human rights.We reproduce below a selection from his speeches in which he did this eloquently.

5.2 The Cries of the Victims

Addressing the Commission on Human Rights in 1978, van Boven spoke on behalfof the victims of violations thus:

The Commission is experiencing difficulties in two main areas: how to deal more consis-tently with allegations of violations of human rights in a manner that will respond to theurgent needs of people and persons who suffer, and how to organize its work so as todischarge its tasks in as effective and efficient a manner as possible.

I have referred to consideration of allegations of violations ‘in a manner that will respondto urgent needs of people and persons who suffer’. This is an important aspect on which I


43


should like to dwell for a moment. We cannot escape the fact that we should recognize thatthere is a certain degree of anxiety about the way in which the Commission is responding toallegations of violations of human rights, particularly those giving cause for widespreadconcern in the international community. The Commission did examine and is still examininga number of grave situations affecting the human rights of a large number of people. But itappears to ignore many others involving victims of killings, starvation, arbitrary arrest anddetention, and torture, and people who disappear under the most dubious circumstances.Ordinary people all over the world place their expectations and hopes in the Commission onHuman Rights. In the Division of Human Rights, we receive daily many proofs of theexpression of such expectations and hopes. The hopes and the support of the people are, inthe final analysis, the main source of strength that the Commission could possess.Work for aninternational and social order in which human rights will prevail can only be successful if theefforts of the international community are supported by the minds and hearts of all the peopleand by their active participation and commitment. The Commission cannot, therefore, affordto ignore the anxiety being felt in large circles. This is a problem which is delicate and whichtouches upon some structural conditions of our work, but I believe that wemust face it openly.Efforts should be made to reassure the international community of the continuing commit-ment and the increased resolve of the Commission in promoting and protecting human rightsand in combating violations of human rights wherever they may occur.1

5.2.1 Justice and Conscience

Addressing the Commission the next year, in 1979, van Boven called upon it to be arepository of justice and conscience:

The Commission on Human Rights should be the repository of the conscience of the UnitedNations as well as of its moral authority. Herein lies its potentials in the United Nationssystem. It is the Commission’s responsibility to work for justice in international and nationalsecurity and to give guidance in directions conducive to respect for human rights and humandignity. It is also its responsibility to strive to bring back into line recalcitrant members of theinternational community who may depart from the international standards of conduct laiddown in the human rights code. It is against these tests of its responsibilities that theCommission should be measured.

. . .[T]he question deserves to be posed as to the extent to which the United Nations is

maintaining its relevance in the field of human rights. The peoples and persons of the worldhave great expectations of the Commission and wish to see it discharge its role as moralarbiter and as repository of the moral conscience of the international community.

. . .To what extent can it be said that the Commission is really in touch with the peoples and

persons of the world and is responding to their needs? To what extent is it heeding the voicesof the suffering, the oppressed, the exploited, the persecuted, the underprivileged?

These questions are crucial as to the relevancy and the credibility of the Commission, forif we fail in our responses we may fail in our endeavours as a whole. In this connection thenon-governmental organizations in consultative status are important links between theCommission and the people and persons at large. Their role in acting as transmitters ofopinions and concerns and as sources of ideas and energies is vital to the human rights

1van Boven (1982), pp. 42–43.

44 5 Voice for the Victims

programme and the Commission may wish to consider ways and means of enhancing theirrole and of bringing itself into closer contacts with the peoples and persons for whom, in thefinal analysis, its work is intended.

A central aspect of this question is the way the Commission handles allegations ofviolations of human rights. It is not enough for the Commission to draft and promoteinternational standards or to seek to relate human rights to the development process. For afundamental test of the activities of the United Nations in the field of human rights is what itdoes when there is evidence that human rights are being grossly violated in any part of theworld.

. . ..“Violations of human rights affect human beings the same way irrespective of the level

of development of the societies to which they belong or of their economic and social system.To a person who is tortured, arbitrarily imprisoned or executed it matters not whether he orshe lives in a developed or developing country or under one political or economic system oranother. For him or her the results are the same. It is therefore the imperative duty of theCommission to strive actively to prevent and suppress violations of human rights. We needto develop further ways and means of tackling violations of human rights. We need todevelop further ways and means of tackling violations, including those which take placeunder new guises such as under the pretext of national security or quasi-permanent states ofemergencies. We need to develop methods for responding to urgent situations which arisebetween sessions.2

5.2.2 Disregard of Gross Violations of Human Rights

Addressing the Commission on Human Rights in 1980, van Boven quoted thefollowing statement in the Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work ofthe Organization, which had been drafted in the Division of Human Rights:

Great hopes have been placed in the United Nations by peoples, persons and groupsthroughout the world which rightly expect the Organization to react in the face of thedisregard or violation of human rights. We must realize, of course, that the United Nationshas not always been in a position fully to meet these expectations.3

van Boven continued as follows:

In his address to the General Assembly in 1979, the President of Uganda, referring to thenightmare of eight years dictatorship in his country, stated the following:

‘. . .[O]ur people naturally looked to the United Nations for solidarity and support in theirstruggle against the fascist dictatorship. For eight years they cried out in the wilderness forhelp; unfortunately, their cries seemed to have fallen on deaf ears. The Uganda situation ismerely one example of a very serious global problem involving extensive violations ofhuman rights. The increasing number of refugees and displaced persons is sufficienttestimony to the gravity of the situation. . .For how long will the United Nations remainsilent while Governments represented within this Organization continue to perpetrate atroc-ities against their own people? Governments come and go, but the peoples of the worldremain a permanent constituency of the United Nations. It was for the well-being of thepeoples of the world that the United Nations were founded in the first instance. Indeed, it is

2van Boven (1982), pp. 54–55.3van Boven (1982), p. 61.

5.2 The Cries of the Victims 45

for their welfare that the United Nations must continue to work. It would be unfortunate ifthis Organization were reduced to a club of governments afraid to speak out boldly for therights of the citizens of the world.’4

5.3 The Human Factor

van Boven’s address to the Commission on Human Rights in 1981 had the title “TheHuman Factor”. It had a chapter, “Flagrant Violations of Human Rights ScandalizeAny Notion of World Order.” He told the Commission:

While pursuing long-term objectives, there are also many immediate concerns which needurgent consideration. Gross violations of human rights which occur in various parts of theworld scandalize any notion of world order. For if we believe in the equality andinterdependence of all human beings and if we believe in the duty of solidarity in therealization of human rights, we cannot rest content when human rights are being flagrantlyviolated in any part of the world. Nevertheless, as I have had occasion to point out to theCommission before, our methods for tackling violations of human rights are still in theirinfancy and are often inadequate to deal with the problems faced.

. . .In many instances since the end of the Second World War, violations of human rights

occurring within countries have resulted in levels of human suffering far greater than thoseensuing from many disputes or conflicts between two or more States.

. . .I should like to touch on one particularly important aspect of the United Nations response

to violations of human rights, namely the handling of urgent situations. . .I am convinced thatthe United Nations must devise appropriate ways and means of responding as urgently aspossible to situations of gross violations of human rights which arise.5

5.3.1 Protection of Human Life

van Boven’s address to the Commission in 1982, his final year, carried the title,‘Protection of Human Life’ and it had a poignant chapter on ‘Deliberate Killings’,which was unprecedented in the history of the United Nations. We reproduce thissection next:

The role of the Commission on Human Rights with respect to the right to life is parexcellence to focus on the protection of the human person, physically and mentally, and toprevent deliberate killings perpetrated by organized power. Let us recall that the UnitedNations and its human rights programme were established in reaction to some of the mostmassive and outrageous assaults on human life ever committed in the history of mankind.Since the establishment of the United Nations, nevertheless, deliberate assaults on the life ofthe human person have been one of the crying shames of our times. We have witnessed andwe are continuing to witness: genocide; political liquidations; mass killings; arbitrary and

4Ibid.5van Boven (1982), pp. 72–73.


summary executions; torture; disappearances; killings of refugees and indiscriminate kill-ings in armed conflicts. Concerns stemming from the reports of mass executions and ofarbitrary and summary executions have given rise to resolutions during recent sessions of theGeneral Assembly. At its last session, for example, the General Assembly condemned thepractice of summary executions and arbitrary executions and strongly deplored the increas-ing number of summary executions as well as the continued incidence of arbitrary execu-tions in different parts of the world. At its last session also, the Sub-Commission onPrevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities decided to draw the attention ofthe Commission on Human Rights to the increasing scale of politically-motivated executionsand to inform the Commission of the Sub-Commission’s view that this problem deserves themost urgent consideration in order to bring an end to these irreversible violations of humanrights.

The protection of human life is one of the most urgent priorities on the human rightsagenda; the deliberate killings of human beings rank amongst the most severe, extensive andshocking violations of human rights in the world today. Let me give some examples basedon material which has been submitted to the United Nations or to this very Commission onHuman Rights. Members of the Commission may recall the report which Mr. A. Bouhdiba,Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission, presented to the Commission in 1979concerning the killings which had taken place in Democratic Kampuchea under the regimeof Pol Pot. The considered estimate of Mr Bouhdiba, based on his survey of the evidence,was that at least one million persons had been killed in Democratic Kampuchea during thattime. Let me quote what Mr. Bouhdiba had to say:

the documents showed that at least 100,000 persons had been executed and that at leastone million had died as a result of lack of food or care, physical exhaustion brought about bythe extremely severe labour regime that had been imposed, and epidemics that had not beenhalted in time. Some of the documents made unbearable reading. It was as if a systematicmassacre had been organized, either on orders from the highest authorities or as a result ofinitiatives over which varying degrees of control had been exercised.

“This situation”, he added, “constituted nothing less than auto-genocide.”

In other reports submitted to the Commission or to the General Assembly, similar horrorstories have been related. The reports of the Working Group on Enforced or InvoluntaryDisappearances have estimated that thousands of persons in the world have been made todisappear involuntarily and the indications are that thousands of them have been killed. Thenumber of deaths resulting from torture continues to be alarmingly high. For years, the AdHocWorking Group of Experts on the situation of human rights in southern Africa has beenreporting details of mass killings and massacres. The Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts onthe situation in Chile provided ample information on widespread practices of torture,enforced disappearances, killings and other gross violations of human rights. In Ugandaover a quarter of a million persons are reported to have been killed during the regime ofPresident Amin. The Commission’s Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights inEquatorial Guinea reported on atrocious killings which had taken place in that country underthe previous regime.

The interim report of this Commission’s Special Representative on El Salvador, whichwas submitted to the General Assembly at its last session, reported on evidence received thatin 1979 the security services murdered 1,030 persons in El Salvador for political reasons andthat in 1980 there were 8,062 political murders. The 1980 report of the Inter-AmericanCommission on Human Rights spoke of some 6,000 persons killed during the first ninemonths of that year, while the number of reported murders for 1981 is even higher.Similarly, the collection of information presented to you by the Secretary-General on thesituation of human rights in Guatemala refers to estimates that more than 5,000 persons were

5.3 The Human Factor 47

killed for political reasons during 1980, while other sources put the toll at between 15 to 20 aday or even higher, as reports of unidentified bodies clothed in native dress floating down therivers and the discovery of several mass graves, have come to light.

One can argue about the numbers of those murdered, executed or disappeared. Thesenumbers, running into thousands and tens of thousands, often go beyond the comprehensionof what one can mentally or morally grasp. They go beyond any human comprehension ofthe suffering afflicted upon whole populations and generations. All these numbers compriseindividual human beings for whom the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was equallyproclaimed, as for you and for me.

I could recount endlessly on similar evidence of widespread killings in many countries,in different parts of the world. During the last sessions of the Sub-Commission and theGeneral Assembly, serious concern was also expressed about massive executions in Iran.

The findings of other reputable human rights organs also bear out the serious dimensionsof this problem. In its last annual report, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rightsstated that, during the period 1980–1981, the most serious violations of human rightsconcerning the right to life took the form of summary executions. It said that in the contextof the climate of generalized violence prevalent in some countries, there occurred inalarming numbers, what the Commission called illegal or extra-judicial executions. Inmost cases such executions were directly committed by security forces which acted withimpunity outside the law, as well as by para-military groups which operated with theacquiescence or tacit consent of the governments. As a general rule, such consent hadindicated that governmental authorities did not carry out adequate and effective investiga-tions to determine those responsible for these crimes.

The Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations is duty bound to address itselfto these issues of the most basic, fundamental and urgent priority concerns. . .Governmentshave a responsibility to prevent killings in their respective countries and . . .Governmentsthemselves should not engage in, or condone, such killings.6

5.4 Indication of Protective Measures

van Boven not only spoke out against gross violations, but he accompanied this bysuggesting thematic as well as country-specific avenues for responding to thoseviolations. Thematically, he pleaded for the Commission on Human Rights toaddress situations of alleged gross violations of human rights. As part of his strategyof calling for more attention to situations of gross violations of human rights heindicated ways forward, calling for the appointment of country-rapporteurs asinvestigators. Previously, fact-finding exercises had been carried out by workinggroups of three or five members, which required extensive staff outlay for translatorsand interpreters. A rapporteur was a far simpler approach and could be replicated indifferent situations, which is what occurred, following his lead.

6van Boven (1982), pp. 78–81.


van Boven advocated the designation of thematic global investigators: whenparticular country situations could not be tackled because of political objections.They could be approached through, for example, a global examination of enforcedand involuntary disappearances or a global examination of arbitrary and summaryexecutions. This approach succeeded with the establishment of the Working Groupon Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, and the first ever thematic rapporteurwith a global mandate on arbitrary and summary executions. Both of these were vanBoven’s initiatives.

van Boven advocated more direct contacts with governments facing human rightsproblems. During his period of office, direct contact missions were undertaken tocountries such as Haiti, Ethiopia, Paraguay, Uganda, and Uruguay. Some of theseturned out to be flimsy exercises but some were meaningful.

van Boven spoke out against gross violations of human rights in named countries,such as El Salvador, Guatemala and Iran. In doing so, he marshalled publiclyavailable evidence from different organizations such as the Organization of Amer-ican States. It was for doing this that the USA pressed for, and obtained, thenon-renewal of his contract.

van Boven worked closely with NGOs such as Amnesty International and theInternational Commission of Jurists, drawing upon their information on grossviolations and working out ideas for initiatives in discreet, close, cooperation withthem. He believed very much in partnership with NGOs for the promotion andprotection of human rights.

5.5 Conclusion

van Boven’s activation of the voice of conscience transformed the United Nationswhen it came to dealing with allegations of gross violations of human rights. Themost effective agents that the United Nations has for addressing gross violations ofhuman rights are still the country and thematic special rapporteurs and workinggroups investigating allegations of gross violations of human rights. It was vanBoven who led the United Nations along this path. His activation of the voice ofconscience was principled, strategic and structural.

van Boven served in the midst of the cold war and could therefore be easilysquashed by the major powers, as he was in the end result, when the USA movedaggressively for the non-renewal of his contract in 1982 for speaking out againstarbitrary and summary executions in Latin America. But the legacy he left makeshim perhaps the greatest United Nations human rights leader ever in the history ofthe Organization, including the High Commissioners. He had been a life-longstudent of human rights, had been an expert on the Sub-Commission and a delegateon the Commission, and was therefore versed in the substance and politics of human

5.5 Conclusion 49

rights. He did not just ‘speak out’ as many have done. He was strategic in speakingout and combined this with suggestions of practical avenues for responding to grossviolations of human rights.

Reference



Chapter 6The Push for National Protection

Abstract van Boven’s personal interest in national protection systems, a theme thathas featured since the beginning of the human rights movement at the UN, led to thedevelopment of international standards—the Paris Principles—on the developmentof national human rights institutions. In pursuing these goals van Boven championedthe participation of NGOs in this process and in national protection systems.

Keywords National human rights institutions · Paris Principles · Nationalprotection systems · Non-governmental organisations · National protection

6.1 Introduction

From the very first year of his tenure, van Boven launched initiative after initiative tobroaden and deepen the UN human rights programme, to build up protectionmachinery and to give voice to the victims of gross violations of human rights. In1977, van Boven launched initiatives in the General Assembly to activate long-dormant efforts for the establishment and enhancement of national institutions forthe promotion and protection of human rights and for the establishment of regionalhuman rights machinery in Africa, Asia and the Pacific. In this chapter we discussthe push for national protection. In the chapter following we discuss the push forregional institutions and in the chapter after that we discuss the push to strengthenUN protection of human rights.

If one reflects on it, protection at home, in one’s own country, is of the greatestimportance among strategies for the promotion and protection of human rights.Regional and international efforts can be helpful and might come to be needed butthe goal must be to build up protection at home.

The UN recognized this from the outset and, shortly after the adoption of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights, passed resolutions urging the establishmentor strengthening of national human rights institutions. Under its programme ofadvisory services and technical assistance, the UN also organized regional andinternational seminars to promote national institutions.


51


A national protection system, while anchored in national law, should be consis-tent with, and reflective of, international human rights law. A national protectionsystem functions best under democracy and the rule of law. The Legislature, theExecutive, the Judiciary, the Legal Profession, dedicated institutions such as anational human rights commission, and NGOs all have roles to play in the efficientdesign and performance of the national protection system.

The national constitution should include provisions reflecting internationalhuman rights norms of public policy (jus cogens), such as the total prohibition oftorture in any circumstances. National legislation should incorporate all internationalhuman rights obligations of the State under international customary law and inter-national treaties, and under mandatory decisions of the UN Security Council.

The national protection system should provide for effective safeguards againstviolations of international human rights norms from which no derogation is permit-ted under international law. The Judiciary should be free to invoke internationalhuman rights norms as reflected in international customary law, international treatiesbinding on the State, or general principles of law.

Human rights education should be provided in all schools and higher institutionsof learning. A national protection system should include institutions such as anational commission on human rights or an ombudsperson. A national protectionsystem should include arrangements to detect potential conflicts or gross violationsof human rights and to prevent them.

A national protection system should provide for adequate and effective remediesto prevent violations of human rights and to provide redress in cases of breach. Theabsence of a remedy available to test an arguable claim for breach amounts to aviolation of human rights.

The right to an effective remedy may, in certain circumstances, require Govern-ments to provide for, and implement, provisional or interim measures to avoidcontinuing violations and to endeavour to repair at the earliest possible opportunityany harm that may have been done.

A national protection system should be particularly attentive to the risks ofgenocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and war crimes and shouldprovide effective guarantees against them. (The responsibility to protect). TheHuman Rights Committee’s General Comment 6/16 of 27 July, 1982 noted thatStates have the supreme duty to prevent wars, acts of genocide, and other acts ofmass violence causing arbitrary loss of life.

A national protection system should provide for a system of regular visits bynational, regional or international bodies to all places of detention. In the event of aviolation of human rights, the national protection system must provide for measures,beyond a victim-specific remedy, to be taken to avoid recurrence of the type ofviolation in question. Such measures may require changes in the State’s laws orpractices (Human Rights Committee, General Comment 31).

A national protection system should provide for investigations of gross violationsof human rights and for justice to the victims.

52 6 The Push for National Protection

A national protection system should provide for safeguards against deportation orextradition to a state where the deportee/extraditee may face serious risks of tortureor arbitrary execution.

A national protection system should be particularly protective of human rightsdefenders.

6.2 Major Initiatives

6.2.1 At the General Assembly in 1977 and the Commissionon Human Rights in 1978

At the United Nations General Assembly in 1977, the year van Boven began histenure as Director of theDivision of Human Rights, he inserted into a note containingsuggestions for the commemoration of the thirtieth anniversary of the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights the next year the idea that the General Assembly, onthe occasion of the thirtieth anniversary, might discuss the role of national or localinstitutions for the promotion and protection of human rights. van Boven alsosuggested that a seminar be organized on this topic in 1978. The General Assemblyaccepted this suggestion. The next year, in 1978, van Boven encouraged delegationsto highlight this issue and, on 8 March, 1978, the Commission on Human Rightsadopted a resolution in which it invited Member States that had not yet done so to setup national institutions. The Commission also suggested that a seminar be organizedon this topic and that it draft guidelines for the structure and functioning of nationalinstitutions.

6.2.2 The 1978 Seminar on National and Local Institutionsfor the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

van Boven took a personal interest in this seminar and it turned out to be one of themost important on record. The participants were of high quality from different partsof the world and they took the baton and included in the report of the seminar a set ofguidelines on the role and functioning of national and local human rights institutions.The guidelines adopted by the Seminar were subsequently consecrated into the ParisPrinciples on National Institutions, which were endorsed by the UN GeneralAssembly.

It is on the basis of the Paris Principles, that is to say the recommendations of the1978 seminar, that the cooperation of the United Nations with National Institutionsstill takes place.

During the deliberations at the seminar, participants stressed that the time hadcome to implement the international standards laid down in the years since the

6.2 Major Initiatives 53

adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A number of participantsconsidered, as desirable areas of action, the wider dissemination of information onnational efforts in the field of human rights. Ways and means, they thought, alsoneeded to be considered for the wider dissemination of human rights informationwithin countries. To this end, national institutions in this field needed to be improved.

The giving of all possible support to NGOs was considered by some speakers as ahighly important area of action. Such NGOs as already existed were the bed-rock onwhich an international network of necessary national and local institutions might bebased. Assistance should especially be given to NGOs active in those countrieswhere the people were struggling for national liberation.

The potential educative function of national and local institutions was consideredan important and desirable area of action. It was necessary to improve awareness andunderstanding of human rights in each country. Such educational needs should beborne in mind when the nature of necessary national institutions was beingconsidered.

Such institutions would need material support from the United Nations. Specialattention, in this context, should be given to the needs of developing countries,which might have greater difficulties in establishing the necessary institutions.

Participants stressed the need of national and local institutions for assistance andsupport from the international community. The United Nations could help byproviding advice to those institutions, by co-ordinating their efforts, by freelyproviding them with information and by acting towards them in a consultativecapacity.1

6.2.3 The Guidelines Prepared by the 1978 Seminar

The Seminar on National and Local Institutions for the Promotion and Protection ofHuman Rights held in 1978 was a spectacular success. The documentation preparedfor it included a background paper written by the first Director of the United NationsDivision of Human Rights, John Humphrey.2 Participants from several countriessuch as India submitted first-class papers on their experiments with national humanrights bodies. The discussions at the Seminar were of high quality and the partici-pants made a major contribution to national strategies for the promotion andprotection of human rights. The Seminar recommended Guidelines for the Structureand Functioning of National Institutions that included the following:

• National institutions could serve as a source of relevant information for theGovernment of a Member State and for the people of that country regardingmatters connected with human rights.

1United Nations (1978), pp. 41–42.2See Humphrey (1971, 1984, 1998) on his contribution to human rights protection at the UN.


• National institutions could assist in the education of public opinion towards, andawareness of respect for human rights.

• National institutions could consider, deliberate upon and make recommendationswithin their specified terms of reference, regarding any particular state of affairsthat may exist nationally that the Government may wish to refer to them.

• National institutions could advise on any questions regarding human rightsreferred to them from time to time by their national Government.

• National institutions could study and keep under review the status of legislation,judicial decisions and administrative arrangements for the promotion of humanrights, and prepare and submit, in this connection, periodic reports at prescribedintervals to the appropriate authorities designated by the Government of the Stateconcerned.

• National institutions could perform any function which the Government maywish to assign to them in connection with the duties of the Government underthose international conventions to which the Government is a State party.

Each of these recommendations was elaborated upon in detail into altogether50 recommendations including on the structure of national institutions. On thisaspect the Seminar recommended that national institutions should be so designedas to bring all parts of the population into the decision-making process in regard tohuman rights. National institutions should be statutory authorities or bodies createdwithin and subject to the constitutions and laws of respective Member States.National institutions should be established as autonomous, impartial, statutorybodies.

6.2.4 The Paris Principles

The Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (The Paris Principles),based on the guidelines of the 1978 Seminar, were endorsed by the UN GeneralAssembly in its resolution 48/134 of 20 December, 1993. According to the ParisPrinciples, a national institution shall be vested with the competence to promote andprotect human rights. It should be granted as broad a mandate as possible, clearly setforth in a constitutional or legislative text, specifying its composition and its sphereof competence.

The Paris Principles set out a number of specific responsibilities of a nationalinstitution and specify that it should be established in accordance with a procedurewhich affords all necessary guarantees to ensure the pluralist representation of thesocial forces of the civilian society involved in the protection and promotion ofhuman rights.

Within the framework of its operation, a national institution shall freely considerany questions falling within its competence, hear any person and obtain any infor-mation and any documents necessary for assessing situations falling within itscompetence; address public opinion.

6.2 Major Initiatives 55

A national institution may be authorized to hear and consider complaints andpetitions concerning individual situations.

On the basis of the Paris Principles, the OHCHR, as we shall see next, has apronounced programme of international cooperation on the role of national humanrights institutions.

6.3 The UN and National Human Rights Institutions

As we write, at the beginning of 2018, in the 70th anniversary year of the UniversalDeclaration, the website of the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rightsindicates that NHRIs that comply with the Paris Principles are playing a crucial rolein promoting and monitoring the effective implementation of international humanrights standards at the national level, a role which is increasingly recognized by theinternational community.

OHCHR supports the establishment and strengthening of NHRIs and worksclosely with them to support their activities. OHCHR supports efforts for theestablishment and strengthening of NHRIs worldwide; provides secretariat supportto the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions; and supports regionaland sub-regional networks on NHRIs.

At an international conference in Tunis, in 1993, NHRIs established what is nowthe Global Alliance of NHRIs (GANHRI). At the time of writing, GANHRI hadsome seventy members which it considered to have been established and functioningin accordance with the Paris Principles.

6.4 Conclusion

One fact stands out remarkably: It was the 1978 seminar that laid the groundworkand the guidelines for the establishment and functioning of national human rightsinstitutions. On the basis of that groundwork, ratified by the General Assembly in theParis Principles, the UN runs an important programme of cooperation with NationalInstitutions and with Governments for the strengthening of national protectionsystems. There is still a long way to go to achieve adequate and effective nationalprotection systems in all countries and much more work is required in this area. Butit was the initiative of Theo van Boven that gave impetus to this crucial area ofinternational cooperation for the universal realization of human rights. Policy,initiative, and drive mattered. But, as van Boven would say, ‘People Matter’. Thatwas his motto and he sought always to give expression to it.


References

Humphrey JP (1971) The Right of Petition in the United Nations. Human Rights Journal 4 (1971):463–475.

Humphrey JP (1984) Human Rights and the United Nations: A Great Adventure. Dobbs Ferry,New York, Transnational Publishers Inc., 1984.

Humphrey JP (1998) On the Edge of Greatness. The Diaries of John Humphrey, First Director ofthe United Nations Division of Human Rights, Volume 3, 1952–1957. Edited by A.J. Hobbins.McGill University Press, Montreal.

United Nations (1978) Report of Seminar on National and Local Institutions for the Promotion andProtection of Human Rights. Geneva, 18–29 September, 1978. UN doc. ST/HR/SER.A/2,United Nations, New York.

References 57

Chapter 7The Push for Regional Protection

Abstract van Boven was instrumental in launching initiatives to re-invigorate andcreate regional human rights systems, including the African Commission, a pro-posed Asian Commission for the Asia-Pacific and an Arab Commission.

Keywords Regional human rights mechanisms · African human rightscommission · Arab commission on human rights

7.1 Introduction

Already in 1977, at the outset of his tenure, van Boven decided to make a push forthe establishment of regional human rights commissions in areas where they did notalready exist. At the time there were regional arrangements in Europe and theAmericas. On behalf of van Boven and at his request, we approached the Nigerianrepresentative on the General Assembly’s Social and Humanitarian Committee (theThird Committee) with a suggestion that his delegation introduce a resolution on thistopic in the Committee. Nigeria had in the past hosted conferences to discuss theestablishment of an African Commission and the delegation was thereforefavourably disposed.

This led to the adoption of resolutions in the General Assembly and the Commis-sion on Human Rights, drafted in the Division of Human Rights, and reactivating thesearch for more regional institutions. In the Division of Human Rights, we kept inparticular touch with the delegations of Nigeria and Liberia, on an initiative for anAfrican Commission and with Sri Lanka on an initiative for a commission for Asiaand the Pacific.

In this chapter we recount the policy push in the General Assembly and theCommission on Human Rights, and the initiatives to advance regional human rightsinstitutions in Africa and in Asia and the Pacific.


59


7.2 Policy Initiatives Aimed at Establishing RegionalProtection Institutions

7.2.1 Re-activating Efforts for the Establishment of FurtherRegional Commissions

As indicated above, on behalf of van Boven and at his request, this authorapproached the Nigerian representative on the Third Committee, Mr Ayeni, anddiscussed with him the idea of Nigeria sponsoring a resolution in the Third Com-mittee reactivating the idea of establishing more regional arrangements for thepromotion and protection of human rights. He welcomed this suggestion and weprovided him with a draft resolution that he tabled. This became General Assemblyresolution 32/187, adopted on 16 December, 1977. In this resolution the GeneralAssembly, aware of the importance of encouraging regional cooperation for thepromotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, appealed toStates in areas where regional arrangements in the field of human rights did not yetexist to consider agreements with a view to the establishment, within their respectiveregions, of suitable regional machinery for the promotion and protection of humanrights. It also requested the Secretary-General, under the programme of advisoryservices in the field of human rights, to give priority to the organization, in areaswhere no regional commissions on human rights existed, of seminars for the purposeof discussing the usefulness and advisability of the establishment of regional com-missions for the promotion and protection of human rights.

The Nigerian delegation followed up the initiative by tabling a correspondingresolution the following year at the thirty-fourth session of the Commission onHuman Rights. The Commission adopted a resolution that requested the Secretary-General to consider the possibility of arranging suitable regional seminars under theprogramme of advisory services in the field of human rights in those regions whereno regional commission on human rights existed at that time for the purpose ofdiscussing the usefulness and advisability of the establishment of regional commis-sions on human rights.1

7.2.2 Initiative for an African Commission on Humanand Peoples’ Rights

The idea of an African Commission on Human Rights goes back to the 1960s andTaslim Olawale Elias of Nigeria was one of its leading promoters. Seminars orga-nized by the International Commission of Jurists on the Rule of Law in Africa soughtto advance the idea. The United Nations Division of Human Rights took up the idea

1Commission resolution 24(XXXIV).

60 7 The Push for Regional Protection

and organized two seminars in the 1960s to help take the idea forward but it did notdevelop traction. van Boven took the initiative to organize a third seminar inMonrovia, Liberia, and this turned out to be a decisive initiative, leading directlyto the establishment of today’s African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

As part of the process of promoting regional cooperation for the promotion andprotection of human rights we cooperated closely with the International Commissionof Jurists which, under its distinguished Secretary-General Niall MacDermot, wasalso pushing regional strategies for the promotion and protection of human rights.

The seminar was held in Monrovia in 1979. van Boven and I took with us a draftconvention which envisaged the adoption of a resolution by the Assembly of theOrganization of African Unity establishing an African Commission, as the GeneralAssembly of the OAS had done for the Americas.

7.2.3 Monrovia (Liberia) Seminar

At the opening of the Monrovia Seminar, van Boven delivered an opening address inwhich he stated the following:

The idea of the seminar is to work along with the aspirations and energies of AfricanGovernments and peoples and to provide them with an opportunity of discussing thesematters with a view to deciding for themselves whether any further institutions in the field ofhuman rights are necessary on the African continent, and if so, what form it should take.

. . .This seminar, while mindful of the experience of other regions, will be focusing on the

needs of Africa. . . . In discussing this matter the seminar may wish to be flexible. Thus, itcould well be that, as occurred in the Inter-American region, while work is underway for thepreparation of the draft Charter of Human Rights recently requested by the OAU Heads ofState and Government, and for the establishment of African human rights organs under thatCharter, measures could be taken in the meantime to establish arrangements which couldfunction pending the entry into force of the Charter, and even to prepare the ground so thatwhen, eventually, any organ established by the future African Charter begin to function, theywill have had the experience of any such earlier arrangements.2

When van Boven went to Liberia he found significant opposition on the part ofsome participants. Morocco was then smarting from the OAU’s recognition of thePolisaario Liberation Front (Western Sahara) and was obstructive. The legal adviserof the OAU, a Nigerian, was unfriendly to the idea. The other participants weresitting on the fence in the first 2 days of the seminar. One of the NGO participantswas Mr Eya Nchama of Equatorial Guinea, who was a respected representative of ananti-discrimination NGO in Geneva.

After we saw that the seminar was making no headway we had a strategy sessionwith him and he agreed, the next day, to make a strong appeal for progress. He was apowerful speaker and commanded the audience the next day. Following his speech,

2van Boven (1982), pp. 167–169.

7.2 Policy Initiatives Aimed at Establishing Regional Protection Institutions 61

the seminar accepted a proposal we had arranged for him to make suggesting theestablishment of a drafting committee to prepare the text of an African Commission.

There were views, which would subsequently prevail in the African Charter, thatthe establishment of an African Commission should go in tandem with the adoptionof African norms of human rights. We were pushing for the model of the OAS inwhich the establishment of a convention by resolution preceded the adoption of aconvention. The work of the drafting group went along with our line of reasoning.

The Chairman of the drafting group was Mr Justice Wiredu of Ghana. Withouthim the process would not have advanced. He believed in the idea of an AfricanCommission and he was a strong chair. He faced down filibusterers. He subsequentlybecame Chief Justice of Ghana. The institutional parts of the African Charter onHuman and Peoples’ Rights are basically as drafted in Monrovia.

There is one point about the deliberations of the drafting committee that might beremarked upon. In our draft we had, following the Statute of the International Courtof Justice, put in that the African Commission could apply African regional custom-ary law. The Senegalese participant, Mr Justice M’Backe, stoutly resisted this. Hedid not wish Africa to be imprisoned in retrograde customs. We therefore inserted inthe text that the African Commission could draw upon African customs to the extentthat they were consistent with international human rights standards. It was thus thatthe international standard prevailed in the Monrovia draft. One could say that thiswas the M’Backe standard!

7.2.4 Advice on the Establishment of a Regional Commissionfor Asia and the Pacific

In March, 1978, van Boven received a letter dated 24 February, 1978 from Mr E.A.G. De Silva, of the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute, and copied to Mr H.W.Jayewardene, member of the Sub-Commission, Member of the Foundation, andMr S.W.B. Wadugodapitiya, also of the Foundation. The letter sought his advice onthe establishment of a regional commission on human rights for Asia and the Pacific.van Boven had been discussing with Mr Jayewardene on the sidelines of theSub-Commission, the possibility of Sri Lanka, a leading member of theNon-Aligned Movement, sponsoring an initiative for the establishment of regionalarrangements on human for the promotion and protection of human rights in Asiaand the Pacific.

van Boven replied on 3 May, 1978 providing detailed thoughts on the possibleestablishment of such a commission. Because of its historic importance, we repro-duce the salient parts of his reply below:

Dear Mr. De Silva,Thank you for your letter dated 24 February 1978 on the establishment of an organization

for the promotion and protection of human rights in Asia and the Pacific, which I received on28 March. Please excuse my delay in replying but I was away at the Economic and Social


Council in New York. I am very interested in your initiative which I welcome, and would bepleased to do whatever I can to assist.

The United Nations has, for a long time, encouraged activities at the regional level tosupplement its own efforts for the promotion and protection of human rights. Recentevidence of this can be seen in General Assembly resolution 32/187 which was adoptedon 16 December, 1977. In this resolution the General Assembly, aware of the importance ofencouraging regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights andfundamental freedoms, appealed to States in areas where regional arrangements in the fieldof human rights do not yet exist to consider agreements with a view to the establishmentwithin their respective regions of suitable regional machinery for the promotion and protec-tion of human rights. It also requested the Secretary-General, under the programme ofadvisory services in the field of human rights, to give priority to the organization, in areaswhere no regional commissions on human rights exist, of seminars for the purpose ofdiscussing the usefulness and advisability of the establishment of regional commissionsfor the promotion and protection of human rights.

At its recently concluded thirty-fourth session, the Commission on Human Rights alsorequested the Secretary-General to consider the possibility of arranging suitable regionalseminars under the programme of advisory services in the field of human rights in thoseregions where no regional commission on human rights exists at present for the purpose ofdiscussing the usefulness and advisability of the establishment of regional commissions onhuman rights (resolution 24(XXXIV)).

The United Nations, as you are no doubt aware, also undertakes certain regional activitieswhich are related to the promotion and protection of human rights. The regional economicand social commissions of the United Nations serve as managerial economic and socialdevelopment centres within the United Nations system, entrusted, within their respectiveregions, with the formulation, coordination and implementation of programmes for thepromotion of intra-regional and inter-regional cooperation. They are called upon, in theirrespective regions, to initiate and participate in measures facilitating concerted action foreconomic and social development. There are two regional commission serving the Asian andPacific regions: The Economic Commission for Western Asia and the Economic Commis-sion for Asia and the Far East. Both of these commissions have within their terms ofreference the responsibility to ‘deal as appropriate with the social aspects of economicdevelopment and the inter-relationship of the economic and social factors’.

1. The feasibility of setting up an Asian and Pacific organization for the promotion ofhuman rights and their implementation in the region.

As I have only a general familiarity with current conditions in the Asian and Pacificregion I am not in a position to comment on the feasibility of setting up an Asian and Pacificorganization. This is a question that can better be answered by people who are moreacquainted with the region. As a general comment, however, feasibility could be assessedin relation to needs, the type of organization most appropriate to meeting those needs, andthe prospects for political acceptance. It might be easier to reach agreement on an organi-zation with promotional functions rather than an organization with implementation functionsas well.

2. Guidelines for the Pattern to be FollowedThe papers accompanying your letter disclose a familiarity with the European and Inter-

American regional arrangements, and it is therefore not necessary for me to elaborate onthese. A number of possibilities are also mentioned in the papers entitled ‘Towards aregional council’ and ‘Human rights in the Asian perspective’. These include a RegionalCouncil, a Regional Coordinator and secretariat and a Commission on Human Rights.Adequate possibilities are raised in these papers and what may now be necessary is anin-depth discussion to test which one(s) would be the most suitable to the Asian and Pacificregion. In this regard, the idea of the Sri Lanka Foundation of organizing a regional seminarto discuss this question in all its aspects would seem to be highly desirable. The idea of


establishing one or more regional institutes on human rights may also be deserving ofconsideration at such a seminar.(Italics added).

One comment that I would offer relates to the question of standards. It is stated in thepaper ‘Human rights in Asian perspective’ that ‘the values which encourage human rightssuch as jural autonomy of the villages, humanist conceptions of freedom and equality,underlying the spiritual tradition of South and South-East Asia’ could be studied so as toprovide input into an Asian concept of human rights which would contain values common tothe Asian region. Some care needs to be taken in approaching the subject of the regionalconcept. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Eco-nomic, Social and Cultural Rights [ICESCR], the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights [ICCPR] and the Optional Protocol thereto and other international instru-ments such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination [ICERD], provide a set of international norms which represent standardsthat should be applied in every part of the world. If regional standards are developed theyshould take these international standards as their basic point of departure and seek either toadd to them, or to provide a higher level of protection, or to deal with specifically regionalproblems. Standard setting at the regional level should not result in standards which arelower than those contained in the relevant United Nations instruments.

3. Composition. 4. Power and dutiesIt is difficult to offer any comments on these questions until it is known which model of

regional action is eventually decided. If, at a later stage, a specific approach is chosen, Iwould be happy to look at these questions further with a view to offering additionalcomments.

I am sending you under separate cover some materials which may be of interest to you.I should like very much to be kept informed of developments in this matter and would be

willing to assist in any way I possibly can.Yours sincerely,Theo C. van BovenDirector,Division of Human Rights.3

One will have noted the policy parameters van Boven outlined, particularly on theissue of standards: “Standard setting at the regional level should not result instandards which are lower than those contained in the relevant United Nationsinstruments.” This advice is as relevant as ever, even more so as, globally, a shiftin global power takes place to Asia.

7.2.5 Initiative for an Asian Commission

As will have been seen in his letter advising the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute, vanBoven was keen to organize a seminar on regional machinery for Asia and thePacific. Sri Lanka was then active in the Non-Aligned movement and its President,Mr. Jayewardene was cutting a picture as a democrat. His brother was a member ofthe Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.van Boven discussed with him the idea of Sri Lanka hosting a Seminar for members

3A copy of the original letter is in the possession of the author.


of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific to discuss the ideaof an Asia-Pacific Commission on Human Rights. This was the formula that we hadused for regional seminars.

At the time, an organization of lawyers, LAWASIA was promoting the idea ofhuman rights machinery for Asia and the Pacific and it organized a series of seminarson the topic. van Boven met its Secretary-General, David Geddes, on severaloccasions to discuss the idea of an Asia-Pacific Commission on Human Rights.

Sri Lanka agreed to host the seminar and it was arranged to be held in Colombo in1982. By the time the Colombo Seminar was actually held, van Boven had left theSecretariat following policy differences with the Secretary-General, Javier Perez deCuellar. The Division of Human Rights was led at the seminar by the DeputyDirector of the Division of Human Rights, Kwadwo Faka Nyamekye.

van Boven and this author had discussed the model of a Convention that couldcome into force after four or five ratifications. The idea of a promotional regionalcommission could thus go forward and try to attract confidence over time. vanBoven, as always, was supportive of initiatives that could help take forward theconcept of the protection of human rights. I prepared a draft along the lines of the oneI had done for Africa and cleared it with him.

As we had done in Monrovia when we were promoting the idea of an AfricanCommission, we in the Division of Human Rights sought to encourage an initiativeby the participants to call for, and to provide, a blueprint for an Asia-PacificCommission. I discussed the matter with the Legal Adviser of the Nepalese ForeignMinistry, Mr Thapa and he liked the idea. I shared our draft with him and worked outa strategy according to which, he would propose an Asia-Pacific Commission on theMonday of the second week of the seminar.

Unfortunately, there was powerful opposition to such an idea. India was opposed.It saw such a commission as intrusive. China was nowhere near the stage at which itwould consider such a mechanism. We nevertheless thought that it should bepossible to have a Commission to which Asian countries might opt in. As it proveditself and built confidence, more countries would come in.

Unfortunately, Mr Thapa’s intention to move his proposal had been leaked to theSoviet participant and, immediately after Mr Thapa took the floor and launched hisproposal, the Indian participant, obviously by prior arrangement with the Sovietparticipant, immediately moved a point of order that the initiative was not receivable.He was supported by the Soviet participant in strong terms. Sadly, the initiative diedin that instant.

I thought it important to record the initiative and the model for the future. Itherefore wrote up a detailed account of the initiative and the model tried and had itpublished in the Human Rights Internet Reporter in 1982. As will be seen from thataccount and the accompanying drafts, the concept was one of an Asia-PacificCommission on Human Rights established by treaty, which would come into forceafter about half-a dozen ratifications, with the ratifying States bearing the costs of theCommission. Asia-Pacific States would be able to opt-in. Which-ever countrywished to join could do so and, hopefully, over a period of time, the Commissionwould be widely accepted.


The Commission would have had mainly promotional and educational functionsat the beginning. If States Parties so wished, it could, by their choice, exerciseprotection functions such as fact-finding or the consideration of petitions submittedby individuals claiming breaches of their human rights.

Four decades later, the region is still without a Commission. A group of South-East Asian countries has established an ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commissionon Human Rights (AICHR) that is still finding its feet.

7.2.6 Encouragement of Arab Regional Efforts

On 18 May, 1979, van Boven attended a Symposium on Human Rights andFundamental Freedoms in the Arab World, organized in Baghdad, Iraq, by theUnion of Arab Jurists. In his opening address to the Symposium, van Boven stated:

From the inception of the United Nations human rights programme, Arab States and Arabpersonalities have made valuable contributions to the drafting of standards and in workingfor the implementation of human rights. Arab States continue to play an active role in humanrights organs such as the Commission on Human Rights. I am gratified to see that the historicArab contribution is being matched at the grass- roots level by the activities ofnon-governmental organizations such as the Union of Arab Jurists. I am sure that thiscontribution from the Arab world will nurture and strengthen the human rights efforts andgive it added vitality.4

On the room for enhancing the contribution of Arab regional efforts, he stated:

Here in the Arab region, a Permanent Arab Regional Commission on Human Rights hasbeen in existence since 1968, established by the League of Arab States. In accordance with apolicy established by the United Nations Economic and Social Council, the Permanent ArabRegional Commission is invited, every year, to submit a report to the United NationsCommission on Human Rights providing information on its activities. I would welcome astrengthening of the links between the United Nations Commission on Human Rights andregional human rights commissions, and some thought may be given to ways and means inwhich the relations between the Permanent Arab Regional Commission and the UnitedNations Commission on Human Rights may be further strengthened, and, if I may say so, thePermanent Arab Regional Commission be activated itself.5

I am happy to see on the agenda of this symposium a topic on the teaching of humanrights in Arab schools and universities. As I have already indicated, the task of awakeningthe conscience of individuals throughout the world is a crucial part of the human rightsprogramme and of the human rights endeavor.6

4van Boven (1982), p. 156.5The Permanent Arab Regional Commission existed on paper but had not yet become fullyoperational.6van Boven (1982), pp. 155–156.


7.3 Conclusion

Three things come out clearly from the foregoing account: First, van Bovenreactivated the idea of establishing further regional human rights arrangements.Second, van Boven’s initiative led to the establishment of the African Commissionon Human and Peoples’ Rights. Third, van Boven planted seeds for regionalmachinery in Asia and the Pacific that could be picked up at a future time. Onecould say that his push for regional machinery in Asia and the Pacific started a rollingprocess that culminated eventually in the establishment of the AICHR. These wereall dynamic initiatives by a dynamic head of the UN human rights programme.

References

De Silva, EAG (1978) Sri Lanka Foundation Institute, Letter to Theo van Boven, dated 24 February,1978

van Boven TC (1978) Letter to EAG De Silva of the Sri Lanka Foundation Institute, 3 May, 1978van Boven TC (1982) People Matter. Amsterdam, Meulenhoff, 1982. (Edited by Hans Thoolen)

References 67

Chapter 8Human Rights Good Offices and Diplomacy

Abstract van Boven sought to employ a ‘Hammarskjoldian’ innovation, that of theuse of good offices by senior UN officials, to help the victims of human rightsviolations. He used every possible avenue at the UN to push the organization’sofficials and organs to take up the cases of people in distress.

Keywords Human rights good offices · The UN petitions system · 1503 procedure

8.1 Introduction

While the exercise of good offices and diplomacy for the protection of human rightsgoes back to the early days of the United Nations,1 van Boven sought to put it to asfull use as possible so as to help people in distress. He did this by discussing casesand situations with diplomatic representatives in Geneva and New York; by submit-ting cases to the UN Secretary-General and the Under-Secretary-General in chargeof human rights for action in New York; by providing a file of cases for good officesaction when the Secretary-General visited countries; and by encouraging recognitionin the Commission on Human Rights of the potential role that good offices couldplay in the protection of human rights. We discuss each of these in this chapter.

8.2 Exercise of Good Offices and Diplomacy in the Supportof Petitions Procedures

During the dark days of the Cold War, thousands of people gained their freedom,thanks to the United Nations, in a story that has never been told before. From theearly days of the United Nations, thousands of petitions reached the Secretariat frompeople seeking help in securing their human rights, especially from Eastern Europe.

1See on this Ramcharan (1983).


69


In 1947 the Commission on Human Rights decided that copies of these petitionsshould be forwarded to the Governments concerned for their information andcomments and that the petitions should be summarized in confidential documentsthat it would have access to, together with any comments received from thegovernments. However, the Commission took the position, supported by all theGreat Powers, that it lacked competence to deal with these petitions. Assistant-Secretary-General Henri Laugier denounced this decision as shameful.

After many previous attempts, in 1970 the ECOSOC established a confidentialprocedure for the handling of petitions received by the Secretariat. The Commissionon Human Rights received authorization to act in closed meetings on situations dealtwith in these petitions that revealed a ‘reliably attested consistent pattern of grossviolations of human right’. Between 1970 and 2006, when the Commission onHuman Rights gave way to the present Human Rights Council, some eighty fourcountry situations were examined in the Commission.

Put simply, countries of the Eastern European Group, withheld cooperation fromthis procedure and it was only rarely, in the 1980s and 1990s, that a situation in thesecountries was selected for consideration. However, the petitions procedure led tothousands of people from Eastern European countries being allowed to emigrate totheir freedom.

Thousands of these people sent “Thank You” letters to the United Nations whichwere kept in a “Thank You” file in the human rights secretariat. This came about inthe following circumstances: When petitions were received, they were transmitted tothe Governments concerned for their information and response. Formally, theGovernments declined to respond. Unannounced, however, a number of countriessuch as Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic and Romania, in response to thepetitions submitted to the United Nations, quietly allowed many petitioners toemigrate to freedom abroad. van Boven, as Director of the Division of HumanRights, approached the Permanent Representative of the country concerned onoccasions seeking help for the petitioners.

After emigrating to their new countries in freedom, numerous petitioners wrote“Thank You” letters to the United Nations, expressing gratitude for the role of theOrganization in helping secure their freedom.

The petitions branch of the human rights secretariat kept a “Thank You” filecontaining these letters. Unfortunately, when the human rights secretariat movedfrom the Palais des Nations in Geneva to the Palais Wilson in the mid-1990s, thehuman rights secretariat was only allowed by the leadership to take a limited amountof the archives and the “Thank You” file passed into history.

The bulk of petitions received by the human rights secretariat were processed inaccordance with a procedure laid down by ECOSOC resolution 1503 (XLVIII) of27 May, 1970.Under this procedure, the Commission on Human Rights, afterexamining situations involving an alleged consistent pattern of reliably-attestedgross violations of human rights, could determine:

(a) Whether it required a thorough study by the Commission and a report andrecommendations thereon to the ECOSOC.

70 8 Human Rights Good Offices and Diplomacy

(b) Whether it might be the subject of an investigation by an ad hoc committee to beappointed by the Commission. Such a study was to be undertaken only with theexpress consent of the State concerned and to be conducted in constant cooper-ation with that State

As mentioned above, under the ‘1503 procedure’, between 1970 and 2006 theUnited Nations Commission on Human Rights, the predecessor to today’s HumanRights Council, considered in closed meetings and acted on some eighty fourcountry situations where there were reliable allegations of gross violations ofhuman rights. In parallel, the UN Decolonization Committee and the Special Com-mittee against Apartheid gathered information, listened to petitioners, and publishedreports on a variety of situations of international concern.

These developments did not come about without opposition from the majorpowers. From the outset of the United Nations, the leading powers had not beenwilling to give it the competence to protect the human rights of those suffering fromgross violations. In 1947, as indicated above, the Commission on Human Rights, ledby Eleanor Roosevelt of the USA, took the position that it lacked competence to dealwith petitions reaching it. It was only with the entry into the Organization of thenewly-independent countries in the 1960s that this began to change.

In 1970, as indicated above, the Commission on Human Rights, at the behest ofthe General Assembly, was requested by its parent body, ECOSOC, to considerpetitions from individuals and NGOs, labelled ‘communications’ alleging the exis-tence of a situation where there was a consistent pattern of gross violations of humanrights. The ‘communications’ had to be ‘reliably attested’ and non-abusive. Theselection of situations for consideration in the Commission was done by its expertsubsidiary, the Sub-Commission after a pre-selection by the Sub-Commission’sWorking Group on Communications.

The first set of situations were considered by the Commission in 1975. And theCommission continued to consider such situations referred to it by itsSub-Commission until the turn of the century. However, as the 1990s ended,Member States on the Commission changed the procedure and eliminated the roleof the Sub-Commission in the selection process. While the Sub-Commission’sWorking Group on Communications was still to make a pre-selection, the finalselection of human rights situations to land before the Commission was entrusted toa Working Group of governmental representatives on the Commission itself. Fewsituations were thereafter selected and little or no action taken on them. The guttedprocedure still exists on paper within the Human Rights Council, but the procedure isnow a shell, with emphasis in that body being on ‘cooperation and dialogue’, notprincipled consideration of allegations of gross violations.

The Commission took one of the following three courses of action in dealing withthese situations: first, representatives of the Governments accused were invited for aconfidential discussion in the Commission, and this could take place over successivesessions as the Commission kept the situation under review. Second, the Commis-sion occasionally sent an emissary, an “independent expert” designated by itself orthe Secretary-General for ‘direct contacts’ with the Government concerned in the

8.2 Exercise of Good Offices and Diplomacy in the Support of Petitions Procedures 71

early years, and, later, with the government and the people of the country, and todraw up a report on those contacts. Third, the Commission sometimes asked theSecretariat to extend advisory services and technical assistance to the Governmentconcerned to help it improve its national human rights laws and infrastructure.Occasionally, when cooperation by the government concerned was lacking underthe confidential ‘1503 procedure’, the Commission might move the consideration ofthe situation involved into public sessions and even adopt resolutions critical of thegovernment.

These were not spectacular actions, but they could be meaningful. Dictatorshipssuch as those in Argentina, Chile, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Haiti, the Philip-pines, Uganda, Uruguay, and Uzbekistan invariably sought to denounce theiraccusers and to obstruct the procedures. In one instance, that of Uganda, itsAttorney-General vigorously defended his government against allegations of massslaughter and then, the week after, defected in London and denounced the Govern-ment of Idi Amin Dada!

Representatives of the Governments of Argentina and Chile denounced membersof the UN human rights secretariat as ‘communist vipers’. Immediately before thefall of the Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos, his representative obstructed theCommission when it discussed the situation in that country. Upon the fall of Marcos,the same representative professed to be a champion of democracy overnight.

AUNUnder-Secretary-General, DavidsonNichol, entrusted with the task of engag-ing in direct contacts with the President of Ethiopia, Menghistu Haile Mariam, had tomeet him in his military tank at night, as he slept in the tank in different places in AddisAbaeba. Mr Nichol submitted a thoughtful report to the Commission expressingconcern about the situation in Ethiopia. A former Judge of the International Court ofJustice, Mr Justice Onyeama, was entrusted with the task of undertaking “a thoroughstudy” of the human rights situation in Uganda, where the government had liquidated aquarter of a million of its people. He met with prevarications and obstruction.The mandate of Justice Onyeama was discontinued following the fall of Idi Amin.

A highly decorated World-War II hero from Canada, Michel Gauvin, undertookdirect contacts with the Government of Haiti in Port-au-Prince. He submitted adetailed report to the Commission which was subsequently made public. He madea number of recommendations to help improve the situation and was followed by asuccession of emissaries to Haiti later on. This author accompanied Gauvin on hisvisit to Haiti.

A Professor from Costa Rica, Fernando Volio-Jimenez, undertook direct contactmissions to Equatorial Guinea. This is now an oil-rich country, but, in his first report,Volio-Jimenez reported that in those days it lacked a printing press to print the laws itenacted. He recommended advisory services and technical assistance.

Javier Perez de Cuellar, then an Under-Secretary-General, who later became UNSecretary-General, was mandated to undertake direct contact missions to Paraguayand Uruguay. He was able to visit Uruguay and submitted a brief report to theCommission. Japanese Professor Sadako Ogata, later to become UN High Commis-sioner for Refugees, undertook a mission to the then Burma, now Myanmar, andsubmitted thoughtful reports to the Commission. She was succeeded in that mandateby Professor Yozo Yokota who also reported to the Commission.


A Colombian human rights expert, Raphael Rivas Posada, undertook a number ofvisits to Paraguay and Uruguay. A Hungarian expert, Caspar Biro, undertook directcontact visits to the then Sudan.

What did actions such as these signify? The most important significance forpeople on the ground was that they knew that the UN was visiting their countryand talking to the Government, and to leading members of society, about thesituation. This gave them hope, even if the situation did not immediately improve.In one instance, colleagues in the human rights secretariat noted that the number ofallegations of torture in Uruguay, which had been numerous, gradually came toan end.

And after the restoration of democracy in countries such as Argentina, Paraguayand Uruguay, the new democratic governments requested that the petitions, recordsof discussions in the Commission and other confidential documents that had beenbefore the Commission in closed session under the confidential ‘1503 procedure’ bemade public. These materials were subsequently used in trials against allegedviolators in these countries. The records of the Commission under this procedurebecame parts of the history of these countries.

A famous Argentinian pianist, Miguel Angel Estrella, imprisoned in Uruguay,subsequently related how the actions of the United Nations had given hope to hisfellow prisoners. The ‘Mothers of the Disappeared’ in Argentina and Chile acknowl-edged then, and affirmed subsequently, that it gave them courage in their struggle toknow that the UN was accompanying them in their hour of suffering.

8.2.1 van Boven and the Petitions Procedures

van Boven, having himself previously served as a delegate on the Commission onHuman Rights and an expert on the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimina-tion and Protection of Minorities, took a strong interest in the functioning of the‘1503 procedure’ and in the carrying out of missions of direct contacts withcountries.

At the same time, he asked for procedures such as that established by ECOSOCresolution 1503 to be placed under the microscope. In an address at the opening ofthe Commission on Human Rights on 4 February, 1980, he stated:

In resolution 32/130 adopted in 1977, as well as in its resolution 34/146 of 1979, theGeneralAssembly reaffirmed the absolute necessity, under all circumstances, of eliminating massiveand flagrant violations of human rights and of the rights of peoples and individuals affectedby such situations. Thus far the Commission has addressed such situations by mention inopen debate, by consideration of communications in private sessions, by requesting thor-ough studies of situations, by the establishment of fact-finding exercises through ad hoccommittees, working groups or rapporteurs, or through the procedures of direct contacts.With some exceptions, the main approach has been to deal with such situations underconfidential procedures and in cooperation with the Governments concerned. Our experi-ence so far leads me to ask, however, whether some of the assumptions under which we havebeen working are still valid. Is it satisfactory to place so much emphasis on the consideration

8.2 Exercise of Good Offices and Diplomacy in the Support of Petitions Procedures 73

of situations in confidential procedures thereby shutting out the international community andoppressed peoples? Are certain procedures in danger of becoming, in effect, screens ofconfidentiality to prevent cases discussed thereunder from being aired in public? While thereis probably no alternative to trying to co-operate with the Government concerned, should weallow this to result in the passage of several years while the victims continue to suffer andnothing meaningful is really done? How can we deal with Governments which do not act ingood faith or abuse the procedures of the Commission by pretending to co-operate while infact violations of human rights continue to take place?2

8.3 Exercise of Good Offices in Geneva and New York

During van Boven’s tenure, members of the Division of Human Rights, particularlyin the petitions section and in the New York Liaison Office, when processingpetitions received, were attentive to cases in respect of which a discreet intercessionby the Director of the Division of Human Rights could be useful. In such cases, vanBoven would request a meeting with the Permanent Representative of the countryconcerned, in Geneva or in New York, to discuss the case and to ask for steps to betaken by the Government concerned to protect the rights of persons under threat.

Good Offices actions of this nature did, from time to time, yield positive resultsfor the protection of individuals at risk. Sometimes, van Boven would intercede afterthe Human Rights Committee, the expert body monitoring the implementation of theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, when considering petitions,decided on interim measures of protection, for example, that a person under sentenceof death and a warrant of execution had been issued should not be executed beforethe Committee had had an opportunity to examine the petition on its merits. Inalmost all instances of this nature the State Party complied with the Committee’srequest.

van Boven himself acted behind the scenes on occasions to help spare lives orprotect people at risk. In an email to this author, dated 13 March, 2018, van Bovenwrote:

In Geneva in the years I was Director of the Division of Human Rights I had, as you know, aseries of contacts with diplomatic representatives including heads of permanent missions,either on their invitation or on my own initiative. In several instances in an atmosphere ofopenness and confidentiality, I raised the human rights conditions of persons who were inneed of special care and attention. It was in that spirit and under those conditions that, byway of good offices, I raised for instance the situation of victims of human rights violationsin Korea, and in Iran as regards the fate of the Bahais.

A notable case in which van Boven acted concerned Mr Mohamed al- Jabiri, thefirst chair of the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances.He himself had become a ‘disappeared person’ in Iraq. van Boven raised his casewith the then Ambassador of Iraq in Geneva who felt, however, that he could not

2van Boven (1982), p. 65.


touch the matter, but he advised van Boven to raise it with the Deputy ForeignMinister of Iraq who was due to visit Geneva shortly. The Deputy Foreign Ministerturned out to be helpful and was instrumental in saving al-Jabiri’s life.

Iain Guest wrote of van Boven’s good offices efforts:

van Boven now embarked on a frantic scramble to save al-Jabiri’s life. . . He contacted asenior Iraqi diplomat who was present in Geneva and told him bluntly that he would protestto UN Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim if he received no news. A week or so later vanBoven received a brief handwritten note from al-Jabiri saying he was retiring from govern-ment on a pension and would not be able to take up his position as chairman of the workinggroup on enforced and involuntary disappearances.3

In exercise of his good offices, van Boven wrote a letter to Gabriel Martinez, thePermanent Representative of Argentina in Geneva concerning the disappearance of aUN staff member in Argentina. It is not known whether Ambassador Martineztransmitted van Boven’s pleas to his Government in Buenos Aires. Martinez,unfortunately, was generally un-cooperative.

In another instance, van Boven’s efforts to save the life of Guatemalan Jesuitpriest Luis Eduardo Pellecer Faena, who had been made to ‘disappear’ is dramati-cally recounted by Iain Guest:

van Boven now stuck his neck out yet again. He visited Maryknoll, the Catholic foreignmissionary society, and was warned that Pellecer might commit suicide. van Boven put thisto Buffum [his boss] and suggested that Pellecer had been coerced into making his televisionconfession. He asked that Pellecer be allowed to come to Geneva, and wrote to [GuatemalanAmbassador Eduardo Castillo] Ariolla at the Guatemalan mission in New York.4

While on a country visit to Chile in 1978, van Boven interceded in a number ofcases of persons who were in need of immediate help. This was done in close concertwith the UN Working Group on Chile.

8.4 Submission of Cases for the Exercise of Good Offices bythe Secretary-General of the Under-Secretary-Generalin Charge of the Human Rights Programme

There has been a long practice of the exercise of humanitarian good offices by UNSecretaries-General going back to the early days of the UN. The first Secretary-General, Trygvie Lie, discussed in his memoirs some of the efforts he had under-taken on behalf of Greek children taken to communist countries during the guerrillawar in Greece. He also reported on his efforts regarding the case of Yugoslav BishopAloysius Stepinac. Dag Hammarskjold undertook good offices actions regarding thesituation of apartheid-ruled South Africa. In his Annual Reports he provided

3Guest (1990), p. 204.4Guest (1990), p. 311.

8.4 Submission of Cases for the Exercise of Good Offices by the Secretary-. . . 75

information concerning persons who had been the victims of so-called scientificexperiments in Nazi concentration camps. Up to May, 1960, 584 cases had beenbrought to the attention of the Federal Republic of Germany.

In his memoirs, U Thant gave glimpses into some of the good offices actions inwhich he had been engaged to help Jews to leave the USSR. U Thant reported that heapplied some general rules to any exercise of good offices: The efforts must be fullyin accordance with the general principles of the UN Charter. Then the Secretary-General must reach a considered judgement as to whether his intercession is likely tobe helpful, or whether, on the contrary, it would be ineffective, or even harmful. Onthis basis, the Secretary-General decided whether or not to accede to a request to takean initiative to exercise his good offices in particular cases or situations. Once theSecretary-General decided to act, some other ground rules applied: confidence,mutual respect and absolute discretion.

A review of the policy of Secretary-General Waldheim5 disclosed that in dealingwith individual cases in the context of the exercise of his good offices, he acted inter-alia on the following principles:

1. He was guided mainly by the welfare of the persons concerned.2. He acted mainly on humanitarian grounds, mindful as a general rule of the

injunction against intervention in internal affairs.3. He took into account the circumstances and responsibilities of the government(s)

concerned.4. He normally acted confidentially and discreetly, but on occasions he spoke out

publicly when necessary.5. He occasionally sent a representative to consult with the government concerned.6

In cases or situations where van Boven thought that good offices action wouldcarry greater weight if undertaken by the Secretary-General, his Office, or the Under-Secretary-General in charge of the human rights programme, he urgently contactedthese officials by telegram (this was before the era of telefaxes or e-mails!)requesting their intercession. The Secretary-General and his immediate Office didnot get involved often, but the Under-Secretary-General did, on occasions, contactthe Permanent Representative of the country concerned with a request for protection.

8.4.1 Providing a File of Cases for Good Offices Action Whenthe Secretary-General Visited Governments

During van Boven’s tenure, it was standard practice that whenever the Secretary-General was about to visit a country, the petitions section of the Division of HumanRights would prepare a file containing a selection of urgent cases that the Secretary-

5Waldheim was Secretary-General for most of the tenure of van Boven.6See, further, Ramcharan (1983), pp. 61–71.


General might raise with the leader of the country. While the Division of HumanRights faithfully submitted these files for the Secretary-General each time he visiteda country—something to which van Boven attached importance—it was not knownto what extent these files were actually used during the visits of the Secretary-General. It may, however, well be the case that a discreet intervention by theSecretary-General helped to save a life or protect a person from torture from timeto time.

8.5 Encouraging Recognition by the Commissionon Human Rights of the Potential Role of Good Offices

van Boven was keen to encourage the use of good offices for the protection of peopleunder threat and to promote a favourable attitude on the part of governments. Hetherefore initiated the passage by the Commission of Human Rights in 1980 ofresolution 27(XXXVI) encouraging the exercise of human rights good offices bythe UN Secretary-General. The resolution recalled that the Economic and SocialCouncil in its resolution 1979/36 of 10 May, 1979, had expressed its appreciation tothe Secretary-General for his efforts to continue rendering the good offices envis-aged in the Charter of the United Nations in the field of human rights. It welcomedthe statement in the Report on the Work of the Organization submitted to theGeneral Assembly at its thirty-fourth session that he had continued to exert hisbest endeavours on behalf of human rights whenever he considered that his actionsmight be of assistance to the persons or groups concerned. It then “Request[ed] theSecretary-General to continue and intensify the good offices envisaged in theCharter of the United Nations in the field of human rights.”7

van Boven subsequently wrote:

Human rights organs of the United Nations and other international organizations have devel-oped legal and political devices to deal with pressing and important humanitarian concerns butthere is an increasing awareness that legal and formalized procedures do not always provide anadequate and expeditious response to these concerns. [There is a] convincing argument infavour of putting greater reliance upon less formal and complementary approaches to human-itarian and human rights issues. In this respect the office of the Secretary-General of the UnitedNations carries many potentialities which need to be further developed. Imagination, human-itarian commitment and political will on the part of the Secretary-General are indispensablepreconditions for constructive developments in this direction. At the same time the UnitedNations is seizedwith important proposals to establish aHighCommissioner for HumanRightsand a Special Representative for Humanitarian Affairs [both later established] whose functionswould also have a strong good-offices component. In my view these proposals are not meant toweaken the role of the Secretary-General or of any other humanitarian or human rights organs

7Resolution 27 (XXXVI) of the Commission on Human Rights: “Good Offices of the Secretary-General in the field of human rights”.

8.5 Encouraging Recognition by the Commission on Human Rights of the. . . 77

but rather to strengthen the capacity of the international community to deal effectively withpressing humanitarian concerns.8

8.6 Conclusion

The foregoing is evidence that van Boven believed that whatever was possibleshould be done to help people at risk, or undergoing violations of their human rights.Enhancing the exercise of good offices was part of the process of strengthening theprotection of human rights at the United Nations. van Boven attached importance tohumanitarian good offices and sought to encourage and develop them.

References

Guest I (1990) Behind the Disappearances. Argentina’s Dirty War Against Human Rights and theUN. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

Ramcharan BG (1983) Humanitarian Good Offices in International Law. The Good Offices of theUnited Nations Secretary-General in the Field of Human Rights. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague


8Theo C. van Boven, “Foreword”, in Ramcharan (1983), p. vii.


Chapter 9Partnership for Protection

Abstract van Boven spearheaded the fostering of partnerships with NGOs indeveloping national and regional human rights protection systems. His initiativesand proposals were dynamic, inventive and had a lasting impact.

Keywords NGOs as partners in protection · Discreet relations withnon-governmental organisations · Oral submission by NGOs

9.1 Introduction

Before taking up the position of Director of the Division of Human Rights Theo vanBoven had been a Dutch delegate to UN human rights meetings and an expertmember of the UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and theProtection of Minorities. He had worked closely with NGOs such as AmnestyInternational, The Anti-Slavery Society, the International Commission of Jurists,the International League for the Rights of Man, the International Federation ofHuman Rights, and the World Council of Churches. He had formed his views onpartnership with NGOs for the protection of human rights in his interaction withthese and other NGO and had written up his views in a chapter of a book in honour ofDutch international lawyer A.J.P. Tammes.1

van Boven implemented his vision of a partnership with NGOs for the protectionof human rights through a variety of approaches, including the following:

• Defending the right of NGOs to make written and oral submissions about grossviolations of human rights

• Defending the right of NGOs to choose their representatives• Maintaining relations of confidence with the leaders of NGOs such as Martin

Ennals, Margo Picken and Nigel Rodley of Amnesty International, NiallMacDermot of the International Commission of Jurists, Roberta Cohen of the

1See Tammes (1977).


79


International League of Human Rights, Col. Montgomery and Peter Davies of theAnti-Slavery Society, Dwain Epps and Ninan Koshy of the World Council ofChurches and others.

• Cooperating closely with NGO representatives in the shaping of protectioninitiatives such as the establishment of the Working Group on Disappearances

• Allowing his staff to maintain discreet relations with NGO representatives in theprocess of considering petitions about situations of gross violations of humanrights

• Partnering with NGOs in dealing with thematic violations such as racism andracial discrimination

We discuss each of these in turn.

9.2 Bringing NGOs into the UN Protection System

9.2.1 Defending the Right of NGOs to Make Written and OralSubmissions About Gross Violations of Human Rights

Shortly before his arrival as Director, intolerant Members of the Commission onHuman Rights had reacted critically to a statement by an NGO representative,Homer Jack, of the World Conference for Peace and Religion, criticizing severalGovernments for alleged gross violations of human rights and also the Commissionitself for not acting in a principled manner against gross violations. The intolerantmembers of the Commission, led by Manouchechr Ganji of Iran, approved aresolution which the Commission submitted for approval to its parent organ, theECOSOC. The ECOSOC, usually a worthless body in the field of human rights,adopted the resolution, 1919, directing that NGOs not be allowed to make oral orwritten statements critical of governments for alleged gross violations of humanrights.

The result was that NGOs, such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union, could no longerhave their submissions about gross violations of human rights circulated as writtendocuments of the Commission or its Sub-Commission. One of van Boven’s first actsad Director was to ask this writer, as his special assistant, to come up with a policyfor ‘breaking’ ECOSOC resolution 1919.

Based on a policy paper written in the Division of Human Rights, van Bovenapproved a policy under which the Division of Human Rights would formallycirculate as written statements of the Commission and its Sub-Commission, sub-missions that demonstrated a pattern of violations of human rights. This would, intime, also become the position of the Commission and its Sub-Commission indealing with oral statements by NGO representatives.

Shortly after van Boven authorized this policy, he approved the circulation of awritten submission by the Inter-Parliamentary Union detailing violations of therights of parliamentarians in several countries. van Boven thus effectively ‘broke’

80 9 Partnership for Protection

resolution 1919. Thanks to van Boven, human rights NGOs had regained theirvoices at the Commission and the Sub-Commission. One cannot overemphasizethe historical importance of this move by van Boven.

9.2.2 Defending the Right of NGOs to Choose TheirRepresentatives

Emilio Mignone (whose daughter was among the many who had disappeared inArgentina) was a distinguished human rights defender in Argentina. At the Com-mission on Human Rights in 1982, the International Commission of Jurists sought topresent information on gross violations in Argentina during the discussion of thereport of the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances. The ICJasked Mignone to make the presentation and, as he began to do so, the representativeof Argentina objected to him taking the floor on the ground that he was not alegitimate representative of the ICJ.

A major procedural debate followed, with an adjournment of the session to allowfor informal consultations. During the discussions in the Commission, Theo vanBoven made a principled statement defending the right of a human rights NGO tochoose its representative at the Commission. His statement was persuasive, and theChairman of the Commission ruled that Mr Mignone could continue making hisstatement.

This was a rare act of courage on the part of a Director of the Division of HumanRights.

9.2.3 Maintaining Relations of Confidence with the Leadersof NGOs for the Advancement of Protection

This was an epoch that knew a different sort of NGO human rights leader. MartinEnnals, Margo Picken and Nigel Rodley of Amnesty International, NiallMacDermot of the International Commission of Jurists, Colonel Montgomery andPeter Davies of the Anti-Slavery Society, Roberta Cohen of the International Leagueof Human Rights, Dwain Epps and Ninan Koshy of the World Council of Churchesand others were personalities of stature, conscience, trust and discretion who workedin a substantive relationship of partnership and respect with UN human rightsofficials. They had a relationship of mutual respect and confidence with van Boven.

van Boven met with these leaders discreetly in his office, his home, and on socialoccasions. They discussed situations of concern, approaches and strategies, and howto seek the cooperation of friendly delegations in order to take forward protectioninitiatives.

9.2 Bringing NGOs into the UN Protection System 81

The issue of enforced and involuntary disappearances is a good example of thisprocess at work. Howard Tolley has written that in the search to establish a fact-finding mechanism to deal with enforced and involuntary disappearances,

NGOs such as Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) wereactively supported by Theo van Boven in their campaign to persuade the Commission to act.van Boven and Niall MacDermot of the ICJ co-hosted a program on disappearances attendedby nineteen Commission members during the first week of the 1980 session [of the Com-mission on Human Rights]2

9.2.4 Cooperating Closely with NGO Representativesin the Shaping of Protection Initiatives

At the end of the day, the shared aim was to bring about action by the Commissionon Human Rights, its Sub-Commission, or the General Assembly. Ideas had to beturned into policy action. On different occasions van Boven, his colleagues, andNGO representatives worked together in drafting and piloting such initiatives.

A good example of this was the cooperation among the Division, Governmentdelegations, and NGO representatives in the development of an initiative for theprotection of human rights defenders that we discuss later in this chapter.

9.2.5 Discreet Relations with NGO Representativesin the Process of Handling Petitions About Situationsof Gross Violations of Man Rights

During the leadership of van Boven, staff of the Division of Human Rights demon-strated practical partnership with human rights NGOs as regards submissionsintended for members of treaty bodies such as the Human Rights Committee andthe operations of petitions procedures then in operation. In particular, Staff of theDivision:

• Supported and defended by van Boven, facilitated the circulation of writtenmaterials to members of the Human Rights Committee when they consideredreports from particular countries under the ICCPR.

• Informally advised NGO representatives on the formalities for the submission ofpetitions under petitions procedures.

• Advised NGO representatives how important it was to submit petitions forconsideration.

2Tolley (1987), p. 104.


• Encouraged NGO representatives informally when bodies such as the Commis-sion on Human Rights failed to take action in a principled manner when dealingwith allegations of gross violations of human rights

• Maintained discreet contacts with key representatives of human rights NGOs in arelationship of trust and confidence, while at all times respecting the applicablerules of confidentiality where applicable.

9.2.6 Partnering with NGOs in Dealing with ThematicViolations Such as Racism and Racial Discrimination

van Boven himself has written that after the Working Group on Enforced andInvoluntary Disappearances had been established,

At the outset of the operation, the Human Rights Secretariat convened an informal meetingwith representatives of some six or seven non-governmental organizations that had alreadyacquired a great deal of experience in dealing with questions of disappearances. Thediscussion touched upon such issues as channelling of information, verification of reports,procedures for urgent actions relating to information on recent disappearances, etc. Such aninformal consultation with experienced and knowledgeable NGO representatives and inwhich due regard was paid to the position and responsibilities of each of the partnerscontributed significantly to the type and degree of assistance that the Secretariat could renderto the Working Group.3

When van Boven was Director of the Division of Human Rights NGOs in Genevahad an NGO Sub-Committee on Discrimination chaired by Niall MacDermot, withEdith Ballantyne as Secretary. van Boven and his staff worked closely with thisCommittee in the lead up to the 1978 World Conference against Racism and RacialDiscrimination.

The 1978 World Conference against Racism and Racial Discrimination turnedout to be quite controversial in the end. Arab countries and their supporters weredetermined to isolate and criticize Israel for its occupation of Arab territoriescaptured during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Formally, UN Secretary-General JavierPerez de Cuellar appointed former UN Under-Secretary-General C.V. Narasimhanas Secretary-General of the Conference but the substantive work was done byofficers of the Division of Human Rights, with Emmanuel Mompoint of Haiti inthe lead role. Under the supervision of van Boven and in active consultation withNGOs, the Division of Human Rights prepared a draft outcome document that couldhelp bring the conference to a successful outcome. Unfortunately, Narasimhan tooka hands-off approach and did not authorize members of the Division to share thedraft outcome document with key delegations and NGOs until it was too late to savethe conference, which broke up with the USA and other Western delegations

3“The Role of the United Nations Secretariat,” in Coomans et al. (2000), pp. 161–162.

9.2 Bringing NGOs into the UN Protection System 83

walking out in protest. The draft outcome document prepared in the Division ofHuman Rights under the supervision of van Boven is in the possession of this author.

9.3 Human Rights Defenders

Nowadays at the United Nations, the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders isconsidered one of the key protection instruments, on the basis of which the Com-mission on Human Rights has established the position of special representative toprotect human rights defenders at risk. But how did the idea of a declaration comeabout?

Our good friend, Ambassador Dan Livermore, of Canada, will remember thiswell. He was on Canada’s human rights desk at the country’s Permanent Mission inNew York and he was attending the Commission on Human Rights. We in theDivision of Human Rights had a close working relationship with him. We hadworked together on the issue of enforced and involuntary disappearances andother issues. He has been one of our closest friends for the past four decades.

These were the days of the Cold War and it was practically impossible to getdiscussion of individual cases at the Commission. Andrei Sakharov was mountinghis human rights challenge to the Government of the then USSR and the Govern-ment was harassing him in return. The delegation of the USSR would never allow aresolution on his case in the Commission on Human Rights.

It was against this background that Dan Livermore approached the Division ofHuman Rights on an urgent mission. He had something urgent to discuss with us. Hewas under instruction from Ottawa to move a resolution on the Sakharov matter buthe knew, as a practicing diplomat, that the USSR would never allow such aresolution to pass. What could one do, he asked?

After consulting van Boven, this author reminded him that the Universal Decla-ration of Human Rights had been proclaimed to the end that everyone, all individ-uals, and all organs of society, shall strive by teaching and education, to promote therealization of the rights in the Declaration. We could generalize the issue to proposea resolution on the rights and responsibilities of individuals to promote and protectinternationally recognized human rights. After consulting van Boven, we helped himdraft a resolution along these lines, which he successfully piloted to passage in theCommission.

In advancing such an initiative one also had to think it through and offer ablueprint of what might be presented to the members of the Commission onHuman Rights. The political circumstances of the time were such that one had tobe able to convince key delegates that the project was a reasonable one. To achievethis, we prepared a draft ‘Declaration to Protect the Exercise and Defence of HumanRights.’

In its Preamble, our draft expressed deep sadness that persons seeking to exercisetheir internationally recognized human rights or to secure respect and observance ofthe human rights and fundamental freedoms of others were subjected to reprisals on


an increasing scale. We took this language from a press release of the WorkingGroup on Disappearances issued on 13 September, 1985. In the operative part weagain culled from key texts such as the Principles of Medical Ethics and put in aprovision that it was wholly impermissible for anyone to engage, actively orpassively, in any act that constituted participation in, complicity in, incitement to,or attempt to commit a violation of human rights.

Our draft also provided that all harsh and punitive treatment meted out toindividuals, groups or organs of society as a result of their efforts to enjoy humanrights was wholly reprehensible. It would take several years for the idea of adeclaration on this topic to be negotiated in the Commission, but the origin of theidea was under a staircase in the precincts of the Commission on Human Rights inthe new wing of the Palais des Nations in Geneva. I have heard many claims as to theorigins of the idea. But I know, and Ambassador Livermore knows, that our pens,together, gave birth to the idea!

Once the initial resolution had been adopted, the next stage was to propose theestablishment of a working group to draft a declaration on the topic. This served twopurposes: first it kept discussion of the issue alive within the Commission. Second, itsought the development of further standards for the protection of human rightsdefenders.

When the working group first met under the chairmanship of AmbassadorRobertson of Australia it was evident that the drafting process would be a slowone. To put it pure and simple, there was a filibuster by the Communist representa-tives and their allies. It would take several years for the declaration to be drafted bythe Commission and to be adopted by the General Assembly.

9.4 Transmittal of Petitions by UN Field Offices

During the tenure of U Thant as Secretary-General, NGOs had approached the UNInformation Office in Moscow to submit petitions on human rights issues with arequest that they be sent on to UN Headquarters. The then USSR protested to UThant about this and U Thant sent out instructions that UN field offices must notreceive such petitions and transmit them to Headquarters. NGOs complained bitterlyabout this.

This instruction of U Thant was still in force at the time van Boven took over asDirector of the Division of Human Rights. He mounted a concerted effort to get thisinstruction set aside but, unfortunately, did not succeed. He first sought a meetingwith Mr Bradford Morse, the head of UNDP, who had at one stage been the UNUnder-Secretary-General in charge of human rights. During this meeting, attendedby this author, van Boven pleaded with Morse to discontinue the policy as far asUNDP field offices were concerned.

van Boven followed up his meeting with Morse with detailed written submissionssetting out the arguments for the reversal of the policy of transmittal. Unfortunately,Bradford Morse would not budge. He had been a US Congressman and was quite

9.4 Transmittal of Petitions by UN Field Offices 85

affable and friendly. He was undoubtedly sympathetic to human rights. But duringthe period of the Cold War he did not want to touch an issue about which he could becriticized for partiality by the then USSR.

Despite the fact that the policy of non-transmittal remained until the end of theCold War, van Boven’s submissions, orally and in writing, are an important part ofthe history of the UN human rights programme. The written submissions are in thepossession of this author, who helped draft them.

9.5 Conclusion

Without a doubt, van Boven’s leadership was decisive in the functioning of apartnership with NGOs for the protection of human rights. As Iain Guest has written,when he left the Secretariat, NGOs in Geneva held a spectacular farewell event forhim and paid their respects to him. Miguel Angel Estrella, the famous Argentinianpianist who had been detained and tortured in Uruguay, played at the concert.4 Therehas never been such a spontaneous outpouring of affection and respect for any UNhuman rights leader ever since!

References

Coomans F, et al, (Eds.) (2000) Human Rights from Exclusion to Inclusion; Principles and Practice.An Anthology of the Work of Theo van Boven. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

Guest I (1990) Behind the Disappearances. Argentina’s Dirty War Against Human Rights and theUN. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

Tammes A J P, Meijers H, Vierdag EW (1977). Essays on international law and relations in honourof A.J.P. Tammes, Sijthoff, Leiden

Tolley H (1987) The UN Commission on Human Rights. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado

4Guest (1990).


Chapter 10Tackling the Root Causes as Wellas the Symptoms of Violations

Abstract van Boven sought to move the UN towards addressing the fundamental,structural conditions that led to violations of human right, including the challengesrelated to under-development. Under his leadership, to give effect to economic,social and cultural rights of the poor and marginalised he would foster discussion ona draft declaration on the right to development that would later be adopted by the UNGeneral Assembly.

Keywords Root causes of human rights violations · Right to development ·Economic · Cultural and social rights

10.1 Introduction

Theo van Boven believed that one had to deal not only with the symptoms of grossviolations of human rights but with their root causes as well. During his tenure asDirector of the Division of Human Rights he gave expression to this through:highlighting the need for implementation of economic, social and cultural rights;the major study on the right to development that he submitted to the Commission onHuman Rights; a draft declaration on the right to development that he informallyprovided to the Indian member of a working group discussing this issue; and throughhis efforts for the protection of people who were marginalised and vulnerable. Wediscuss each of these issues in this chapter.

10.2 Dealing with Root Causes as Well as Symptomsof Violations

When van Boven became Director of the Division of Human Rights medium-termplanning at the United Nations was just entering its substantive phase. The firsthuman rights medium term plan had been prepared under his predecessor, Marc


87


Schreiber. It was largely exploratory and procedural. The second medium term plan,drafted in accordance with van Boven’s specific guidance, was the first substantiveplanning document written in the Human Rights Division. It advocated dealing notonly with the symptoms of human rights violations but with their root causes as well.(See Annex I below).

van Boven addressed the issue of coming to grips with root causes in an addresson Human Rights and the International Order” in Santiago, Chile, on 23 November,1978:

[I]t is not sufficient to tackle violations of human rights without trying to come to grips withthe root causes. Considerable work is now being done to examine the human rightscomponents in the development process.

. . .New attention is . . . being paid to harmful effects on human rights of the militarization of

societies as well as to the adverse consequences of states of emergency or states of siegewhich have become in a number of countries the rule rather than the exception. It is alsoobvious that more often than not a combination or accumulation of such threats to the causeof human rights occur domestically and internationally, and virtually, form a consistentpattern. Faced with such situations which seriously prejudice the attainment of a newinternational order based on respect for human rights, the United Nations is but one –

though an important one – of the many organs of society which, according to the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights, shall strive to promote respect for human rights and funda-mental freedoms, and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure theiruniversal and effective recognition and observance.1

10.3 The Human Factor in Relation to Structural Issues

Addressing the Commission on Human Rights at its opening session in 1981, vanBoven told it:

Mr Chairman, permit me to ask whether the Commission may not need to bring its focus onstructural questions more directly upon how the various matters it has been consideringaffect human beings directly. In his message on the occasion of Human Rights Day last year[1980] the Secretary-General stated: ‘Let us renew our resolve to make the human factor, andrespect for human rights, the central theme in all our endeavours, both in national societies aswell as in the international community’2 Permit me to ask whether our discussion of theissues is not too abstract at times. While it is important to codify and progressively developthe framework and the principles of the future order, it is extremely crucial that theCommission should not only deal with the framework but that it should go further andrelate them to people and individual human beings and give them concrete meaning. Let metake the right to peace or to disarmament as examples. It is quite appropriate to develop theconcept of the right to peace or the right to disarmament, for these are basic structuralprinciples of world order. But how do we relate these to human persons? Do we not need toenrich our discussion of the issues by looking, for example, at how structures of violence, orhowmilitarism, or doctrines such as the national security state, affect human beings and theirrights? It is generally acknowledged that if structures of violence continue to abound, strong

1van Boven (1982), pp. 150–151.2This statement was drafted in the Division of Human Rights.

88 10 Tackling the Root Causes as Well as the Symptoms of Violations

demands for support of coercive public order will persist and the resulting expansion ofgovernment operations will in all probability restrict the scope and cripple the vigour of thehuman rights movement. On the other hand, if expectations of structural violence arereduced, respect for human rights will be enhanced. It becomes quite clear. . .that we cannotlimit ourselves to the discussion of global issues in abstract terms but that we have to proceedto examine the effects of phenomena such as structural violence, militarism and relatedissues on human rights. What, for example, are the issues for human rights posed in theincreasing spread of the nuclear state? Do people receive frank and honest information aboutthe nuclear arms build-up and the hazards of nuclear warfare? Is there any popular involve-ment in the development of military strategies which increasingly pervade human societiesand affect the lives and liberties of millions and even human survival? A recent report of theWorld Council of Churches on ‘Militarism and theWorld Military Order’ stated with respectto military society: “The emphasis is on command and subordination, on discipline ratherthan creativity, with alternative thinking and approaches frequently defined as ‘subversive’.As the military’s role in denying popular participation in government increases, respect forfundamental human rights diminishes and individuals are required to forego normal rights infavour of ‘order’ and ‘stability’ in the nation.”

Let us also take the right to development. No one can deny that the concept of the right todevelopment has enlarged and enriched the human rights vocabulary and that the elaborationof this right has been one of the major advances of recent times in the human rightsprogramme. But permit me to ask whether we have so far clarified what the statement ofthis right means for the individual in his or her daily life. How does the elaboration of thisright add anything more to what has been going in the development field for many years. . ..?Unless we relate this concept concretely to human beings and give it practical meaning it willremain a high-sounding slogan.3

10.3.1 Implementation of Economic, Social and CulturalRights

At about the time the Commission on Human Rights was about to decide on theestablishment of the working group on the right to development, we prepared anintroductory speech for delivery by the then Deputy Director of the Division ofHuman Rights, Kwadwo Nyamekye, in which we argued for an approach to theimplementation of economic, social and cultural rights that would emphasize thefollowing questions:

• To what extent has each economic, social or cultural right been given statutoryrecognition?

• What is the difference between the right on the books and the rights as enjoyed inpractice.

• How has the right been limited and are the limitations reasonable?• What economic, social or cultural policies are being pursued to implement the

right?• What protection is there against the risk of arbitrary deprivation of the right?

3van Boven (1982), pp. 117–131.

10.3 The Human Factor in Relation to Structural Issues 89

• To what extent has the right been made justiciable?• Is the principle of non-discrimination being respected in law and in practice?• Has the government set up bench-marks to assist in determining how a right is

being implemented?• Are there sectors of the population at or below the subsistence level, and what is

being done on their behalf?• How are non-nationals being treated in comparison with nationals?

10.3.2 Study on the Right to Development

In 1975, the then Chief Justice of Senegal, Mr Keba M’Baye, a leading light on theCommission on Human Rights, had advanced the concept of a right to developmentin a lecture at the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This conceptcame to prominence at the United Nations in 1979 when the Commission establisheda working group to draft a declaration on the right to development. A declaration onthe right to development was subsequently adopted by the United Nations GeneralAssembly in 1986.

At the request of the Commission on Human Rights, van Boven submitted to theCommission on 2 January, 1979, a study on the international dimensions of the rightto development as a human right.4 The study considered the ethical aspects of theright to development and analysed the legal norms relevant to the right. In thecontext of programmes designed to satisfy fundamental human needs, the reportexamined the relationship between the right to development and the ‘basic needsstrategy.’5

The analysis of the implications of the right to development for official develop-ment assistance indicated that there was considerable international interest in theconcept of forging closer links between the promotion of human rights and theprovision of official development assistance.

The report noted that the potentially beneficial impact of the activities of trans-national corporations was substantial. Nevertheless, certain aspects of their opera-tions had given rise to serious concern. Much remained to be done in order to clarifythe specifically human rights-related obligations of those corporations both ingeneral terms and in particular situations.

One of the most significant conclusions that emerged from the report was the needto ensure that the promotion of respect for human rights was an integral element inall development-related activities. In this regard, the report recommended that theCommission on Human Rights consider the most effective ways and means by whichthe promotion of human rights, including the right to development, might be morefully integrated into the entire range of United Nations development activities.

4United Nations (1979).5Ibid., see Chapter V of the report: “Concluding Observations”, paras. 304–316.


The report added that among the issues of major importance in terms of the rightto development that could be considered were:

• The ways in which human rights, including the right to development, could begiven more specific consideration in the context of reports relating to all aspectsof development, including, for example, the review of progress in achieving theobjectives of the international development strategy;

• The need for improved coordination of human rights-related activities of theUnited Nations system in order to better promote realization of the right todevelopment.

• The feasibility of establishing a periodic general review or survey by theSecretary-General of trends concerning the implementation of the concept ofdevelopment as a human rights and the integration of human rights standardsinto the formulation and application of development plans.

• The practicability of requiring a ‘human rights impact statement’ which might besimilar in concept to an environmental impact statement, to be undertaken prior tothe commencement of specific development projects or in connexion with thepreparation of an overall development plan or programme.

The report further recommended that the Commission on Human Rights considerthat a series of inter-disciplinary, action-oriented seminars be organized on variousaspects of the human right to development such as the integration of human rightsstandards into the formulation and application of development plans. Similarly,workshops could be held with the objective of involving the existing United Nationsregional economic and social commissions in discussions of relevant issues with aview to formulating practical proposals for promotion of the right to development.

The report concluded:

The emergence of the human right to development as a concept of major importance is areflection of its dynamic character. The continuing evolution of the concept and its transla-tion into a notion capable of providing practical guidance and inspiration, based on interna-tional human rights standards, in the context of development activities will dependsignificantly on the future course of action adopted by the Commission on Human Rights.This report has outlined some of the major issues in relation to which the Commission maywish to consider taking action.6

10.3.3 Draft Declaration on the Rights to Development

When the Commission on Human Rights working group on the right to developmentbegan functioning, van Boven greed that it would be important for us to try to inject aspecifically human rights dimension to the deliberations and the outcome, rather thanpurely a claim to resources. A human rights declaration had, in our view, to be builtupon the core human rights instruments.

6Ibid, para. 316.


Under van Boven’s guidance we did a research paper and a draft declarationbased on the human rights instruments that had been adopted to that point and vanBoven authorized me to share them with the Indian member of the group,Mr. Ramachandran. He was one of the five members of the working group. Hehad worked with the Indian Planning Commission and we thought that he had thestrongest experience to bring human rights and development together. We wanted toinject a specifically human rights dimension to the declaration.

The draft declaration we prepared and gave to Ramachandran contained tenarticles. It would have had the General Assembly declare that every individual isentitled to access to the means necessary for the full development of his or herpersonality and for the enjoyment of his or her personality, and for the enjoyment ofhis or her human rights. The General Assembly would have declared that it is theduty of the international community, of every State and of every organ of society tocontribute towards the realization of the right to development as stated above.

The General Assembly would have further declared that States are under a duty toachieve international cooperation necessary to enable every individual to develop hisor her personality to the fullest extent and to assist one another in a spirit ofsolidarity, equity and justice. The draft declaration would have recognized theright of every people to determine its own model of development, mindful of theneed to respect fundamental human rights. It would have declared that the resourcesof the earth are the common patrimony of all humankind. Special attention should bepaid to the right to development of individuals or groups having special needs, eitherby reason of natural causes, historical circumstances or other causes. “The interna-tional community and all organs of society shall strive to enable such persons orgroups to realize their full potential and rights.

Compared to the declaration eventually adopted by the General Assembly, ourdraft was more solidly anchored in international law and placed the accent on theduty to cooperate for the achievement of development and human rights for all.

The UN Declaration on the Right to Development as eventually adopted in 1986(UN General Assembly res. 49/128 of 4 December 1986) affirmed in its Article 1(1) that:

the right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every humanperson and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social,cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms canbe fully be realized.

Article 8, added that:

(1) States should undertake, at the national level, all necessary measures for therealization of the right to development and shall ensure, inter alia, equality ofopportunity for all in their access to basic resources, education, health services,food, housing, employment and the fair distribution of income. Effective mea-sures should be undertaken to ensure that women have an active role in thedevelopment process. Appropriate economic and social reforms should be madewith a view to eradicating all social injustices.


(2) States should encourage popular participation in all spheres as an importantfactor in development and in the full realization of all human rights.’

Article 9 of the Declaration on the Right to Development adopted by the GeneralAssembly in 1986, states that all the aspects of the right to development set forth inthe Declaration are indivisible and interdependent and each of them should beconsidered in the context of the whole.7 Is an ‘aspect’ the same as an ‘element ofthe definition’ of a right? The content of the Declaration may help to answer thisquestion. The nearest that the Declaration comes to providing a definition of the rightto development is in Article 1(1) which states that: “the right to development is aninalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples areentitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural andpolitical development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can befully be realized.” One could possibly include as definitional elements also Article8, which provided that:

1. States should undertake, at the national level, all necessary measures for therealization of the right to development and shall ensure, inter alia, equality ofopportunity for all in their access to basic resources, education, health services,food, housing, employment and the fair distribution of income. Effective mea-sures should be undertaken to ensure that women have an active role in thedevelopment process. Appropriate economic and social reforms should be madewith a view to eradicating all social injustices.

2. States should encourage popular participation in all spheres as an important factorin development and in the full realization of all human rights.

The remaining articles of the Declaration proceed to make a number of statementsthat serve different purposes. There are collateral statements such as the one inArticle 6 (2) that all human rights and fundamental freedoms are indivisible andinterdependent. It identifies the subjects and beneficiaries of the right to developmentin Article 1 (1), which refers to the right to development as one by virtue of which‘every person and all peoples are entitled (. . .)’. Article 2(1) specifies that the humanperson is the central subject of development and should be the active participant andbeneficiary of the right to development. Paragraph 3 of the same article adds thatstates have the right and the duty to formulate appropriate national developmentpolicies. The possible subjects and beneficiaries are therefore the individual, thestate, all Peoples.

The Declaration states what the right to development implies. Article 1 paragraph2 states that the right to development implies the full realization of the right ofpeoples to self-determination (as was seen above, development is cast, in Article 1 ofICESCR as a derivative of the right to self-determination). It indicates what the rightto development requires. This is mentioned in places such as Article 3 (2) whichstates that the right to development requires full respect for the principles of

7See, generally, Chowdhury et al. (1992) and De Waart et al. (1988).


international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among states. Article4 (2) adds that sustained action is required to promote more rapid development ofdeveloping countries. As a complement, effective international co-operation is alsoessential.

The Declaration indicates responsibilities. Article 2(2) states that all humanbeings have a responsibility for development. Article 3 (1) adds that states havethe primary responsibility for the creation of national and international conditionsfavorable to the realization of the right to development. It also indicates duties of thesubjects and beneficiaries of the right to development, namely: in Article 2 (2) thatindividuals should promote and protect an appropriate political, social and economicorder for development; Article 2(3): states have the right and duty to formulateappropriate national development policies; Article 3(3): states have the duty tocooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles todevelopment; Article 4: states have the duty to take steps, individually and collec-tively, to formulate international development policies with a view to facilitating thefull realization of the right to development. Sustained action is required to promotemore rapid development of developing countries. Effective internationalco-operation is essential: Article 5: states shall take resolute steps to eliminatemassive and flagrant violations of human rights; Article 6: All states shouldco-operate with a view to promoting, encouraging and strengthening universalrespect for and observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms; statesshould take steps to eliminate obstacles to development resulting from failure toobserve civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights;Article 7: All states should promote the establishment, maintenance and strengthen-ing of international peace and security; Article 8: states should undertake, at thenational level, all necessary measures for the realization of the right to development.States should encourage popular participation in all spheres as an important factor indevelopment and in the full realization of all human rights; Article 10: Steps shouldbe taken to ensure the full exercise and progressive enhancement of the right todevelopment.

Although all of the above mentioned “aspects” are contained in a documententitled “Declaration on the Right to Development”, they surely cannot all be partof the definition of the right to development. The elements that seem to be new, thenormative statements that appear to have been added to the prior stock of humanrights norms are in Article 1, paragraph 1, which rests on the notions of participationin, contribution to, and enjoyment of development. The Declaration adds or consol-idates a specific new right. (‘The right to development is an inalienable human rightby virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in,contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, inwhich all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized’). This is thefirst time that such an explicit statement has been made in an authoritative interna-tional instrument.

The Declaration insists that development has to be of such a nature that ‘allhuman rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.’ This point is further


emphasized in Articles 5 and 6. In other words, when there is gross violation ofhuman rights and fundamental freedoms, development is vitiated.

The Declaration insists on the indivisibility and interdependence of all humanrights. It urges full respect for principles of international law and calls upon all statesto promote the establishment, maintenance and strengthening of international peaceand security. These are essentially statements about inter-relationships and inter-linkages. The right to development cannot therefore be considered what some claimthat it is: namely a ‘synthesis right’ encompassing, englobing and subsuming otherrights. Peace, disarmament, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms arerequired for development to take place. They are not, however, miraculously sub-sumed in an overarching right, ‘the right to development’.

Development is conceptually employed in the Declaration in the followingsenses: more narrowly in the legal sense of a right (Article 1 (1)); broadly as agoal; relatively as a guide; and practically as a means. The first sense (a new right)represents an advance upon the ICESCR which does not contain a specific affirma-tion of the right to development although there may be some traces of the notion inthe Covenant. The Declaration on the Right to Development and the ICESCRt alsocover very much similar ground in calling for national and international measures forthe realization of economic, social and cultural rights.

Professor Oscar Schachter, one of the leading international lawyers of the twen-tieth century, writing in 1992 on the implementation of the right to development,argued that the concentrated target of implementation should be alleviation of themass poverty and the plight of vulnerable peoples. “In the state of the world today”,he submitted, “mass poverty and deprivation require international action in moremassive and sustained way than ever before.”8 He put forward a programme ofaction that included the following:

• Mitigating the social costs of adjustment and privatization• Monitoring of human needs• Country reports to international agencies on measures to alleviate poverty• Enhancing the ‘Constructive Dialogues’ under the ICESCR• Measures to encourage environmentally sustainable development• Measures to improve the condition of women in developing countries.

Sadly, international efforts on implementation of the right to development wouldnot focus on practical issues such as these but, would, rather, concentrate on the issueof transfer of resources and technology from the rich to the poor countries. It is withsome justification that Yash Ghai has written:

The right to development has had remarkably little impact on constitutional lawyers,political scientists, or human rights activists. It has remained, with negative consequences,where it germinated, within the provenance of diplomats and international lawyers. It hasbecome the focus of contention between diplomats of the North and the South, generatingmore heat than light. The North suspects, perhaps correctly, that the South wants to use the

8Schachter (1992), pp. 27–30.


right to development to extract resources from the North and has no intention ofimplementing the domestic obligations expressed in the right to development. The Southmay think that the lukewarm, if not outright negative, attitude on the part of the west, towardthe right to development is a manifestation of bad intentions – the North’s determination topreserve the present unequal economic and political order and the libertarian resistance to thesocial justice agenda of the right to development.

. . .In order to explore and exploit the potential of the right to development, it is necessary to

locate it within the domain of national politics and constitutions. It is surprising that almostno attempt has been made at this approach. . ..I believe that significant further intellectualdevelopments of the concept and implications of the right to development can occur onlywhen the right to development is related to the domestic obligations of the state and to thedesign of its institutions. I also believe that real gains for the people from the right todevelopment will take place only when it is implemented in the laws and institutions ofindividual states – for the impact of assistance from the North, however generous, will(be) sic limited as well as problematic.9

Prof. Ghai’s arguments are compelling and, in the next section, we will turn to thepressing need for national implementation of the right to development.

10.4 Conclusion

Theo van Boven believed deeply that one needed to tackle not only the symptoms ofviolations of human rights, but their root causes as well. This was an article of faithfor him and he reflected this approach in drafting his medium-term plans andprogramme budgets. He also tried to push this approach in his addresses to theGeneral Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights, its Sub-Commission, and inother fora. His view was that one needed to build on the norms of the internationalbill of rights and to implement economic, social and cultural rights alongside civiland political rights. He grounded his views of a declaration on the right to develop-ment in the international norms and sought to advance the implementation of humanrights in the development process. He was a visionary, but a pragmatic one, with hisfeet planted squarely in the International Bill of Rights.

Already in International Human Rights Year, 1968, when he delivered a lecture atthe University of Amsterdam on the occasion on his being appointed Reader inHuman Rights (a part-time position), he stated:

The worldwide promotion of economic and social development is a matter of social justiceand human dignity. Discussions and actions concerning human rights would have a greaterimpact if the cooperation between poor and rich countries toward development were to takedefinite form. Nowadays we have well-formulated documents on human rights, which alsocontain human obligations. The necessary complement would be a document containingrights and obligations of states, for the purpose of providing a legal basis for economic andsocial cooperation, thus giving a strong impetus to international cooperation. Such adocument proposed by the Netherlands and called a ‘development charter’ would provide

9Ghai (2006), pp. 140–141.


a legal basis for an international process in which confrontation makes way for cooperation,in which countries and peoples reach an acceptable standard of well-being and in whichevery person is given his due.10

References

Chowdhury S.R., Denters M.G., P. J. de Waart (Eds.), (1992) The Right to Development inInternational Law Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht

Coomans F., et al, (Eds.) (2000) Human Rights from Exclusion to Inclusion; Principles andPractice. An Anthology of the Work of Theo van Boven. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

De Waart P, Peters P, and Denters E, (Eds.), (1988) International Law and Development MartinusNijhoff, Dordrecht

Ghai Y (2006) Redesigning the State for ‘Right to Development’, in Nobel Foundation, The Rightto Development. (Edited by B. Andreassen). Oslo, 2006

Schachter O (1992) “Implementing the right to development: programme of action”, inS.R. Chowdhury, M.G. Denters and P. J. de Waart Eds., The Right to Development inInternational Law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 27–30

United Nations (1979). The International Dimensions Of The Right To Development As A HumanRight In Relation V/Ith Other Hüî1an Rights Based On International Co-operation, IncludingThe Right To Peace, Taking Into Account The Requirements Of The New InternationalEconomic Order’ And The Fundamental Human Needs. E/CÏÏ. 4/1334, 2 January


10Coomans et al. (2000), pp. 14–15.

References 97

Chapter 11A World Information Campaignfor the Protection of Human Rights

Abstract van Boven understood the relationship between awareness ofhuman rights and protection. He therefore sought to equip the UN Department ofInformation in the field of human rights and launched a world campaign onhuman rights information.

Keywords Human rights information · Public information in the field ofhuman rights

11.1 Introduction

Theo van Boven considered it crucial to efforts for the international protection ofhuman rights to help entrench a universal culture of human rights through a worldinformation campaign for the promotion and protection of human rights. He advo-cated a ‘grass roots approach to human rights’ and told the Commission onHuman Rights when opening its annual session in 1980:

. . .[I]n its consideration of the development of public information activities, the Commissionmay. . .wish to consider how it can better reach the public throughout the world and use theirenergies and resources. I am convinced that one of the greatest challenges facing thehuman rights movement at the present time is to develop ways and means of promotinghuman rights. The role of youth in this endeavour will be of the greatest importance. TheCommission has, in the past, given attention to the role of youth in promoting and protectinghuman rights, is it time to be imaginative and to consider, for example, the advisability ofthe United Nations organizing periodically international or regional youth assemblies onhuman rights.?1

During his period in office, van Boven pursued four concrete initiatives toadvance the dissemination of public information and education on human rights: asurvey of the needs UN Information Centres for United Nations human rightsmaterials; the establishment of a Joint Task Force of the Division of Human Rights

1van Boven (1982), pp. 63–64.


99


and the Department of Public Information on the enhancement of public informationin the field of human rights; promoting policy resolutions in the Commission onHuman Rights on the further development of UN public information activities in thefield of human rights; and launching a world campaign for the dissemination ofinformation on human rights. In this chapter, we discuss each of these in turn. Tobegin with, we look at his ‘grass roots’ approach.

11.2 The Grass Roots Approach

Addressing a UN Seminar in Monrovia, Liberia, on 10 September, 1979, van Bovendeclared:

Among the trends which may be discerned in the United Nations human rights programme inrecent years, great emphasis has been placed on what I may call the ‘grass-roots’ approach tohuman rights – that is to say an approach which seeks to call upon the creativity, the energyand activity of the peoples themselves to work for the defence of their rights and to adoptmeasures best suited to their respective needs. A related facet of this approach is theimportance placed on a two-way flow of information between the United Nations, on theone hand, and regional and national communities on the other, through which the UnitedNations can be better informed of, and can better serve, the needs and aspirations of thepeoples themselves.

This approach to human rights is amply reflected in the pronouncements of major policy-making organs in the United Nations, such as the General Assembly, which on 16 December1977, adopted an important resolution on alternative approaches and ways and means withinthe United Nations system for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights andfundamental freedoms – commonly referred to as resolution 32/130 of the General Assem-bly. In this resolution the General Assembly decided that the approach to the future workwithin the United Nations system with respect to human rights questions should take accountcertain concepts, including the concept that ‘human rights questions should be examinedglobally, taking into account both the overall context of the various societies in which theypresent themselves, as well as the need for the promotion of the full dignity of the humanperson and the development and well-being of the society.’

As part of the grass-roots approach to human rights, the United Nations has been tryingto encourage and support the activities of national, local and regional institutions for thepromotion and protection of human rights. Last year, the Division of Human Rightsorganized a world-wide seminar on national and local institutions for the promotion andprotection of human rights which adopted important recommendations on this subject; andin response to specific requests of the General Assembly as well as of the Commission onHuman Rights, the Division is organizing seminars such as the present one to discuss theusefulness and advisability of the establishment of regional commissions for the promotionand protection of human rights in areas where no regional commissions on human rightsexist as yet. We hope, following the experience gained from the present seminar, to be ableto organize similar seminars in the future in other regions of the world. As a closely relatedpart of the grass-roots approach, we are also seeking to step up public information activitiesin the field of human rights so that peoples and persons throughout the world may becomebetter informed and aware of their rights and of the opportunities which are open to them to

100 11 A World Information Campaign for the Protection of Human Rights

support the activities of their respective Governments and of the United Nations to improvethe realization of human rights.2

11.3 Public Information for Protection

11.3.1 A Survey of UN Information Centres on Their Needsfor Information Materials on Human Rights

In order to enhance UN public information activities on human rights, one needed tounderstand what the needs were on the ground. At the time the UN had some65 Information Centres (UNICS) in countries around the world and they werebeing serviced by the Department of Public Information. However, the Departmentcontented itself to sending out to the Information Centres, from time to time, limitedquantities of texts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Inter-national Covenants on human rights. This clearly was not sufficient.

van Boven sought the consent of the Department to write to all InformationCentres asking them what their needs were for public information materials onhuman rights. The Department resisted this request at first, but van Boven wasable to persuade its Japanese head in the end. The Division of Human Rights thensent out a questionnaire to all UN Information Centres asking them what they did byway of public information activities on human rights and what their mainneeds were.

All of the Information Centres replied that they mainly organized commemo-rative events on UN Human Rights Day (10 December). They carried referencecopies of the UN human rights instruments for consultation by the public. They didlittle active dissemination because they lacked supplies. In a two-year period, forexample, the UN would print 5000 copies of the Universal Declaration for use at itsHeadquarters, its Offices worldwide, and for distribution to UN Information Centres.That meant in effect that an Information Centre might receive one or two dozencopies at most every 2 years.

As to their needs, the UN Information Centres replied almost in unison: ‘we needsimplified information texts, in local languages where possible, and in greater quan-tities.’ Centre after Centre underlined the importance of this.

With the grudging consent of the Department of Public Information, the Divisionof Human Rights began a process of sending out information materials on humanrights directly to UN Information Centres. This lasted for a few years but thenpetered out.

2van Boven (1982), pp. 165–166.

11.3 Public Information for Protection 101

11.3.2 Joint Task Force on the Enhancement of PublicInformation Activities in the Field of Human Rights

On the initiative of van Boven, a Joint Task Force on human rights information,consisting of members of the Division of Human Rights and the Department ofPublic Information met monthly in Geneva, where the Division was located, and inNew York whenever van Boven was at UN Headquarters. The task force functionedsmoothly in Geneva and more bureaucratically in New York. The task force broughtabout:

• More public information events on human rights• An increase in the production of distribution copies of the Universal Declaration

on Human Rights.• The submission of an annual report to the Commission on Human Rights and also

to the UN General Assembly on the enhancement of public information activitiesin the field of human rights.

The results of these activities were not spectacular, but they sought to generate agreater awareness in the UN about the need to promote a universal culture ofhuman rights.

11.3.3 Policy Resolutions in the Commission on HumanRights

Reinforcing the two initiatives discussed above, van Boven approached diplomaticmissions, particularly the Australian Permanent Mission to the UN in Geneva, andpersuaded it to sponsor an annual resolution in the Commission on Human Rights onpublic information activities in the field of human rights. This resolution was ofimportance inasmuch as the Department of Public Information, in particular, had torespond to concrete requests by the Commission. Even though the Department ofPublic Information complied with these requests with a fair measure of diplomatic-speak, the resolutions established UN policy to the effect that it was important toenhance public information activities in the field of human rights.

The Division of Human Rights worked closely with the delegation of Australia inthe drafting of its resolutions. It provided draft ideas for it to consider, including forthe initial resolution and for its annual follow-up. A draft in the possession of theauthor, provided in 1980 would have the Commission:

• Urge the Secretary-General to take all appropriate steps further to develop publicinformation activities in the field of human rights and, for this purpose, toconsider the establishment or designation of an information service within thehuman rights sector of the secretariat.


• Request the Secretary-General to report to the Commission on the measures takento enhance public information activities in the field of human rights, and toinclude in his report concrete information on the implementation of plannedactivities.

• Request the Secretary-General to inform the UN Committee on Public Informa-tion Activities of the strong hopes of the Commission that the Committee willmake suitable recommendations for developing public information activities inthe field of human rights.

• Draw the attention of Governments, the specialized agencies, particularly ILO,UNESCO, WHO, FAO, regional intergovernmental organizations andnon-governmental organizations, as well as the UN Department of Public Infor-mation to the importance of disseminating the basic international instruments onhuman rights as widely as possible, including in local languages and invite theSecretary-General, in cooperation with the above-mentioned organizations, todraw up and implement a World-Wide Programme for the Dissemination of theBasic International Instruments on Human Rights in as many languages aspossible and to report on the implementation of this programme to the Commis-sion on Human Rights.3

The Commission did adopt a resolution calling for a World-Wide Programme forthe Dissemination of Basic International Instruments on Human Rights and theDepartment of Public Information reported perfunctorily on its implementation.

11.3.4 The World Public Information Campaign on HumanRights

The world campaign on public information for the protection of human rightscontinued at the United Nations for a number of years and yielded mixed results.Two decades after van Boven launched his initiative, the Secretariat submitted areport to the Commission on Human Rights in 1997 on the implementation of thecampaign.4 According to the report, the Office of High Commissioner for HumanRights, the successor to the Division of Human Rights, had a publicationsprogramme including a fact-sheet series; a professional training series; a humanrights study series; ad hoc publications; reference materials; ‘Notes of the HighCommissioner’; periodicals; promotional materials; electronic means; and an exter-nal relations programme that included briefings, exhibitions and human rightsobservances, fellowship programmes and internship programmes. The Office alsoorganized training courses, seminars and workshops. Most of the above alreadyexisted in the Division of Human Rights.

3Division of Human Rights (1980).4E/CN.4/1997, 20 January, 1997.

11.3 Public Information for Protection 103

The report, however, revealed two structural problems: first, the budget for the1996–1997 biennium for the printing of information and reference materials was US$212.600. Nevertheless, in diplomatic speak, “The publication programme ofHCHR/CHR [Office of High Commissioner/Centre for Human Rights] is conti-nuously expanding to respond to the increasing need for human rightsinformation.”!5

Even more ominously, the report stated:

Since the last report, the HCHR/CHR has received around 3,000 letters from individuals,Governments, academic institutions, non-governmental organizations and other humanrights institutions requesting human rights publications. As requested by the directivereceived from the Office of Conference Services at Headquarters regarding the need todrastically reduce distribution of documents and publications, the HCHR/CHR mailing listhas been reviewed accordingly. Priority has been given to institutions active in the field ofhuman rights, whereas individual recipients are as limited as possible6

A core rationale of the world campaign had thus been gutted! Nevertheless, vanBoven’s strategic initiative for a world campaign for the protection of human rightsretained its inherent validity and will hopefully be given stronger implementation inthe future.

11.4 Conclusion

The significance of van Boven’s initiatives in the fields of public information andeducation on human rights lies in his assessment that one need to help entrench auniversal culture of human rights through a world campaign. What van Boven didduring a 5-year period was to lay the foundations for the enhancement of publicinformation activities. Unfortunately, four decades later, it cannot be said that theUN has made much headway in the implementation of his initiative. One can onlyhope that this will change in the future, for the idea of a world campaign for theprotection of human rights, launched four decades ago, retains its validity andpotential potency.

van Boven told a symposium in Santiago, Chile, on 23 September, 1978, when headdressed in on Human Rights and a New International Order:

The dynamic human rights process aimed at the establishment of a new international orderand corresponding new national and social orders should also go forward by means ofinformation, education and conscientization. We need for this purpose a world-wide move-ment of cooperation and solidarity among individuals and all organs of society. We needopen and effective channels of communication in order that the United Nations can moveclose to the people and the people can come closer to the United. We are aspiring not only to

5Ibid., para. 4.6Ibid., para. 8.


a new international order bur more deeply to a new international community. On our way tothis new international community, you may perhaps need the United Nations but theUnited Nations definitely needs you.7

References

Division of Human Rights (1980) Draft resolution on public information activities in the field ofhuman rights. In the possession of the author.

United Nations (1997), E/CN.4/1997, 20 January, 1997.van Boven, TC (1982) People Matter. Amsterdam, Meulenhoff, 1982. (Edited by Hans Thoolen)

7van Boven (1982), p. 151.

References 105

Chapter 12Overall Conclusion

At the outset of this book we submitted that Theo van Boven’s leadership of the UNhuman rights programme between 1977 and 1982 saw the advent of universal pro-tection and transformed the UN’s handling of human rights issues. Great gaps inprotection still remained and those gaps unfortunately still exist today. With thepossible exception of the establishment, over time, of human rights field offices—something that van Boven himself advanced—, there has not been a burst of creativeleadership since his time, notwithstanding the arrival of the High Commissioner forHuman Rights in 1994 and the Human Rights Council in 2006.

If one looks at the means of protection in use today they are all creations ofvan Boven:

• Public statements by the High Commissioner. van Boven pioneered this.• Additional sessions of the Human Rights Council (three per year) and the holding

of special sessions. van Boven had pleaded cogently for inter-sessional activity torespond to situations of gross violations.

• Country rapporteurs to deal with country situations of gross violations ofhuman rights. van Boven pioneered this.

• Thematic rapporteurs and working groups to deal with violations of human rightson a global scale. van Boven invented this with his piloting of the working groupon enforced and involuntary disappearances and the special rapporteur on arbi-trary and summary executions.

• Fact-finding by special commissions. van Boven was one of the intellectualpioneers of fact-finding on which he had significant writings before he becameDirector. He pioneered human rights fact-finding when he accompanied the AdHoc Working Group on the Situation of Human Rights in Chile on its historicvisit to Chile in [1978]

• Thematic mechanisms to deal with violations of the human rights of vulnerablegroups such as indigenous peoples. van Boven invented this.


107


• Promotion of, and cooperation with, national human rights institutions. vanBoven steered this through the 1978 seminar discussed earlier, which produceda set of guidelines that became the Paris Principles.

• Launching a world Information campaign for the protection of human rights.• The Universal Periodic Review. Before van Boven became Director, and during

his tenure, there was a periodic reviewing system in operation but it yielded littleof practical value. The jury is still out whether the UPR will do any better.

When it comes to encouragement of regional institutions for the promotion andprotection of human rights, before van Boven came into office there were regionalinstitutions in Europe and the Americas. van Boven piloted the drafting of ablueprint that led to the establishment of the African Commission and sought topromote one for the Asia-Pacific region. Since then, no UN human rights leader haspaid attention to this area.

van Boven sought to provide substantive inputs into the work of human rightstreaty bodies and cooperated more substantively with human rights NGOs. Nowa-days we are in the era of the stardom of High Commissioners and partnership withtreaty bodies and NGOs is largely a thing of the past.

There is need for a new burst of creativity in the development of UN protection ofhuman rights to take forward the blueprints that van Boven brought in. van Bovenhad called for the periodic publication of a world report on human rights. This authorhas written about the need for a world report on national protection systems, to placethe spotlight on the need for protection at home and on the adequacy and effective-ness of national protection mechanisms.

van Boven sought to inject principled responses to situations of gross violationsof human rights on the part of the former Commission on Human Rights. Nowadays,the UN Human Rights Council professes to prioritise dialogue and cooperation overallegedly ‘confrontational approaches’, namely principled condemnation of grossviolations of human rights by governments. Protection is considered ‘confronta-tional’. It might not be an exaggeration to say that the cause of protection hasregressed since van Boven’s period. The UN urgently needs a new ‘van Bovenperiod’ of innovation for human rights protection.

Writing in 1992 on the Role of the United Nations Secretariat, van Bovenrecapitulated his credo as Director of the Division of Human Rights. It is fitting toend this work by calling into aid his own words:

During the year 1977 – 82, as Director of the Division of Human Rights, I repeatedly drewthe attention of the Commission and the Sub-Commission to possible means by which totackle gross and massive violations of human rights, building upon the experience alreadygained in investigations in particular situations, such as South Africa and Chile. I pleadedthat the United Nations should undertake appropriate fact-finding exercises by appointingrapporteurs, establishing panels of experts, or sending emissaries on behalf of human rightsorgans or the Secretary-General with respect to various situations allegedly involving serioushuman rights violations. I also suggested that UN organs should respond more expeditiouslyto human rights emergencies and come to the assistance of victims of violations. I broughtbefore the Commission and the Sub-Commission the plight of vulnerable groups whose veryexistence and survival was a stake and recommended in particular more effective action infavour of disappeared persons and indigenous peoples. I stressed the need for the protection

108 12 Overall Conclusion

of human rights advocates who in many countries ran great risks and drew attention to thedesirability of providing humanitarian assistance to overcome the effects of serious viola-tions of human rights that certain countries had experienced under regimes of repression. Ialso impressed upon the Commission that, in view of many situations of deliberate killingsand the taking of human lives by organized power, the protection of human life should rankhighest on the human rights agenda and required urgent and meaningful action.

Several of these and other suggestions for concrete policy action were taken up by humanrights organs. Rapporteurs were appointed to investigate and to report on human rightssituations in Equatorial Guinea, El Salvador, Bolivia and Guatemala. The Secretary-Generalwas asked to report on Nicaragua, Iran and Poland. The Commission established after a longpolitical and procedural struggle, a Working Group on Disappearances. It also endorsed aproposal to set up a Working Group on Indigenous Populations, decided to appoint a SpecialRapporteur on Summary and Arbitrary Executions, and recommended that under theadvisory services programme expert services be provided to Nicaragua, Equatorial Guinea,the Central African Republic and Uganda. A common feature in all these actions was theobjective of making the United Nations more operational in concrete human rights situ-ations and of creating instruments for dialogue, recourse, relief, and pressures rather thankeeping the Organization’s activities at the level of verbal exercises, abstractions, andgeneralities.1 (Italics added).

To give an idea of how ground-breaking van Boven’s approach was, it bearsrecalling that the two Directors of the Division of Human Rights before him hadmuch more cautious approaches. John Humphrey, the first Director, writing in hisdiary on Sunday 7 February, 1954, noted:

. . .[T]he Secretariat cannot openly play the role of policy-maker. It can have influence butthis is strongest when it does not appear on the surface. And it must have screens behindwhich it can manoeuvre.2

This author came to know John Humphrey well in his retirement and he andHumphrey paid visits to one another’s homes. Humphrey was very conscious of theneed for caution on the part of the Secretariat.

The second Director, Marc Schreiber, had a similar, cautious approach. Thisauthor, who worked closely with him, was with him during the General Assembly in1976 when he approached Lady Gaitskell, the British delegate on the Third (Socialand Humanitarian) Committee with a suggestion on an issue then being discussed inthe Committee. Schreiber knew her well and thought he was speaking discreetly to afriendly delegate. She rounded on him and admonished him: “Mr Schreiber, do notpresume to question the representative of a sovereign state.” Marc Schreiber wasvisibly taken aback.

It is true that van Boven benefitted somewhat from the Presidency of JimmyCarter and its emphasis on the centrality of human rights. Nevertheless, his approachwas a truly courageous and dynamic one. It is worth repeating that van Boven had“the objective of making the United Nations more operational in concretehuman rights situations and of creating instruments for dialogue, recourse,

1Reproduced in Coomans et al. (2000a, b), pp. 169–170.2Humphrey (1998), p. 55.

12 Overall Conclusion 109

relief, and pressures rather than keeping the Organization’s activities at thelevel of verbal exercises, abstractions, and generalities.”3

His tenure indeed saw the advent of universal protection and transformed thehuman rights role of the United Nations.

References

Coomans F, et al, (Eds.) (2000a) Human Rights from Exclusion to Inclusion; Principles andPractice. An Anthology of the Work of Theo van Boven. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

Coomans F, et al, (Eds.) (2000b) Rendering Justice to the Vulnerable: Liber Amicorum in Honourof Theo van Boven

Humphrey JP (1998) On the Edge of Greatness. The Diaries of John Humphrey, First Director ofthe United Nations Division of Human Rights, Volume 3, 1952–1957., Edited by A.J. Hobbins.McGill University Press, Montreal

3Ibid, p. 170.

110 12 Overall Conclusion

Chapter 13Afterword

The aim of this book has been to outline the principal policy initiatives of Theo vanBoven during his 5-year tenure as Director of the UN Division of Human Rights, andwe have kept to substantive issues while mostly staying away from personnel ones.Some friends who have read the manuscript have urged me to say something aboutthe circumstances surrounding the departure of van Boven from the UN Secretariatsince I was a close witness of these events. I should therefore like to record thefollowing:

First, throughout his tenure as Director, van Boven had a close working relation-ship with his immediate superior, Under-Secretary-General William Buffum. Therewas a relationship of mutual respect and trust between them.

Second, within Buffum’s office there were colleagues with deep roots who sawhim as a radical but, since Buffum was their boss they could not move against vanBoven openly. These colleagues had effectively chosen the person who van Boveninherited as his Deputy. The latter would leave the secretariat under a cloud.

Third, van Boven had the closest working relations with the US Government,including the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, Patricia Derian, USRepresentatives on the Commission on Human Rights, Allard Lowenstein andJerome Shestack, US Permanent Representatives in Geneva, Ambassador Williamvan den Heuvel and Ambassador Gerald Helman, and their staff such as WilliamHoyte and Patrick Floode, and others.

Fourth, van Boven enjoyed the respect of numerous Ambassadors at theUnited Nations from different parts of the world, including from Latin America,even if some, like Argentinian Ambassador Gabriel Martinez were out to get him.

Fifth, van Boven was admired across the board by NGO representatives and hadclose working relationships with their leaders. When he left the Secretariat they gavehim the most moving send-off.

Sixth, when then UN Under-Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar carried out amission of direct contact with the Government of Uruguay at the request of theCommission on Human Rights and submitted a rather flimsy report, he was roundlycriticized inside the Commission on Human Rights. van Boven sent a cable to


111


UNHeadquarters to this effect (which is in the possession of the author) and when hesaw Perez de Cuellar a few days later he told him personally that the Commissionhad been quite critical of his report. Perez de Cuellar shortly thereafter was electedSecretary-General of the UN and relieved van Boven of his post.

Seventh, while the Carter Administration had made the protection of humanrights its central policy, its successor, the Reagan Administration immediatelyoverturned this policy completely and its UN Permanent Representative, Ambas-sador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, wrote openly that the UN would support ‘authoritariangovernments’ that were friends of the USA, notably those in Latin America.Ambassador Kirkpatrick was the one who moved swiftly for van Boven’s departurefrom the UN, pressing Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar on this.

Eighth, the Permanent Representatives to the UN of Argentina, Chile and Guate-mala, in particular, wanted van Boven out because of the forthrightness of his stancesagainst gross violations of human rights in their countries and they lobbied with theUS government to this effect.

Ninth, van Boven was so aggrieved about the deliberate killing of people byLatin American governments that he decided to make this the central focus of hisaddress to the Commission on Human Rights in 1982. During the week-end beforehis address, the text came to be known by the Deputy Permanent Representative ofGuatemala, who orchestrated a determined effort to stop van Boven.

van Boven had always decided on the texts of his addresses to human rightsbodies on his own, and was given wide latitude by Buffum to make the case forstronger protection of human rights. When the pressure came from Latin AmericanAmbassadors and US Ambassador Kirkpatrick for van Boven to withdraw hisspeech, he declined to do so. This author was present during conversations he hadover the telephone with Buffum and his immediate assistant, Jay Long, and when hetold them that it was a matter of conscience and principle for him that he would notwithdraw the speech.

Tenth, it is known from people who followed these events at the time, such as theAssistant Secretary-General for Personnel Affairs, Ms Leila Doss, that Perez deCuellar and his Executive Director, Emilio Olivarez intended to relieve van Boven ofhis post shortly after de Cuellar entered the UN as Secretary-General. Leila Dosssubsequently told this author that she had written a note to the file on this matter, torecord that she was not part of the initiative to relieve van Boven of his post.

Eleventh, the mobilization of Latin American Ambassadors and US AmbassadorJeanne Kirkpatrick added fuel to the fire inasmuch as Perez de Cuellar’s intentionalready was to relieve van Boven of his post. The former served as a convenientpretext for the latter.

Twelfth, William Buffum was in a difficult situation. He was a former seniorofficial of the US State Department, was the American senior official at the UN, tookinstructions from the American Government, and took orders from the Secretary-General. He accordingly carried out the act of execution with an axe sharpened byhis immediate assistants, ‘spooks’ who had deep roots in the permanent arm of theUS Government.

112 13 Afterword

The impact on van Boven and his family was searing. But we shall say no more ofthis here. He weathered this storm, became a Professor of International Law, servedas Registrar of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and healso served as UN Special Rapporteur against Torture. He was further for two termsa member of the treaty body against all forms of racial discrimination and UNSpecial Rapporteur on redress and reparation for victims of gross violations ofhuman rights. He has, throughout, been one of the most respected and reveredhuman rights leaders in the world. Without a doubt, he was the best and mostdynamic human rights leader the UN has ever had.

13 Afterword 113

Annex A: van Boven’s Vision Statement, 1977:Problems and Strategies in the Area of HumanRight1

Introduction

1. The promotion and encouragement of respect for human fights for all is explicitlystated in the Charter as one of the basic purposes of the United Nations. It wasplaced in direct relationship with the maintenance of international peace andsecurity and the creation of conditions for economic and social progress anddevelopment. The inter-dependence between human rights, peace and develop-ment means that freedom from fear and freedom from want belong as much to theheart of the concept of human rights as political freedoms. This same inter-dependence assumes and requires that the wider recognition and acceptance ofthe human factor be made the central theme in all human endeavours. One of themost important challenges is for the elaboration and implementation of humanrights approaches to problems and strategies for solving them, which are based onrespect for human rights. Along with the New International Economic order, theUnited Nations has to work for a new social and human order enabling peoples andindividuals to enjoy the rights which are basic to their existence and development.

2. The entry into force in 1976 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social andCultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and theOptional Protocol to the latter Covenant has given new impetus to the UnitedNations action in this field. These instruments build upon the principles containedin the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly in1948. With the creation of the Human Rights Committee, which was establishedunder the provisions of the InternationalCovenant onCivil and Political Rights, newand significant methods are now available to review, on the basis of reportssubmitted by States Parties, progress and to identify problems in the territories ofStates parties to this Covenant. In addition, the Optional Protocol provides a channelto consider communications from individuals alleging human rights violations byStates Parties to the Optional Protocol. Under the International Covenant on

1Original in the possession of the author.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018B. Ramcharan, The Advent of Universal Protection of Human Rights,Springer Biographies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02221-1

115

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02221-1

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, a system of regular reports by States partieson measures they have adopted and progress they have made in achieving the rightsrecognized in the Covenant will be supervised by the Economic and Social Council.

3. Notwithstanding the success of its standard-setting activities the internationalcommunity still has not developed enough ways and means of respondingadequately to allegations of violations of human rights. This remains one of thebasic challenges of the United Nations in the field of human rights. Grossviolations of human rights, notably practices of racial discrimination and apart-heid, shock the conscience of peoples throughout the world. It is the duty of theinternational community to strengthen its efforts with a view to bringing suchviolations to an end wherever they occur. Efforts are also needed at all levels todevise and develop ways and means directed at a more effective monitoring ofhuman rights implementation. A variety of approaches and of ways and means arecalled for in order to respond adequately to the exigencies of different situations.In this respect also the exercise of the good offices of the Secretary-General in thefield of human rights assumes special significance.

4. Gross violations of human rights are often symptoms of deeper causes of injus-tice. It is necessary to work for just structures of society and for the elimination ofthe root causes of violations of human rights. Bearing in mind that unjuststructures create conditions under which human rights are denied, it is highlyimportant that such adverse phenomena be identified and analysed in order todevelop and apply remedial measures. At the same time and for the same purpose,research, education and information are indispensable means. It is essential tomake people aware of all their rights by way of education and information and tocreate the necessary preconditions for the wider knowledge, acceptance andapplication of international human rights standards and for the combatting ofattitudes of prejudice and discrimination.

5. Work for an international and social order in which human rights will prevail canonly succeed if the efforts of the international community are supported by theminds and hearts of all the people and by their active participation and commit-ment. Popular participation in the promotion and protection of human rights isvital. It is therefore suggested that emphasis be laid on strengthening teaching,education, research, study, publications and the dissemination of information inthe field of human rights. The increased international attention and concern whichis being focused nowadays on human rights and on United Nations activities inthis field may be utilized to full advantage in this respect.

6. In spite of vigorous efforts through the years by the United Nations to eliminatethe practices of racism, racial discrimination and apartheid, large groups ofhuman beings still suffer from the scourges of this evil phenomenon. The Decadefor Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination will come to an endduring the period covered by this medium-term plan. It will be necessary to assessthe progress made and the problems outstanding and to devise ways and meansfor continuing action in this field.

7. During the medium-term period, particular attention will be focused on thefollowing broad aspects of United Nations activity:

116 Annex A: van Boven’s Vision Statement, 1977: Problems and Strategies in the. . .

Implementation of International Instruments and Established United Nationsin the Field of Human Rights

8. The elaboration and formulation of standards over the past 30 years have culmi-nated in the adoption of a number of Conventions, notably the InternationalCovenants on Human Rights, which are binding on a large number of StatesMembers of the United Nations. In addition to the regular supervisory proceduresinstituted under international treaties, special procedures to deal with allegations ofviolations of human rights have been established, either through internationalinstruments or resolutions of policy-making organs. Investigatory or fact-findingbodies have also been created on an ad hoc basis by policy-making organs in orderto examine specific situations where violations of human rights are reported.

9. The obligations accepted by States under the International Covenants and otherconventions on human rights such as the International Convention on the Elim-ination of Racial Discrimination [ICERD] provide a framework for obtainingcompliance with international standards elaborated by the United Nations in thisfield. During the period of the medium-term plan, States which have not yetbecome parties to United Nations instruments will be encouraged to ratify oraccede to them as soon as possible, while those which are parties to suchinstruments will be encouraged, with the assistance of the supervisory bodies, tofulfil their obligations so as to give effect to the provisions of these instruments atthe national and international level. These efforts are necessary and significantsteps in the persistent efforts by the United Nations to translate the aims andprinciples of human rights into binding obligations respected everywhere.

10. It is to be expected that during the period of the medium-term plan theseprocedures of regular review by supervisory organs will gain in breadth anddepth inasmuch as more States will accept the various relevant internationalinstruments and the dialogue with States parties will become more intense andmore directed.

11. Other procedures of a more specific nature have been established by the UnitedNations for the consideration of violations of human rights. They are designed toensure that the bodies established thereunder may examine situations whichreveal a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights or violations of therights of individuals in contravention of international human rights norms.Application of these United Nations procedures is essential in order to influenceGovernments to ameliorate serious human rights situations within their juris-diction. As a result of these procedures, Governments may also be encouraged totake remedial action in individual cases.

12. In cases where United Nations policy-making organs have decided to establishwith respect to certain human rights situations, fact-finding and investigatorybodies, established on an ad hoc basis, the objective of United Nations fact-finding and investigatory bodies, established on an ad hoc basis, is to establishthe facts in the situations concerned; to alleviate the suffering of those whoserights are infringed upon and to contribute to the restoration of human rights. Inorder to be regularly informed of developments in each situation under

Annex A: van Boven’s Vision Statement, 1977: Problems and Strategies in the. . . 117

investigation, a system for gathering information from relevant sources has beendeveloped. This information, together with documentation submitted to theinvestigatory bodies by governmental or non-governmental bodies, is classifiedand analysed. On the basis of all of the information gathered by the investigatorybodies, official reports called for policy-making organs are prepared.

Standard-Setting, Research, Studies and Prevention of Discrimination

13. Authoritative material is essential to the international community in order: (i) toidentify human rights problems calling for possible United Nations action; (ii) toassist in the development of international norms relating to human rights or inthe elaboration of new standards; (iii) to assist in the application and furtherelaboration of international implementation procedures; (iv) to formulate andcoordinate the programmes and methods of work of policy-making organsdealing with human rights questions. These activities often relate to problemsof a global and structural character, having a potential impact upon large groupsof people. They may have a special role in the prevention of discrimination andthe protection of minorities. The practical effect of these activities is to bemeasured in long-term perspectives. Their importance is precisely in theirstructural and long-term nature.

14. Major studies in the medium term period which have been requested by policy-making organs will include matters of crucial importance to the internationalcommunity, such as : Human rights and scientific and technological develop-ments, slavery and related practices, adverse consequences for the enjoyment ofhuman rights of assistance given to colonial and racist regimes in southernAfrica, rights or persons belonging to ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities,rights of indigenous populations, the international dimensions of the right todevelopment, the impact on human rights of states of ‘emergency’ or ‘siege’. Itmay also be expected that new standards will be elaborated in some of these, aswell as in other areas.

Advisory Services and Publications

15. The objectives of the advisory services and publications activities in the field ofhuman rights are to instil respect for human rights in the minds of people;promote the application of universal standards as defined by the United Nations,through seminar, training courses, education, public information and action bynon-governmental organizations, and to contribute to eliminating the root causesof violations by, for example, striving to combat prejudice and stereotypes in theminds of individuals.

16. The standards set by the United Nations should be widely known and shouldserve as guidelines for those who draft or adopt legislation or give effect to suchlegislation either in the executive or juridical branches of government. Theteaching of these standards will be promoted and their incorporation in educa-tional systems encouraged. Wide-spread knowledge of these standards willallow them to be invoked by those concerned.

118 Annex A: van Boven’s Vision Statement, 1977: Problems and Strategies in the. . .

17. United Nations action in this field within the medium-term period will includethe organisation of seminars (international or regional), regional trainingcourses, awarding of fellowships, participation in educational and informationprogrammes, especially as regards the rights of children, youth and disabledpersons, and preparation of publications in the field of human rights, includingthe Yearbook on Human Rights, the Human Rights Bulletin and compilations ofhuman rights instruments and standards.

Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination

18. The Decade, which was launched in 1973, will reach its full momentum in themedium-term period. The implementation of the programme of the Decade willbe promoted and monitored on a continuous basis. It may also be expected thatadditional programmes and activities in this field to be carried out in themedium-term period will be recommended by the World Conference to CombatRacism and Racial Discrimination to be held in 1978.

Executive Direction and Management and Programme Support

19. The tasks of Executive Direction and Management, and of the administrativeand common services will be to ensure that the above-mentioned goals andactivities are carried out effectively and efficiently with the necessary staff andfinancial resources required.

Annex A: van Boven’s Vision Statement, 1977: Problems and Strategies in the. . . 119

Annex B: van Boven Breaks the Ban on NGOsRaising Gross Violations Before the Commissionon Human Rights

Policy Paper of 1977

Oral Statements by Non-Governmental Organizations Beforethe Commission on Human Rights2

IssueThe question has arisen whether non-governmental organizations in making oralstatements before the Commission on Human Rights can refer to informationsuggesting that human rights are not being fully respected in particular countries.

Applicable Provisions

• Article 71 of the Charter.• Rules 74–76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Functional Commissions of the

Economic and Social Council.• Ecosoc resolutions 1296 (XLIV) and 1919 (LVIII).

Applicable Principles

1. Para. 14 of Council resolution 1296 (XVIV), which falls under Part II dealingwith “Principles Governing the Nature of the Consultative Arrangements”, pro-vides the basic point of departure: “Decisions on arrangements for consultationshould be guided by the principle that consultative arrangements are to be madeon the one hand, for the purpose of enabling the Council or one of its bodies tosecure information or advice from organizations having special competence in thesubjects for which consultative arrangements are made, and, on the other hand, to

2van Boven (1977). Policy Paper. Oral Statements by Non-Governmental Organizations Beforethe Commission on Human Rights. Original in the possession of the author.


121

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02221-1

enable organizations which represent important elements of public opinion in alarge number of countries to express their views”

2. Para. 17 of the same resolution provides that “special consideration shall be givento the applications of organizations in this field whose aims place stress oncombating colonialism, apartheid, racial intolerance and other g ross violationsof human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

3. Rules have been established in the past concerning the circulation of writtencommunications containing complaints of violations of human rights but not asregards oral statements. It is therefore necessary to refer to the practice of theCommission. In this connexion, it is generally accepted that if the Commission isconsidering in public sessions situations where human rights are alleged to beviolated, the Commission should hear relevant information in the possession ofNGOs. The Commission has heard of information in the possession of NGOsregarding the three situations which are the object of public examination, namelySouth Africa, Chile and the Israeli-occupied territories. There is support for thisview in the relevant precedents. Thus, when the Economic and Social Councilconsidered the arrangements for the handling of written communications in 1952,it was stated that “it was not intended that the procedures proposed (for dealingwith written communications by non-governmental organizations) should super-sede the special procedures laid down by the Council for the handling of specialtypes of violations of basic rights. Thus, the proposal would not affect in any waythe right of non-governmental organizations. . .to present complaints regardingviolations of trade union rights and to have them publicised. The proposal alsoleft intact the procedures established by the procedures established by theCouncil. . .regarding the treatment of forced labour issues, which constitutedviolations of human rights. . .” (Mr Kotschnig (USA), E/SR/661, para. 55). TheCommission itself acted on this view when it decided to recommend to theEconomic and Social Council to refer certain communications being consideredunder resolution 1503 to the Working Group on Chile and to the SpecialCommittee on human rights in the Israeli-occupied territories.

4. There is also a long practice in the Commission that non-governmental organiza-tions in possession of information which can assist the Commission in carrying outits functions should be allowed to present these in oral statements to the Commis-sion. In pursuance of this principle, the Commission has, over the years, allowednon-governmental organizations to include in their statements information to theeffect that human rights are not being fully respected in particular countries. At thepresent session of the Commission, for example, such statements were made by theIndian Treaty Council, the Anti-Slavery Society and others.

5. This practice represents a desirable policy which should be continued by theCommission. The Commission should be prepared to allow the greatest possibleinformation to reach it, always bearing in mind that it is for the Commission aloneto decide whether to accept or to act on such information. Para. 14 of Councilresoluti9on 1296 includes among the principles governing consultative arrange-ments, “enabling the Council or one of its bodies to secure expert information oradvice from organizations. . .” and to “enable organizations which represent

122 Annex B: van Boven Breaks the Ban on NGOs Raising Gross Violations Before the. . .

important elements of public opinion. . .to express their views.” These principleswere also present in the ECOSOC Committee on Non-Governmental Organiza-tions in 1946 when it took the view that to restrict non-governmental organiza-tions “would constitute a form of censorship more objectionable than the illwhich it sought to cure”. (E/1619, para. 19).

6. Economic and Social Council resolution 1919 (LVIII) asserted in the preamblethat some non-governmental organizations have occasionally failed to observefully the terms of para. 36(b) of Council resolution 1296 (XLIV) and decided inits second operative paragraph that in the future “non-governmental organizationsin consultative status (a) must comply without exception as regards their sub-missions both in written and oral form”, in so far as they relate to allegations orcomplaints on human rights, with the provisions of paragraph 36(b) of Councilresolution 1296 (XLIV)”.

7. Para. 36(b) of Council resolution 1296 refers to an organization which “clearlyabuses its consultative status by systematically engaging in unsubstantiated orpolitically-motivated acts against Member States of the United Nations contrary toand incompatible with the principles of the Charter.” Para. 36(b) defines certaintypes of acts which would amount to abuse of consultative status and provides asanction in such cases. Para. 36(b) is not applicable to a non-governmental organi-zation which, in good faith, presents information to the Commission that humanrights are not being fully respected in particular countries. This is not per-se apolitically motivated act contrary to or incompatible with the principles of theCharter. Rather, it can be said that it aims at giving effect to the principle of respectfor human rights which is contained in the Charter. Whether a statement is substan-tiated or not is for the Commission to decide and it can only do so after it has listenedto the statement. Everything, therefore points in favour of the view that the Com-mission should listen to such statements, always bearing in mind, as said above, thatit is for the Commission to decide whether to accept or to act on such statements.

8. The Commission is always in possession of a safeguard against statements whichit considers go beyond the bounds of propriety. The Chairman of the Commissioncan at any time stop an observer of a non-governmental organization whom hethinks to have gone beyond the limits of propriety.

9. It may be said that to allow non-governmental organizations to include in theiroral statements information suggesting that human rights are not being fullyrespected in particular countries contrasts with the rule that written statementscontaining complaints of violations must be handled in accordance with theprocedure established under Council resolution 1503. There is, however, a casefor distinguishing between oral and written statements:

(i) A written complaint under resolution 1503 invokes the specific procedureprovided thereunder. An oral statement provides information to the Commis-sionwhich is fee to decidewhether or not to act on it and if yes, inwhatmanner.

(ii) Written statements provide a procedure between sessions. Oral statements atsessions provide an opportunity for bringing to the attention of the Com-mission the most recent information or drawing attention to urgent cases.

Annex B: van Boven Breaks the Ban on NGOs Raising Gross Violations Before the. . . 123

(iii) Non-governmental organizations which have taken the effort to be present atthe Commission should, in principle, be given the opportunity to expresstheir views. The Commission has over-all control inasmuch as it decides ineach case whether or not to grant the floor and the Chairman can at any timestop an observer who is going beyond the limits of propriety.

Reference

van Boven (1977). Policy Paper. Oral Statements by Non-Governmental Organiza-tions Before the Commission on Human Rights. Original in the possession of theauthor.

124 Annex B: van Boven Breaks the Ban on NGOs Raising Gross Violations Before the. . .

Annex C: Effective Action Against Massand Flagrant Violations of Human Rights

(General Assembly Resolution 34/175)3

(Drafted in the Division of Human Rights)

The General AssemblyMindful of the importance given in the Charter of the United Nations to promot-ing and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for allwithout distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,

Recognizing that in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, theideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom fromfear and want can be achieved only if conditions are created whereby everybody mayenjoy his civil and political rights as well his economic, social and cultural rights,

Conscious of the responsibility of the United Nations, expressed inter alia inGeneral Assembly resolution 32/130 of 16 December, 1977, in dealing with situa-tions of mass and flagrant violations of human rights,

Believing that disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barba-rous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind,

Recalling the statements made at the current session of the General Assembly byrepresentatives of countries which have recently experienced mass and flagrantviolations of human rights,

1. Expresses satisfaction that during the current year several situations of mass andflagrant violations of human rights have ceased, though many serious situationsremain to be resolved.

3Drafted in the Division of Human Rights.


125

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02221-1

2. Notes with appreciation the assistance being offered by the Secretary-General andby various United Nations bodies to counties which have recently experiencedsituations of mass and flagrant violations of human rights.

3. Reaffirms that mass and flagrant violations of human rights are of special concernto the United Nations.

4. Urges the appropriate United Nations bodies, within their mandates, particularlythe Commission on Human Rights, to take timely and effective action in existingand future cases of mass and flagrant violations of human rights.

5. Stresses the important role that the Secretary-General can play in situations ofmass and flagrant violations of human rights.4

4Emphases added.

126 Annex C: Effective Action Against Mass and Flagrant Violations of Human Rights

Annex D: Good Offices Role of the Secretary-General in the Field of Human Rights

Commission on Human Rights Resolution 27 (XXXVI)—19805

(Drafted in the Division of Human Rights)

The Commission on Human RightsBearing in mind General Assembly resolution 34/175 of 17 December, 1979 onthe need for effective action by the United Nations against mass and flagrantviolations of human rights which, inter alia, stressed the important role that theSecretary-General can play in such situations,

Recalling that the Economic and Social Council in its resolution 1979/36 of 10 May,1979, expressed its appreciation to the Secretary-General for his efforts to continuerendering the good offices envisaged in the Charter of the United Nations in the fieldof human rights,

Welcoming the statement of the Secretary-General in his Report on the Work ofthe Organization submitted to the General Assembly at its thirty-fourth session thathe has continued to exert his best endeavours on behalf of human rights whenever heconsiders that his actions may be of assistance to the persons or groups concerned,

1. Requests the Secretary-General to continue and intensify the good offices envis-aged in the Charter of the United Nations in the field of human rights6;

. . .

5Drafted in the Division of Human Rights.6Emphasis added.


127

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02221-1

Annex E: Draft Resolution on the Establishmentof the Post of UN High Commissioner for HumanRights (1977)7

Draft Resolution Prepared with the Advice of the Divisionof Human Rights

The General Assembly,Recalling that Member States under the Charter of the United Nations havepledged themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation with theOrganization for the achievement of universal respect for and observance ofhuman rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race,sex, language, or religion,

Bearing in mind the entry into force of a number of international instruments in thefield of human rights, the implementation of which has involved the establishment ofnew procedures and new committees or other organs,

Recalling that important work is being carried out in the field of human rights by anumber of United Nations specialized agencies and other United Nations bodies andorgans,

Noting the importance of the role of the Secretary-General in providing good officesand other assistance and services at the request of States and United Nations organs,

Noting that there is a need to make full and more effective use of all United Nationsresources in the field of human rights and also that there is a need to facilitate thecooperative fulfilment byMember States of their Charter commitments to human rights,

Convinced that these functions could be most usefully combined and carried outby a permanent mechanism mandated with the resources to enhance and coordinatehuman rights activities within the United Nations system and to act in a consultativecapacity providing advice and assistance in human rights questions at the specificrequest of States,

7Drafted with the advice of the Division of Human Rights.


129

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02221-1

Having considered the report of the Working Group to study the proposal tocreate the institution of a United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rightscontained in document E/CN.4/AC.21/L.1 of 30 December 1966 and the recom-mendation contained in Economic and Social Council resolution 1237 (XLII) of6 June, 1967,

1. Decides to establish, under the authority of the Secretary-General, a UnitedNations High Commissioner for Human Rights, who will possess the degree ofpersonal independence, prestige and integrity required for the discreet and impar-tial performance of his functions;

2. Decides that the High Commissioner shall act within the framework of theCharter of the United Nations in order to:

(a) Promote and strengthen universal and effective understanding and respect forhuman rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race,religion, sex or language, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights and other instruments of the UnitedNations and in particular:

(i) Consider as areas of special concern and attention such massive viola-tions of human rights as apartheid, racism and racial discrimination,colonial domination, foreign occupation and alien subjugation;

(ii) Give special attention to the critical importance of ensuring the effectiveenjoyment by all of their civil and political rights and their economic,social and cultural rights and such other rights as are recognized by theCharter of the United Nations and by the General Assembly, bearing inmind that all human rights and fundamental freedoms are indivisible andinterdependent;

(iii) Actively promote the understanding of the basic human rights inherentin the establishment of a new international economic order and of thenecessity to link the traditional concept of human rights with the rightsof all to have their economic, social and cultural needs met;

(a) Render, at the specific request of any State, assistance and services, includinggood offices, to that State; the High Commissioner may submit a report on suchassistance and services and on its results with the consent of the State concerned;

(b) Maintain close relations with the Secretary-General and all other organs of theUnited Nations, specialized agencies and other intergovernmental organizationsconcerned with human rights, and give advice and assistance in order to ensurecoordination of their activities in the human rights field;

(c) Report annually to the General Assembly on his activities and on developmentsin the field of human rights;

1. Stresses that the High Commissioner will have to exercise his functions in fullcompliance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, and that theauthority given to the High Commissioner by this resolution shall prejudice orauthorize interference in the functions and powers of organs already in existence

130 Annex E: Draft Resolution on the Establishment of the Post of UN High Commissioner. . .

or which may be established for the promotion or protection of human rights andfundamental freedoms, in particular those bodies within the United Nationssystem entrusted with a specific mandate and competence in the areas listed inparagraph 2, subparagraph (a) (i) of the present resolution;

2. Emphasizes that in the accomplishment of his task, the High Commissioner willhave to give the most careful consideration to the economic and social situationand the cultural and religious values of the different countries;

3. Requests the High Commissioner to keep in close contact with the Secretary-General in order to be informed of the work of all organs of the United Nationsand specialized agencies concerned with human rights, including the struggleagainst colonialism, apartheid, racism and racial discrimination, colonial domi-nation, foreign occupation and alien subjugation, and for the supply of facilitiesand information required for carrying out his functions;

4. Decides that:

(a) The High Commissioner shall be appointed by the Secretary-General andconfirmed by the General Assembly for a term of 5 years and that hisemoluments shall not be less favourable than those of an Under-Secretary-General;

(b) The emoluments of the High Commissioner shall be financed under theregular budget of the United Nations;

1. Requests the Secretary-General to submit at its thirty-third session concrete pro-posals on the organization of the UNHC’s office, taking into account the need tomake full use of the existing resources;

2. Decides to hold, at its thirty-eighth session, a comprehensive review of thequestion of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in thelight of the activities undertaken and the results achieved by the HighCommissioner.

Annex E: Draft Resolution on the Establishment of the Post of UN High Commissioner. . . 131

Annex F: Division of Human Rights DraftResolution, 1980, on Enforced and InvoluntaryDisappearances Leading to the Establishmentof the First Global Investigative Group, Markingthe Advent of Universal Protection

Disappeared PersonsThe Commission on Human Rights,

Recalling General Assembly resolution 22/173 of 20 December, 1978 in which theAssembly was deeply concerned over reports from various parts of the worldrelating to enforced or involuntary disappearances of persons,

Mindful of resolution 1979/38 of the Economic and Social Council, as well asresolution 5B(XXXII) of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination andprotection of Minorities which proposed the establishment of a group of experts toconsider the question of disappeared persons,

Recommends to the Economic and Social Council to adopt the followingresolution:

Disappeared PersonsThe Economic and Social Council,

Recalling General Assembly resolution 33/173 and resolution 5B(XXXII) of theSub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, aswell as its own resolution 1979/38 on the question of disappeared persons,

Conscious of its responsibilities under the Charter to foster international cooper-ation for the promotion and protection of human rights,

Deeply concerned that reports persist of involuntary disappearances in wide-spread proportions

Mindful of General Assembly resolution 34/178 on the right of amparo, habeascorpus or other legal remedies to the same effect,

1. Decides to appoint M. . .. . . as experts in their individual capacity to study andexamine reports or information which may come to their attention concerninginvoluntary disappearances of persons, to ascertain their whereabouts and to takeall appropriate action in order to ensure the well-being of such persons.


133

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02221-1

2. Further decides that the activities of the experts shall be carried our bearing inmind the following provisions:

(a) The experts shall decide upon their working methods, bearing in mind theneed for urgency and promptness as well as for flexibility of action.

(b) The experts shall choose a Chairman who shall be competent to act betweenmeetings.

(c) Upon receipt of information concerning the involuntary disappearance of anyperson or persons, the Chairman or his designate shall immediately contactthe Government concerned with a view to clarifying the situation or where-abouts of the person or persons, and to safeguard the well-being of suchperson or persons.

(d) The experts may initiate such investigations as they consider necessary andmay also, in cases where they consider it appropriate, request a Governmentto investigate the situation of a person or persons and to report within aspecified time.

(e) The experts, or one or more of them on their behalf, may, with the cooper-ation of the Government concerned, undertake visits on the spot in order toexamine cases or situations of disappearances.

(f) The experts shall submit annual reports to the Commission together with theirfindings and recommendations. Their reports and, if they deem it appropriate,any other subsequent material relating thereto, shall also be presented to theSub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minor-ities annually.

1. Requests all Governments, specialized agencies, regional inter-governmentalorganizations and non-governmental organizations to cooperate and assist theexperts in the performance of their tasks.

2. Urges the Secretary-General to provide all necessary assistance to the experts,particularly by providing the staff and resources necessary for performing theirfunctions in an effective and expeditious manner.

3. Decides to consider this question further at its thirty-seventh session.

134 Annex F: Division of Human Rights Draft Resolution, 1980, on Enforced and Involuntary. . .

Annex G: Division of Human Rights DraftResolution, 1980, on the Protection of HumanRights Defenders, Leading to the Adoptionof a Declaration and Establishment of a GlobalProtective Mechanism

The Commission on Human Rights,Recalling that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by theGeneral Assembly to the end that every individual and every organ of society,keeping the Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and educationto promote respect for the rights and freedoms contained therein,

Noting that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights andthe International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights affirm that the individualhaving duties to the other individuals and to the community to which he or shebelongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of therights recognized in the Covenants,

Recalling also that the Economic and Social Council and the Commission onHuman Rights have repeatedly and consistently emphasized the importance of therole of individuals and groups in the promotion and protection of human rights,

Bearing in mind its resolution 23 (XXXV) of 14 March 1979 in which itexpressed the belief that progress in the promotion and protection of human rightsids assisted by a favourable world public opinion, and that a prerequisite for such adevelopment is a high level of knowledge, understanding and acceptance of therequirements of the Charter of the United Nations, of the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights and the relevant covenants and conventions,

1. Re-emphasizes the call of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to allindividuals and all groups to strive by teaching and education to promote respectfor the rights and freedoms contained in the Universal Declaration of HumanRights;

2. Appeals to all Governments to encourage and support individuals and groupsexercising their rights and responsibilities to promote the effective observance ofhuman rights;

3. Emphasizes that restrictions and obstacles or persecution of individuals andgroups striving for the promotion and protection of human rights is at variance


135

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02221-1

with the obligations of States under the Charter to work for the full and effectiveenjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms;

4. Requests the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection ofMinorities to examine at its thirty-third session the question of restrictions ofvarious kind imposed on individuals and groups engaged in the promotion ofhuman rights and to report to the Commission its conclusions andrecommendations;

5. Decides to consider at its thirty-seventh session during its examination of thequestion of ways and means for further promoting and protecting human rights,methods by which the international community can support the activities ofGovernments in encouraging the implementation of the right and duty of indi-viduals and groups for the promotion and protection of all human rights.

136 Annex G: Division of Human Rights Draft Resolution, 1980, on the Protection of Human. . .

Annex H: Division of Human Rights DraftResolution, 1981, on the Establishmentof the Working Group on IndigenousPopulations, a Global Protective Mechanism

Draft Resolution Proposed by the Sub-Commissionfor Adoption by the Commission on Human Rights

Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against IndigenousPopulations

The Commission on Human RightsRecalling its resolution 22(XXXVII) in which it recognized the great importanceof the subject of the human rights of indigenous peoples and expressed its hopethat the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection ofMinorities, at its thirty-fifty session, would be in a position to make recommen-dations to the Commission at its thirty-eighth session on the subject of thepromotion and protection of the human rights of indigenous peoples, in thelight of the study on the problem of discrimination against indigenous peoples,

Mindful of resolution 2 (XXXIV) of the Sub-Commission, which drew the attentionof the Commission to the serious and pressing plight of indigenous populations andemphasized the need for special measures to be taken in order to promote and protectthe human rights of indigenous populations,

Bearing in mind the work carried out by the Special Rapporteur, Mr JoseR. Martinez-Cobo,

Recommends the following draft resolution to the Economic and Social Councilfor adoption:

The Economic and Social Council,Recalling its resolution 1589 (L), Commission on Human Rights resolutions22 (XXXVII) and ___ (XXXVIII) and resolutions 8 (XXIV), 5 (XXXIII) and


137

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02221-1

2 (XXXIV) of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protec-tion of Minorities,

Recognizing the urgent need to promote and to protect the human rights andfundamental freedoms of indigenous populations,

Bearing in mind the concerns expressed in this regard at the World Conference toCombat Racism and Racial Discrimination in 1978,

Believing that special attention should be given to appropriate avenues of recourse atthe national, regional and international levels in order to advance the promotionand protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenouspopulations,

Mindful of the conclusion of the Sub-Commission on prevention of Discriminationand Protection of Minorities and of the Commission on Human Rights that theplight of indigenous peoples is of a serious and pressing nature and that specialmeasures are urgently needed in order to promote and protect the human rightsand fundamental freedoms of indigenous populations,

1. Decides to authorize the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination andProtection of Minorities to establish annually a Working Group on IndigenousPopulations which shall meet for up to five working days before the annualsessions of the Sub-Commission in order to review developments pertaining tothe promotion and protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms ofindigenous populations, including information requested by the Secretary-General annually from Governments, specialized agencies, regional intergovern-mental organizations and non-governmental organizations in consultative status,particularly those of indigenous peoples, to analyse such materials, and to submitits conclusions to the Sub-Commission bearing in mind the report of the SpecialRapporteur of the Sub-Commission;

2. Further decides that the Working Group shall give special attention to theevolution of standards concerning the rights of indigenous populations, takingaccount both of the similarities and of the differences in the situations andaspirations of indigenous populations throughout the world.

3. Requests the Secretary-General to assist the Working Group on IndigenousPopulations and make all necessary arrangements to enable it to carry out itsfunctions.

138 Annex H: Division of Human Rights Draft Resolution, 1981, on the Establishment of. . .

Annex I: Division of Human Rights DraftResolution, 1982, on Arbitrary and SummaryExecutions Leading to the Establishmentof a Global Protective Mechanism

Question of the Violation of Human Rights and FundamentalFreedoms in Any Part of the World, with ParticularReference to Colonial and Other Dependent Countriesand Territories

Summary or Arbitrary Executions

The Commission on Human Rights,Recommends the following draft resolution for adoption by the Economic andSocial Council:

The Economic and Social Council,Recalling the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the rightto life, liberty and security of person,

Having regard to the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights, which states that every human being has the inherent right to life, that thisright shall be protected by law and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of hislife,

Recalling General Assembly resolution 34/175 of 17 December 1979 in which theGeneral Assembly reaffirmed that mass and flagrant violations of human rightsare of special concern to the United Nations and urged the Commission onHuman Rights to take timely and effective action in existing and future cases ofmass and flagrant violations of human rights,

Further recalling Commission on Human Rights resolution 8 (XXIII) of 16 March,1967 on the question of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms inany part of the world,


139

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02221-1

Mindful of General Assembly resolution 36/22 of 9 November 1981, which con-demns the practice of summary and arbitrary executions,

Bearing in mind resolution 5 on extra-legal executions of the Sixth United NationsCongress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders,

Deeply alarmed about the occurrence of summary or arbitrary executions, includingextra-legal executions, that are widely regarded as being politically motivated,

Convinced of the need to deal urgently with the question of summary or arbitraryexecutions,

1. Strongly deplores the increasing number of summary or arbitrary executionstaking place in various parts of the world;

2. Decides therefore to appoint for 1 year a special rapporteur to examine thequestions related to summary or arbitrary executions;

3. Requests the Chairman of the Commission, after consultations within the Bureau,to appoint an individual or recognized international standing as specialrapporteur;

4. Considers that the special rapporteur in carrying out his mandate may seek andreceive information from Governments as well as specialized agencies, inter-governmental organizations and non-governmental organizations in consultativestatus with the Economic and Social Council;

5. Requests the Special Rapporteur to submit a comprehensive report to the Com-mission at its thirty-ninth session on the occurrence and extent of the practice ofsuch executions together with his conclusions and recommendations;

6. Urges all Governments to cooperate with and assist the special rapporteur in thepreparation of his report.

7. Requests the Secretary-General to provide all necessary assistance to the specialrapporteur;

8. Requests the Commission on Human Rights to consider the question of summaryor arbitrary executions as a matter of high priority at its thirty-ninth session underthe agenda item “Question of the violation of human rights and fundamentalfreedoms in any part of the world, with particular reference to colonial and otherdependent countries and territories”.

140 Annex I: Division of Human Rights Draft Resolution, 1982, on Arbitrary and Summary. . .

Annex J: Division of Human Rights DraftResolution, 1980, on the Development of PublicInformation Activities in the Field of HumanRights (Leading to a World Campaign)

Development of Public Information Activities in the Fieldof Human Rights

The Commission on Human Rights,Recalling its resolution 23 (XXXV) on the development of public informationactivities in the field of human rights,

Recommends the following draft resolution for adoption by the Economic andSocial Council:

Development of Public Information Activities in the Fieldof Human Rights

The Economic and Social Council,Mindful of resolution 34/182 of the General Assembly on questions relating toinformation,

Recalling resolution 23 (XXXV) of the Commission on Human Rights on thedevelopment of public information activities in the field of human rights,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General on this subject which wassubmitted to the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/1368)

Conscious of the importance of teaching, education, research, training andinformation in the promotion and protection of human rights (Emphasis added)

Reiterating its belief that progress in the promotion of respect for and protectionof human rights is assisted by a favourable world public opinion,


141

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02221-1

1. Urges the Secretary-General, once again, to take all appropriate steps further todevelop public information activities in the field of human rights and, for thispurpose, to consider the establishment or designation of an information servicewithin the human rights sector of the Secretariat;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Commission at its thirty-seventhsession on the measures taken to enhance public information activities in the fieldof human rights, and to include in his report information on the implementation ofthe plans mentioned in document E/CN.4/1368;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to inform the United Nations Committee onPublic Information Activities of the strong hopes of the Council and of theCommission on Human Rights that the Committee will make suitable recom-mendations for developing public information activities in the field of humanrights;

4. Draws the attention of Governments, the specialized agencies, particularly ILO,UNESCO, WHO, FAO, regional intergovernmental organizations andnon-governmental organizations, as well as the United Nations Department ofPublic Information to the importance of disseminating the basic internationalinstruments on human rights as widely as possible, including in local languagesand invites the Secretary-General, in cooperation with the above-mentionedorganizations, to draw up and implement a World-wide Programme for theDissemination of the Basic International Instruments on human rights in asmany languages as possible and to report on the implementation of thisprogramme to the Commission on Human Rights at its thirty-seventh session.(Emphasis added)

142 Annex J: Division of Human Rights Draft Resolution, 1980, on the Development. . .

Annex K: Division of Human Rights DraftDeclaration on the Right to Development, 1979

The Human Right to DevelopmentThe Commission on Human Rights,

Conscious of the need to create the conditions necessary for the full enjoymentof human rights,

Recommends the following draft resolution to the Economic and Social Council:

The Human Right to DevelopmentThe Economic and Social Council,

Recognizing that the means necessary for the full development of the humanpersonality and for the full enjoyment of human rights should be made availableto the all peoples and persons,

Recommends the following draft declaration on the human right to development foradoption by the General Assembly

Declaration on the Human Right to DevelopmentWHEREAS under the Charter of the United Nations, the peoples of the world

have embarked upon the task of establishing a new global order in which everyhuman being may be able to develop his or her personality to the fullestpossible extent and to enjoy his or her inalienable human rights,

WHEREAS it is mandatory upon all organs of society, whether at the national,regional or international levels to contribute towards enabling every individualto develop his or her personality to the fullest possible extent and to enjoy hisor her inalienable human rights,

WHEREAS the interdependence and solidarity of all peoples and persons,nationally, regionally or universally have been emphasized by the interna-tional community and the rights and duties of the international communityhave been reaffirmed,


143

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02221-1

WHEREAS the existing international instruments on human rights promulgatedwithin the United Nations system have made great strides in defining humanrights but the right of access to the means necessary for the full development ofthe human personality needs to be further defined,

WHEREAS the efforts of the international community to establish a New Inter-national Economic Order must be supplemented by consolidating the humanright to development,

IT IS HEREBY DECLARED AND PROCLAIMED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1Every individual is entitled to access to the means necessary for the full devel-

opment of his or her personality and for the enjoyment of his or human rights.Article 2It is the duty of the international community, of every State and of every organ of

society to contribute towards the realization of the right to development stated inarticle 1.

Article 3States are under a duty to achieve international cooperation necessary to enable

every individual to develop his or her personality to the fullest possible extent and toassist one another in a spirit of solidarity, equity and justice.

Article 4Every people is entitled to determine its own model of development, mindful of

the need to respect fundamental human rights. Popular participation in the choice ofdevelopment models shall be assured, as well as in the implementation of develop-ment plans and policies.

Article 5Wide disparities in access to the means of development among peoples or persons

is unjust and unacceptable.Article 6The resources of the earth and its appurtenances are the common patrimony of all

mankind. The exercise of the right to permanent sovereignty over natural resourcesshould be carried out in accordance with the principles of equity and justice andmindful of the imperative principle of world public order that every individualshould be able to enjoy his or her human rights in full amplour, and mindful alsoof the need to conserve the world’s resources for future generations.

Article 7Special attention is necessary to the right to development of individuals or groups

having special needs, either by reason of natural causes, historical circumstances orother cause. The international community and all organs of society shall strive toenable such persons or groups to realise their full potential and rights.

Article 8All economic or social policies, whether at the national, regional or international

levels, shall be inspired in their formation and guided in their implementation by thefundamental need of enabling all peoples and persons to enjoy access to the means of

144 Annex K: Division of Human Rights Draft Declaration on the Right to Development, 1979

development and for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamentalfreedoms for all.

Article 9The responsibilities of States to contribute towards the realization of the right to

development shall be periodically determined by the international community,bearing in mind the needs of the world’s peoples and persons and the resources ofparticular communities.

Article 10The distribution of the earth’s wealth and resources among the world’s peoples

and persons shall be governed at all times by the principles of equity and justice andby the imperative principle of world public order that every individual should beentitled to the fullest enjoyment of his or her inalienable human rights.

Annex K: Division of Human Rights Draft Declaration on the Right to Development, 1979 145

Index

AAdvent of universal protection, xiv, xv, 26, 107,

110, 133–134Africa, xiv, 3, 20, 24, 35, 51, 59–62, 65African Commission, 59–62, 65, 67, 108Amnesty International, 1, 2, 24, 49, 79, 81, 82Apartheid, xiii, 6, 16, 18, 33, 71, 75, 116, 122,

130, 131Arab Commission, 66Arbitrary executions, 28, 47, 53, 109, 140Argentina, 21, 22, 72, 73, 75, 81, 112Asia, xiv, 3, 24, 34, 35, 51, 59, 62–65, 67Asia and the Pacific, 62–64, 67Asian Commission, 64–66Ayeni, M., 60

BBeaufort, Rev., 1Bill of rights, xiii, 96Bossuyt, M.J., 35Boven van, A.-M., 1Boven van, T.C., ix, xiv, xv, 1–3, 5–12, 15–28,

31–34, 36–41, 43–46, 48, 49, 51, 53, 56,59–62, 64–67, 69, 70, 73–88, 90, 91, 96,99–104, 107–109, 111–113, 115–119,121–123, 125, 127

Breakthrough in protection, 9, 15–29, 31–42

CCarter, J. President, ix, 109Centrality of human rights, 6, 7, 109Children, protection of, 10, 31, 33

Chile, xiv, 3, 9, 16–20, 24, 25, 28, 47, 72, 73,75, 88, 104, 107, 108, 112, 122

Cohen, R., 2, 79, 81Colombo Seminar, 65Combatting racism, 11Commission on Human Rights, xiii, xiv, 1, 2,

6–12, 15–21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 34–36,38, 39, 43–48, 52, 53, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65,66, 69–71, 73, 77, 78, 80–85, 87–91, 96,99, 100, 102, 103, 108, 111, 112, 121,126, 127, 133, 135, 137–143

Communications, xv, 16, 18, 21, 71, 73, 104,115, 122

Conscience, 44, 45, 49, 66, 81, 112, 116, 125Consultation, 2, 3, 21, 22, 81, 83, 101, 121, 140Coomans, F., xv, 29, 32, 83, 97, 109Country investigations, 15Country rapporteur, xiv, 9, 16–19, 28, 107Courage, xv, 2, 27, 73, 81Covenants, Human Rights, 15, 101, 117, 135Cries of victims, 43, 44

DDavies, P., 80, 81Declaration on rights of indigenous, 25, 40, 41Declaration on right to development, 87, 90,

92–96, 143Defenders, 9, 15, 33, 53, 81, 82, 84, 85De Silva, E.A.G., 62Dialogue, x, 2, 5, 9, 16, 71, 95, 108, 109, 117Dieye, Justice, 17Diplomacy, xv, 3, 20, 22, 69–78Direct contacts, 3, 5, 9, 49, 71–73, 111


147

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02221-1

Director of the Division of Human Rights, ix,xiv, xv, 1–3, 5, 19, 20, 26, 53, 65, 70, 74,79, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 108, 111

Disappearances, 3, 5, 9, 17, 19–25, 28, 47, 49,74, 75, 80–85, 107, 109, 133, 134

Discrimination, xiv, 1, 11, 32, 33, 36, 39, 41,47, 61, 64, 73, 79, 80, 83, 84, 113,116–119, 130, 131, 133, 134, 136–138

Disregard of gross violations, 45, 46Division of Human Rights, ix, xiv, xv, 1, 2, 5,

12, 15, 17–24, 26, 31, 39, 44, 45, 53, 54,59, 60, 64, 65, 70, 74, 76, 77, 79–85,87–89, 99–103, 108, 109, 111, 125–127,129–131, 133–135, 137–145

Dominant group, viiiDongen van, A., 20Dunbar-Ortiz, R., 39, 40

EEconomic and Social Council (ECOSOC), xiv,

2, 8, 12, 18, 21, 22, 25, 35, 36, 38, 62,66, 70, 71, 73, 77, 80, 116, 121–123,127, 130, 133, 135, 137, 139–141, 143

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 11, 16,38, 64, 87, 89, 90, 94–96, 115, 125, 130,135

Education, xi, 3, 11, 33, 36, 52, 55, 84, 92, 93,99, 104, 116, 118, 135, 141

Eide, A., 38, 40Ennals, M., 2, 79, 81Epps, D., 80, 81Estrella, M.-A., 73, 86Exploitation, viii, 32, 34

FFact-finding, xiii, xiv, 2, 3, 10, 16, 17, 20, 28,

29, 35, 38, 41, 48, 66, 73, 82, 107, 108,117

Female genital mutilation, 31, 34–37, 41Field officers, 10Field offices, xiv, 5, 12, 85, 86, 107Flagrant violations, 7, 8, 46, 73, 94, 125–127,

139

GGaitskell, Lady, 109Ganji, M., 23, 80Gauvin, M., 72General Assembly, xiii, xv, 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12,

15, 17–19, 21, 22, 26, 37, 40, 45, 47, 48,

51, 53, 55, 56, 59–61, 63, 71, 73, 77, 82,85, 90, 92, 93, 96, 100, 102, 109, 115,125–127, 129–131, 133, 135, 139–141,143

Geneva, vii, 2, 12, 19, 20, 38–40, 61, 69, 70, 74,75, 83, 85, 86, 102, 111

Good offices, x, xv, 3, 15, 16, 27, 69, 116, 127,129, 130

Grass roots approach, 99–101Gross violations, x, xiv, xv, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12,

15–17, 19, 21, 24, 28, 33, 45–52, 70, 71,79–83, 87, 95, 107, 108, 112, 113, 116,117, 121–124

Groups, protection of, 10, 31, 38, 135, 136Guest, I., 75, 86Guidelines, 37, 53–56, 63, 64, 108, 118

HHammarskjold, D., 19, 75High Commissioner for Human Rights, x, xv, 9,

12, 13, 26, 27, 34, 56, 77, 103, 129–131Human factor, 6, 46, 88, 115Humanitarian, 3, 6, 11, 27, 59, 75–78, 109Human life, protection of, 7, 9, 46–48, 109Human Rights Committee, xi, xiv, 52, 74, 82,

115Human Rights Council, x, xi, 34, 35, 70, 71,

107, 108Human rights defenders, 9, 15, 33, 53, 81, 82,

84, 85, 135, 136Humphrey, J.P., 54, 109

IIndigenous issues, 3, 9, 25, 26, 31, 33, 38, 41Indigenous peoples, xiv, 10, 25, 31, 107, 108,

137, 138Indigenous populations, 5, 10, 29, 32, 37–41,

109, 118, 137, 138Information, 3, 11, 22, 25, 29, 36, 40, 47, 49,

54, 55, 66, 70, 71, 75, 81, 83, 89, 99,116, 118, 121–123, 131, 133, 134, 138,140–142

Initiatives, x, xiv, 3, 8, 9, 12, 15, 35, 39, 40, 47,49, 51, 53, 56, 59–67, 74, 76, 80–82, 84,99, 102–104, 111, 112

International Bill of Rights, xiii, 96International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), 1, 2,

49, 60, 61, 79, 81, 82International cooperation, xiii, xiv, 56, 92, 96,

133, 144International Indian Treaty Council, 39

148 Index

International law, 2, 29, 52, 92, 93, 95, 113Investigations, 15, 33, 48, 52, 71, 108, 117, 134

JJayewardene, H.W., 62, 64Joint Task Force on Information, 99, 102Justice, vii, x, xiv, xv, 26, 34, 37, 40, 41, 44, 45,

52, 62, 72, 90, 92, 96, 144, 145Justiti, P., 20

KKaiser, E., 36

LLeadership for protection, 41Legal opinion, 18, 19, 21, 22Liberia, 24, 59, 61, 62, 100Livermore, J.D., 19, 20, 84, 85Local institutions, 53, 54, 100

MMacDermot, N., 2, 61, 79, 81–83Marginalization, viii, 32Martinez, Ambassador, 20, 21, 75, 111Martinez-Cobo, J., 39, 137Means, R., 39Minorities, 1, 11, 32, 36, 47, 64, 73, 79, 118,

133, 134, 136–138Moller, J.T., xivMonrovia seminar, 61Montgomery, Colonel, 34, 80, 81Morocco, 36, 61

NNational institutions, xiv, 29, 51, 53–56National protection, x, 3, 5, 51–56, 108Nchama, E., 61New York, 63, 69, 74, 75, 84, 102Nichol, D., 72Nigeria, 59, 60Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), ix,

xiv, xv, 1–3, 16, 19, 23, 24, 34, 49, 52,54, 61, 71, 79–86, 108, 111, 121–124

Nyamekye, K., 20, 65, 89

OOgata, S., 72

PParis Principles, 53, 55, 56, 108Partners, 2, 26, 83Partnership for Protection, 79–86People Matter, 56Permanent Arab Regional Commission, 66Petitions, xiii, xiv, 3, 17, 21, 56, 66, 69–74, 76,

80, 82, 83, 85, 86Picken, M., 79, 81Plea for justice, vii, viiiPolicies, xv, 2, 10, 16, 27, 32, 33, 40, 41, 89, 93,

94, 144Policy resolutions, 100, 102, 103Protection of human life, 7, 9, 46–48, 109Protective measures, 48, 49

QQuest for protection, xi, xiv, 3, 5–13, 76

RRacism and racial discrimination, 11, 80, 83,

84, 116, 119, 130, 131, 138Ramcharan, B.G., xiv, 19, 20, 69, 76, 78Regional institutions, xiv, 3, 51, 59, 100, 108Regional protection, 59–67Right to development, 87, 89–96, 118, 143–145Rodley, N., 19, 79, 81Roosevelt, E., xiii, 71Root causes, viii, xv, 3, 28, 87

SSakharov, A., 84San Francisco conference, xiiiSchreiber, M., xiv, 87, 109Schwelb, E., xiiiSecretariat, xv, 1, 3, 11, 12, 17, 20–24, 26, 27,

36, 41, 56, 63, 65, 69, 70, 72, 73, 83, 86,102, 103, 108, 109, 111, 142

Security Council, xi, xiii, 18, 52Seminar on African commission, 60Seminar on National Institutions, 53, 54, 100Slavery, 31, 34–36, 38, 41, 118Social and international order, 11South Africa, 16–18, 75, 108, 122Special Committee against Apartheid, xiii, 71Special Committee on Decolonization, xiii, 71Special rapporteur, 3, 8, 9, 16–18, 24, 25, 28,

34–36, 41, 47, 49, 107, 109, 113, 137,138, 140

Sri Lanka, 59, 62–65

Index 149

Structural issues, 88, 89Sub-Commission, 1, 3, 10, 11, 25, 29, 32, 34,

36–40, 47–49, 62, 64, 71, 73, 80–82, 96,108, 133, 134, 136–138

Summary executions, 5, 9, 23–25, 46, 48, 49,107, 139, 140

Survey of UN Information Centres, 99, 101Symptoms of violations, 87–97

TTammes, A.J.P., 2, 79Tardu, M.E., 22Telegrams, 16, 22Thapa, M., 65Thematic investigations, 15Thematic rapporteur, 9, 23–25, 49, 107Torture, 29, 33, 44, 45, 47, 52, 53, 73, 77, 86, 113Tosevski, I., 20Transformation of UN role, xiv

UUN Charter, ix, xiii, 18, 22, 27, 40, 76, 77, 115,

125, 127, 129, 130, 135, 143Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR),

xv, 26, 76, 84–86United Kingdom (UK), 19United Nations (UN), ix–xi, xiii, xv, 3, 6–8, 10,

11, 16–22, 24–28, 32–34, 38–42, 44–49,53, 54, 63, 64, 66, 69–71, 73, 77, 78, 84,87, 88, 90, 91, 99–101, 103, 104,108–111, 115–119, 123, 125–127,129–131, 135, 139, 143, 144

United States of America (USA), ix, xiii, 26, 39,49, 71, 83, 112, 122

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 9, 11,18, 35, 41, 48, 51, 53, 54, 64, 84, 88,101, 102, 115, 125, 130, 135, 139

UN role, 22, 26, 70, 108, 110UN secretariat, xv, 1, 24, 26, 27, 36, 41, 72, 73,

108, 111UN, Third Committee, 6, 26Urgent measures of protection, 16, 108, 138Urgent situations, 5, 8, 45, 46

VViolations of human rights, x, xi, xiii, xiv, 2, 3,

5, 7–10, 12, 15–21, 24, 28, 33, 43–52,70, 71, 73, 74, 79–81, 83, 87, 88, 94, 96,107–109, 112, 113, 116, 117, 122,125–127, 130, 139

Violence against women, 34, 36Voice for the victims, 3, 43–50Volio-Jimenez, F., 72Vulnerable groups, 10, 31, 32, 37, 38, 107, 108Vulnerable people, 31, 95

WWako, A., 24, 25Warzazi, H., 34, 36Willemsen-Diaz, A, 39Women, protection of, 10, 31, 32, 37World Council of Churches, 1, 79–81, 89World Health Organization (WHO), 2, 35–37,

103, 142World Information Campaign, xv, 99–105, 108World order, 7, 8, 31–33, 46, 88

150 Index

the advent of universal protection of human rights: theo van boven and the transformation of the un

Documents