List of RP speeches at the 53rd UN Commission on Human Rights

The right to economic, social and cultural development (Item 5 on the Agenda).

Subject: Economic, Social and Cultural rights of Indigenous Peoples (Bougainville, Ogoni, East Papua); delivered by Véronique de Weichs de Wenne.

Right to self-government (Item 7 on the Agenda)

Subject: general speech (Tibet, East Turkestan, Inner Mongolia, Bougainville, Ogoni, East Papua...); delivered by Michael C. van Walt van Praag (Secretary General of UNPO)

Prisoners’ rights (Item 8 on the Agenda)

Subject: Chinese Political Prisoners (Wei Jingsheng); delivered by Wei Shanshan (Wei Jingsheng’s sister). Assistance, greater promotion and defence of human rights (Item 9 on the Agenda)

Subject: Discrimination against HIV positive persons; delivered by Olga Cechurova (RP). Status of the international instruments for human rights and the effectiveness of the Conventions (Item 14 on the Agenda).

Subject: Death Penalty; delivered by William Shabas (President of Hands of Cain and lecturer at the University of Montreal).

The situation in various countries.

Subject: Hong Kong (Item 10 on the Agenda); delivered by Marino Busdachin (Leader of the RP delegation). Rights of ethnic minorities.

Subject: East Turkestan (Item 17 on the Agenda); delivered by Erkin Alptekin (Chairman, Allied Committee for East Turkestan, Tibet and Inner Mongolia).

Rights of the child (Item 21 on the Agenda).

Subject: Violations of the Rights of the Child (Burma (now Myanmar), China) delivered by Béatrice Laroche (Human Rights in China, RP) (TNF No. 12)

APPEL DE PARIS

pour le droit aux soins et la liberté thérapeutique contre la prohibition des traitements de la toxicomanie

We, the undersigned, European citizens concerned for public health, doctors, professionals in the field of drug addiction and other areas of public health, believe that therapeutic freedom, the right of each individual to choose their own doctor, the freedom of movement and consumer protection in Europe are such fundamental principles and rights that they require solemn reasserting. Too often the medical principle of therapeutic freedom is disregarded in the treatment of drug addicts. Many laws or regulations prevent doctors from treating drug addicts outside specialist centres when in fact such a restriction can not be justified medically. Other restrictions concern the choice of treatment (methadone, buprenorphine, heroin, ...): substances which have already proved effective and whose prescription has saved many human lives are still too often the subject of prohibition for reasons unrelated to any medical consideration. Furthermore, resorting to the imprisonment of drug addicts simply because they are dependent on prohibited substances denies them any future possibility of receiving effective treatment. The direct consequence of such restrictions is the impossibility for drug addicts to benefit from appropriate treatment. In fact, restrictions actually marginalize them even further, driving them deeper underground, and their state of health degenerates as a result. At the same time, it is clear that these same restrictions to therapeutic freedom are also an obstacle to freedom of movement within the European Union. Indeed, how can someone undergoing methadone treatment in a particular region consider travelling to, even settling in, a region of Europe where such treatment is not authorized? Moreover, freedom of movement of goods and services requires the reinforcement at European level of consumer protection in the health sector too. These observations impel us to launch an official appeal to the European Union and its member states so that therapeutic freedom may become a fully recognised principle. This implies the right of a doctor to prescribe any substance of medicinal value which he considers to be the most appropriate for a given treatment. This also implies the right of an individual not to risk imprisonment merely because they are a consumer of illicit drugs. To this end, we address the European Parliament so that it may request the European Commission to take all necessary initiatives in order to guarantee the freedom of movement of persons undergoing treatment for drug addiction. These initiatives should guarantee therapeutic freedom at European level including that related to the treatment of heroin addiction.

RESOLUTION ON THE ABOLITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY

(A)B4-0468, 0487, 0497, 0513 AND 0542/97

The European Parliament,

- having regard to its previous resolutions on the abolition of the death penalty,

- having regard to Resolution 1047 of 1996 and Recommendation 1302 of 1996 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the abolition of the death penalty in Europe,

- having regard to the resolutions on the abolition of the death penalty adopted by the ACP-EU Joint Assembly on 26 September 1996 and 20 March 1997,

- having regard to the latest UN report on the death penalty (E/CN.15/1996/19),

- having regard to the resolution adopted by the 53rd session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva on the death penalty (E/CN.4/1997/L.20),

A. having regard to the rapid increase in the use of the death penalty throughout the world,

B. welcoming the recent complete abolition of the death penalty in 1995 and 1996 in Italy, Spain, Belgium, Moldova and Macedonia,

C. welcoming the fact that Russia has signed the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights which makes abolition of the death penalty a legal obligation, but regretting that the Russian Duma has rejected a bill on a moratorium on executions,

D. welcoming the fact that, over the last two years, international organizations such as the Council of Europe, the Latin American Parliament and the ACP-EU Joint Assembly have adopted resolutions in favour of a universal moratorium on executions,

E. seriously concerned by recent reports that in some member states of the Council of Europe executions are still taking place, notably in Ukraine, where 167 executions took place in 1996,

F. whereas 28 members of the Council of Europe have abolished the death penalty for all crimes,

G. whereas, of the countries which are members of the Council of Europe, Cyprus, Malta and the UK have not abolished the death penalty for exceptional crimes and Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Turkey are de facto abolitionist, but still retain the death penalty on their statute books,

H. whereas seven members of the Council of Europe have signed, but not yet ratified, the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and nine member countries have not yet signed it,

I. regretting that numerous members of the Council of Europe have not yet signed the second optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

J. deploring the widespread use of the death penalty in the People's Republic of China,

K. deploring the growing use of the death penalty in the majority of federal states in the USA,

L. whereas Italy has tabled a proposal to the IGC to ban the death penalty in the new EU Treaty,

1. Reaffirms its strong opposition to use of the death penalty anywhere in the world and calls on all countries to adopt a moratorium on executions and to abolish the death penalty;

2. Calls on the Intergovernmental Conference to introduce a ban on the death penalty in the new Treaty on European Union;

3. Calls on those European states that retain the death penalty, without having recourse to it, to abolish it definitively for all crime as rapidly as possible;

4. Requests Belgium, Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Macedonia, Moldova and the Russian Federation to ratify the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and requests Albania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom to sign it;

5. Urges the Russian Federation and Ukraine to honour their commitments to the Council of Europe and immediately to adopt a moratorium and abolish the death penalty;

6. Proposes that candidate countries for accession to the Council of Europe should undertake to sign and ratify the second optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a condition of membership;

7. Calls on those signatories to the ACP-EU Convention that have not already done so to abolish the death penalty as rapidly as possible;

8. Considers that the abolition of the death penalty must be taken into account in all negotiations concerning partnership and cooperation agreements;

9. Calls on the Commission to pay special attention to the death penalty in its annual reports on human rights clauses in agreements between the EU and third countries;

10. Calls on the Council, the Member States and the Commission, acting within its remit, to table at the UN General Assembly a resolution on the introduction of a universal moratorium on executions;

11. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the parliaments of the Member States of the EU, the parliaments and governments of the member countries of the Council of Europe, the ACP countries, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the People's Republic of China and the Unites States, the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe and the President of its Parliamentary Assembly, and the Secretary-General of the UN and the President of its General Assembly.

Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities

Forty-ninth session

Agenda item 9 The administration of justice and the human rights of detainees

Delivered by Elizabetta Zamparutti Geneva, 22 August 1997

Mr. Chairman,

on April 3rd of this year, the 53rd United Nations Commission on Human Rights approved a resolution which recognized for the first time the question of capital punishment as a matter pertaining to human right. The international community, the NGOs and the member statesshould now dedicate particular attention also to those situations in which the death penalty is applied in the absence of minimum legal standard and procedural rights.

Within this context, the Transnational Radical Party and its campaign for the abolition of capital punishment, "Hands Off Cain," remind us that emergency situations often concur with the violation of the human rights and the equitable application of law, thus robbing those who are convicted of crimes and sentenced to death of the guarantees of protection established in the resolution of the ECOSOC 1984/50 of May 25th, 1984.

The Transnational Radical Party, in its "Hands Off Cain" campaign, intends to call attention to another worrisome phenomenon: the application of the death penalty to minors. About 20 states do not prohibit recourse to the death penalty in relation to minors despite the fact that for the number of ratification to the treaties (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Convention on the Rights of Child and the American Human Rights Convention) that forbid similar actions it can be said that an international norm exists that disallows their practice.

The fact remains that reservation of similar content, especially regarding those proposed by the United States to the International Pact on civil and political rights, should be considered inadmissible.

For this reason, the TRP through its "Hands Off Cain" campaign asks the Sub-Commission to consider nations that execute minors as acting beyond the sphere of international rights.

The Transnational Radical Party and its partner organization Human Rights in China (HRIC) would also like to draw the attention of the Sub-Commission to the lack of respect for the human rights of detainees in the People's Republic of China. Violations stem notably from the lack of independence of the judiciary, the discrepancy between the Chinese legal apparatus and the enforcement there of, the non-respect of the right of appeal and the common use of Reeducation Through Labor, an administrative sentence imposed by the police without any judicial proceedings. Torture and mistreatments are a routine practice in all Chinese detention centers, and prison regulations regarding detainees' rights, such as visiting rights, are often breached.

Wei Jingsheng, China's most prominent dissident and a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, has been repeatedly beaten by his fellow prison inmates, six common criminals who keep watch on him 24 hours a day. The prisoner who initiated the most serious beatings last June was publicly commended and awarded a sentence reduction, while Wei Jingsheng was accused of having violated prison regulations.

TRP and HRIC are extremely concerned at reports that Wei Jingsheng's health is further deteriorating as a consequence of the beatings. He suffers from a heart condition, severe high blood pressure and arthritis, and is no longer able to hold his head erect because of damage to his cervical vertebrae. However, prison officials have consistently denied his request for appropriate medical care. Denial of medical care is considered a form of torture by the UN Special Rapporteur on torture.

Wei Jingsheng came to symbolize the fate of numerous pro-democracy, religious and labor activists who dared to exercise free speech and were punished for this in spite of the guarantees set forth in the Chinese constitution.

TRP and HRIC are extremely concerned about the continued use of Reeducation Through Labor, a form of detention that was judged "inherently arbitrary" by the Working Group on arbitrary detention. TRP and HRIC commend the Working Group on its work relating to China in the past few years. However we deeply regret that, due to its impending visit to China, the Group decided to suspend the examination of communications regarding Chinese detainees.

In May 1997, Reeducation Trough Labor inmates Zhou Guoqiang, Gao Feng and Liu Nianchun have had their sentences extended by over 200 days for allegedly "refusing to reform themselves." To protest the authorities' decision, which was taken outside of the judiciary, Liu Nianchun started a hunger strike. The authorities responded by beating him up with electric batons and locking him up in a dark, narrow cell where he gets no water. His wife's appeal to the National People's Congress that her husband be granted medical treatment was ignored. Liu Nianchun, 43, has a tumor in his jaw and suffers from a blocked intestine, rectal bleeding, stomach pain and swollen lymph nodes. Liu Nianchun was ordered to serve a three-year Reeducation Through Labor sentence in July 1996. A labor rights and democracy activist, he helped draft the 1993 "Peace Charter" and played an active role in the 1995 petition movement, for which he spent one year in incommunicado detention.

To conclude, TRP and HRIC urge the Chinese government to respect the judgement of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention about the "arbitrary" nature of Reeducation Through Labor. TRP and HRIC urge that all the detainees who experience health problems be immediately granted appropriate medical care. Finally, TRP and HRIC urge the government of China to release immediately and unconditionally Wei Jingsheng and all those who have been given prison sentences and administrative terms for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of opinion, expression and association.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

DRUGS: PANNELLA GETS HIMSELF CONVICTED
by Carmelo Palma - L’Opinione, 20 September 1997.

The 7th Penal Section of the Rome lawcourts finds Marco Pannella guilty of the crime with which he is charged and, as this crime is considered a minor offence according to para. 5 of Art. 73 of the DPR309/90... sentences him to four months imprisonment and imposes on him a fine of 2,000,000 Lire". This was the sentence handed down at the first of Marco Pannella’s "drug" trials for having distributed 137g of hashish in August 1995 (along with Rita Bernardini, Benedetto della Vedova, Paolo Vigevano, Mimmo Pinto and Vittorio Pezzuto, who where then leaders of the Movimento dei Club Pannella-Riformatori) during a political demonstration at Porta Portese, the Roman flea-market.

Public Prosecutor Giovanni Salvi had asked for 5 months imprisonment and a 1-million Lira fine: a far lighter sentence than the one provided for in para. 1 of Art. 73 (from 2 to 6 years). According to the Public Prosecutor, the manner in which the action was carried out and the political nature of the initiative - of which, as the written charges confirmed, the police and the judiciary were informed prior to the deed - justified the offence being considered under para. 5 of the above- mentioned article, and the reduced sentence carried by "minor offences" under the Drugs Law. The Court accepted this interpretation and ruled that the sentence - which will come into effect in 15 days if Pannella does not appeal - be commuted to 8 months parole. Pannella cannot avail himself of the conditional suspension of the sentence due to two previous convictions for committing an outrage against the armed forces and for libel (the "Braibanti Case").

Pannella - who was treated as a case apart from the others and who, unlike them, had a court-appointed counsel for the defence, Dr. Giorgio Tamburrini - refused to exercise his defence rights, as previously announced in a letter to the Court: he required neither witnesses for the defence nor technical consultations, and his lawyer declined to question the written charges. When questioned during the previous hearing Pannella had acknowledged and admitted all the charges, and said that by refusing defence he was claiming his right to the same swift judgment meted out to the thousands of people charged with drug offences each year.

In his open letter to the judges, the antiprohibitionist leader had in fact requested that in his case "the laws simply be applied: this is the most appropriate and necessary thing even though these laws may seem unjust to one or more people; even though they should be revised, but not ‘interpreted’ to the point of acquitting those who are guilty by law". Yesterday, in a statement made before the hearing in camera, Pannella insisted - as well as expressing his respect for the judges - that he wished the "political motivation" of the offence to be considered an aggravating rather than attenuating circumstance, and announced that he would continue to implement and perfect his nonviolent strategy against the law on drugs. As he took his leave of the judges, he admitted to being "almost embarrassed, but obliged to continue to appear in courtrooms until an absurd and crime-inducing legislation, which sends thousands of people to prison each year and renders the police and judiciary impotent, is rectified". (ACP14056)