The UN Human Rights Committee observes the practice of asking its chairperson to conclude the review of each state party report, with his or her observations about how the discussion went and what seem to be the major areas requiring improvement in a government's human rights practice. Today marked the conclusion of the Committee's review of the record on Israel.
Sir Nigel Rodley, chairperson of the Committee, delivered his concluding remarks during the final 10 minutes of the Committee's session. You can view the full afternoon session at the treaty body webcast site.
Here are my informal notes of remarks. He hits especially hard on Israel's self styled interpretations of what legal standards apply to them and how to interpret them. Areas of concern include torture, interrogations, illegal settlements and home destructions.
Concluding remarks of the chairperson
My thanks to the delegation
for coming to this session with a high level group, who have well represented
expertise among its members on the subject matters we are reviewing. It is regrettable that you have run out of
time and not been able to give more complete responses. Part of the problem of running out of time in
this two day session was that the prior written responses of Israel did not
respond to many of our concerns. The
failure of the delegation to give written responses before this session then made
it necessary for the delegation to make oral responses. Depriving us of the opportunity to ask follow
up.
Treaty interpretation principle
The covenant is not a matter
of auto interpretation by each state party. This Committee is established to
interpret and apply the Covenant. That is reflected in various decisions of the
International Court of Justice as well. I noticed two arguments on
interpretation made by the delegation that are of particular concern –
extraterritoriality and inapplicability of human rights standards to the laws
of armed conflict. Both are contrary to our Committee’s interpretation of these
matters. The latter issue in particular, on the laws of armed conflict, seems to
be a totally unique and unilateral decision of the state party.
Settlements
There is also the issue of
the settlements. We are not here of
course to judge whether the settlements are illegal or not; that is for other
bodies to decide which bodies, it appears, have almost uniformly decided the
settlements are not legal. When read together with article 1 and other articles
of the Covenant, one can’t ignore that dimension in the human rights violations
in the country. The settlements are in
many ways at the heart of the problems being experienced.
Torture
Another issue is torture.
Still speaking to auto-interpretation, the very fact that the state party
maintains the defense of necessity justifies these tactics in some cases, if
nothing else contravenes the overwhelming majority view of others on this issue. I’m also not aware of any aspect of
international humanitarian law that allows destruction of homes, as practiced
by the government. The use of force, lethal
force, during armed insurrections is also questionable. I’m encouraged by some of what I’ve heard
from your delegation, perhaps that new codes and protocols will be implemented,
but listening to Mr. Neumann in this last segment today perhaps you take the
position that everything is already functioning well and no improvement is
needed. However, I see some heads
nodding that notwithstanding Mr. Neumann’s statements improvements will be
implemented. However while a new system may be correct in theory, the key issue
is how does it perform in practice. A
system is only as good as it actually behaves.
Interrogations
On interrogations, same
thing applies. It is encouraging to hear that there is a genuine independent
inspection that will begin to be implemented into procedures, but it still will
be important to see what happens in practice under the new system. Bearing in
mind that this system is already stacked against the detainees. 15 days of
incommunicado detention, even if no extensions of that time period are possible
any longer as you have indicated, still 15 days are exorbitant. It creates the
potential for serious abuses to occur during that time period. Certainly the
information from NGOs, including very respectable NGOs, indicate that even the
more moderate interrogation techniques are still being abused; there are so
many reports coming forward. It’s hard to believe they are all wrong, or that
nothing wrong is happening. Have there
been any prosecutions ever for those responsible for the use of unlawful force
in interrogations?
Suppression of dissent
We understand you are not
responsible for violations committed by the Palestinian Authority and
Hamas. But you are responsible for the
violations that are within your control.
Also a lot of my colleagues’ questions have expressed concern about various
incidents that seem to indicate that the traditional robust freedom of
expression historically enjoyed in Israel, is becoming more and more limited,
more repressed. Critics of government
practices are being silenced or harassed in ways not experienced before.
Finally, please follow up on
any questions you did not have time to answer during our session and follow up on
any reports or information you promised various committee members during the
session.
[end of remarks]
Conclusion
The full report from the Committee will be issued at the end of the session, October 31st. Consistent with Committee practice, the report will identify a few items to be followed up urgently by the government, within 12 months, and the remaining recommendations to be implemented and reported on in the next periodic report which is usually due in 4 to 5 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment