UN High Commission On Human Rights Critical To Turkmenistan
<a href=www.cascfen.org>cascfen.org Posted on Thursday, April 17 @ 14:36:20 CDT by admin
17 April 2003, CASCFEN - UN High Commission on Human Rights welcomed the abolition of death penalty while remained critical to the situtaion with other human rights issues including freedom of press and expression. This was expressed in the press release of UN HCHR dated April 16, 2003: "In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Turkmenistan, adopted by a roll-call vote of 23 in favour to 16 against, with 14 abstentions, the Commission expressed its appreciation at the country's recent abolition of the death penalty, but expressed grave concern, among other things, at the persistence of a governmental policy based on the repression of all political opposition activities and on the abuse of the legal system through arbitrary detention, imprisonment and surveillance of persons who tried to exercise their freedoms of thought, expression, assembly and association, and through harassment of their families.
A Representative of Turkmenistan said the text was harshly worded, was based on a one-sided assessment and arbitrary interpretations of decisions taken by the Government and judicial bodies, and had been drawn up without any consultation with the Government of Turkmenistan, which was struggling to promote human rights.
Under a resolution on the situation of human rights in Turkmenistan (E/CN.4/2003/34/Rev.1), adopted by a roll-call vote of 23 in favour to 16 against, with 14 abstentions, the Commission expressed its appreciation at the recent announcement by the Government of Turkmenistan to uphold the decision by the Turkmen Peoples' Congress to abolish the death penalty; expressed grave concern at the persistence of a governmental policy based on the repression of all political opposition activities and on the abuse of the legal system through arbitrary detention, imprisonment and surveillance of persons who tried to exercise their freedoms of thought, expression, assembly and association, and harassment of their families; called upon the Government of Turkmenistan to ensure full respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms; to put an end to forced displacements and guarantee freedom of movement inside the country; to fulfil its responsibility to ensure that those responsible for human rights violations were brought to justice; to cooperate fully with all the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights; urged the Government of Turkmenistan to immediately and unconditionally release all prisoners of conscience; called on the Special Rapporteurs on the independence of judges and lawyers, on the question of torture, on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions, and on freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons, to seek invitations from the Government of Turkmenistan to visit the country; and decided to continue its consideration of this question at its sixtieth session.
The results were as follows:
In favour (23): Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, and Uruguay. Against (16): Armenia, Bahrain, China, Cuba, Gabon, India, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukraine, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (14): Algeria, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, and Venezuela.
A Representative of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the draft resolution on Turkmenistan had been submitted without any prior consultation with the country itself. So far, the situation of human rights in Turkmenistan had not been considered by any human rights mechanism, or under the Commission's 1503 procedure. The Organization of the Islamic Conference was therefore bewildered as to the reason for this draft resolution, especially given the willingness of the Government of Turkmenistan to cooperate with European Union. This had not even been reflected in the draft resolution. The submission of resolutions without the prior knowledge of the country in question set a dangerous precedent and would no doubt lead to further politicization of the Commission. For these reasons, the Organization of the Islamic Conference would call for a roll-call vote and would urge that for these reasons other countries should vote against the resolution.
A Representative of China said Turkmenistan had been added to the list of countries which had fallen victim to interference in their internal affairs under the pretext of human rights. Turkmenistan had acceded to several international human rights instruments and had undertaken efforts to promote and protect human rights. All this attested to the positive attitude of Turkmenistan. China found no reason to support this resolution and would therefore vote against it.
A Representative of Cuba said Cuba shared the views expressed by the representative of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Such resolutions were being used more and more by the European Union, including in the Latin American region. There was no clear human rights consideration in the draft resolution concerning Turkmenistan. The Cuban delegation would vote against the draft resolution.
A Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said the draft resolution on Turkmenistan was another example of how developing countries were targeted by an obvious political agenda, preventing the Commission from concentrating on human rights. There must be an end to the targeting of developing countries under agenda item 9. This targeting did not meet the objective of greater cooperation in achieving human rights for all. Syria would therefore vote against the draft resolution.
A Representative of Turkmenistan said that in the short course of its independence, Turkmenistan had become deeply integrated into the international community and had taken upon itself all corresponding obligations and had complied with them on the basis on international law. It valued its independence and sovereign rights. Turkmenistan was the first in Asia to abolish the death penalty, it gave special attention to the creation of a secular society and put equal emphasis on rights and duties. However, it needed time and cooperation from the international community. The emergence of the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Turkmenistan was an unpleasant surprise. The harshly worded text was based on a one-sided assessment and arbitrary interpretations of decisions taken by the Government and judicial bodies. Furthermore, the draft had been drawn up without any consultation with the Government of Turkmenistan. Moreover, Turkmenistan had never been the subject of any special procedures of the Commission, including the1503 procedure."
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register CASCFEN © 2002-2003 networking for freedom of press and expression in central asia and southern caucasus