World Tibet Network News Tuesday, April 07, 1998

APR 6, 1998, M2 Communications - Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from around the world welcomed the completion of a draft declaration on the protection of human rights activists, but urged vigilance in implementation of the new instrument once it was adopted.

LOUIS JOINET, of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, said he had resigned from the chairmanship of the group last year, but was presenting its report because the current Chairman/Rapporteur had fallen ill. The group had taken into account recommendations made to it and, among other things, had introduced flexibility into the 90-day response time generally sought from States to its requests for information. He also had spoken to the representative of Cuba about group working methods that were of concern to that delegation. The Working Group furthermore had begun to address the difficult issue of asylum-seekers, and had undertaken a mission to Peru in January. All the penitentiaries visited there had offered full cooperation, and the group's members were able to see anyone

they wished in private. Also, a large number of in-depth meetings were held with NGOs. The country had laudably suppressed its practice of using "faceless judges", and had secured the release of persons whose sentences were without basis. It was encouraging that the system could acknowledge that it had committed errors. There was a problem with immovability of judges and with military justice in Peru.

Another field mission had been undertaken to China, Mr. Joinet said. In general, the mission found some problems and some progress. It was clear that some people were disappointed with the report, as they had expected it to be totally critical. There had been progress in reforms, but not enough time had passed to allow one to ascertain if the changes were effectively being applied. Progress remained to be made, as well, in certain areas, and those were outlined in four recommendations at the end of the report. The practice of re-education through labour was a contentious issue. The group tried to make a distinction about whether the practice was applied to common law prisoners or to those imprisoned for crimes involving the freedom of expression or religion or for "disturbing

public order". The group believed it would be appropriate for Chinese law to state categorically that re-education through labour should not be applied to people exercising their fundamental freedoms, as guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If common law prisoners, who did not have previous criminal records, were sentenced to re-education through labour, that might be acceptable, depending on circumstances, including the possibility of appeal and due judicial process before such a sentence was handed down.

The group had worked openly and regretted that it was unable to meet dissidents, Mr. Joinet said. It did not have a policy of meeting dissidents in secret. However, at a visit to a prison to Tibet, the group had seen hundreds of followers of the Dalai Lama imprisoned there. An "incident" had occurred when one of the detainees called out, "Long live the Dalai Lama!" Human Rights Watch had criticized the Working Group for not reacting, but the group talked to the person who had called out and asked the senior official to guarantee that that person would not suffer any harsh treatment. Moreover, before leaving Lhasa, the group again asked that the person not be punished. Later, however, the group had been told by an NGO that the person had been subjected to harsh treatment. The

Chinese Government denied the report, and the Working Group now would query the NGO about the authenticity of its information.