NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ADDRESS COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this afternoon heard statements from representatives of non-governmental organizations with respect to the reports of Slovenia, Austria and Bosnia and Herzegovina which it will examine during the current session.

Speakers underscored the failure of the States parties to carry out their obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and outlined the challenges ahead. The Committee will also consider reports from Uzbekistan and Libya during the next three weeks but no non-governmental organizations spoke on the situation in these countries.

With regards to the situation in Slovenia, the issue of human trafficking was highlighted. Concerning Austria, the harmful consequences of Genetically Modified Organisms, the feminisation of poverty and problems faced by asylum seekers were stressed. And with regards to Bosnia and Herzegovina, issues concerning unemployment and the rights of minority groups were raised. A general statement on the draft Optional Protocol to the Covenant was also made, to which Committee Members responded.

The representatives of the following non-governmental organizations took the floor: Amnesty International; Society Kljuc; ProLife; Obfarau Asylkoordination; Arbeitslose-Initiative; FIAN Austria; Evangellische Entwicklungszusammenarbeit; and Helsinki Committee on Human Rights. A general statement was also made by FIAN.

When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 8 November, it will begin its consideration of the initial report of Slovenia (E/1990/5/Add.62).

Statements with Respect to Slovenia

OMAR FISHER, Amnesty International, said there were human rights violations linked to individuals who were removed from the registry of Slovenian permanent residents in 1992, the so-called “erased”, which raised concerns with regards to Slovenia’s respect of the human rights of those individuals in the context of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Those who had been removed were inscribed on the list of foreigners, and had not been warned of the erasures. As a result, they became de facto foreigners or stateless persons, and some were served forcible removal orders. Of a total of at least 18,305 persons, many were living illegally as stateless or foreign persons, and the others were often still suffering from their situation, and had no access to redress, including compensation. To the extent that the erasure and the effects had disproportionably affected Roma and other marginalized people, they constituted a violation of the Covenant under several articles. Amnesty International had appealed for the residency permits to be issued, including retroactively. The Slovenian authorities should ensure that ad hoc and other legislative measures be adopted to remedy the situation, and establish an independent commission of enquiry to investigate the circumstances that led to the erasure, and examine the human rights consequences.

KATJUSA KODELE KOS, Society Kljuc–Centre for Fight against Trafficking in Human Beings, said the Society was implementing programmes against human trafficking in which educational institutions were involved. Other neighbouring countries were also involved in the efforts of the Centre in carrying out prevention programmes. Society Kljuc was also implementing the United Nations programmes with regard to trafficking and was assisting victims. It was also playing an active role in providing assistance and accommodation to the victims. The previous Government had allocated financial assistance to the Centre to carry out its activities; however, the current Government had not implemented the financial promises made by the previous Government. The Government was not taking action against corruption that was hampering the Society Kljuc from receiving State financial assistance.

YONGXIANG SHEN, Committee Expert, asked a question with regard to the statement by Amnesty International, saying that a number of the erased had been re-registered. Some had been forced to leave Slovenia, but how many of those who had stayed in Slovenia but had not gained their permanent residence remained. Regarding trafficking in human beings as raised by the Society Kljuc, did the organization have other channels to gain funds to support its activities?

OMAR FISHER, Amnesty International, said there were 6,000 people whose status had not yet been regulated, but there was no precise information as to how many were still in Slovenia and were living illegally. Forcible removal had been less frequent among those who had remained in Slovenia, so the majority were living in Slovenia illegally, including some with temporary residence permits.

KATJUSA KODELE KOS, Society Kljuc–Centre for Fight against Trafficking in Human Beings, said the organization had no chances of supporting the victims, as it had no money, and it could not afford any victim assistance. It had been waiting for support from the Government for a year, and had spent all its supplies, and had no other channels for locating financial support.

ANDRZEJ RZEPLINSKI, Committee Expert, said that he did not understand in that case how the Society Kljuc could afford to come to the meeting, and why it did not just send its report by email, and questioned the nature of the Society.

KATJUSA KODELE KOS, Society Kljuc–Centre for Fight against Trafficking in Human Beings, said that the delegates from the Society had paid for their travel themselves. The Society was a part of an inter-ministerial group for the fight against trafficking in persons which had created an Action Plan with a budget. The Society was the only one that assisted victims, and therefore had work to do within the Action Plan, and the Government of Slovenia had signed the Plan of Action and the budget. Because of that, the Society was waiting for the funds.


Statements with Respect to Austria

CHRISTIANE LUST, ProLife, said the development of Genetically Modified Organisms was seriously harming farmers in Austria and the product would also harm consumers. The genetic manipulation was also poisoning the soil because of its negative effects. The new genetically modified farm products had contaminated food production process. Since the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms, farmers in many countries had been subjected to harmful consequences, with some committing suicide because of the unproductive and harmful results. The right to food had been severely affected by the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms in Austria.

Sigmar Grunewald, ProLife, said that agriculture was a culture, and a symbiosis between human beings, plants and animals. In many areas of the world, there was no world market, but this symbiosis ensured enough food for everybody. Genetically Modified Organisms were an anti-symbiosis, destroying this culture. They were destroying knowledge and wisdom connected with the symbiosis, the responsibility of farmers for their daily work. These organisms did not come into existence to solve problems, but were created by the agro-industries. Experience in Eastern Europe and other areas of the world called for Genetically Modified Organisms to be banned on a national as well as an international level.

VOLKER HELLDORF, a bio farmer from Austria representing ProLife, said that he had been controlled for many years to investigate whether Genetically Modified Organisms had arrived on his land from far away. Other farmers had been accused and condemned because Genetically Modified Organisms had arrived on their lands, borne by the wind. Genetically Modified Organisms had been proved to cause danger to the health of both humans and animals. They contained toxic compounds that had never been part of either nature or natural food. The point of no return began with the first Genetically Modified Organism seed. Every Government of the world could allow Genetically Modified Organisms, but no Government could ever call them back.

ANTON MOSER, ProLife, said that the human being was the highest and most intelligent being on the planet, but no animal poisoned its food before eating it. There would soon be no more growing of natural plants, and this was against nature and both farmers and consumers. Unnatural and poisoned food should be refused. The United Nations should decide to support the ProLife arguments before it was too late. This type of genetic engineering clearly was in direct contradiction to the principle of sustainable development. As long as Genetically Modified Organisms were governed only and solely by economic considerations, they were unsustainable, due to the fact that all consequences for man and nature were ignored.

KARL RAAB, farmer from Austria, said sustainable food production was impossible in Austria with the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms.

ANNY KNAPP, Obfrau Asykoordination, said there were 80,000 asylum seekers and other migrants in Austria. About 36,000 requests for asylum had yet to be processed. The federal provision, which provided for assistance to asylum seekers, was valid only for 20 days. The basic support to asylum seekers was low when compared to that provided to citizens. The asylum seekers were also excluded from access to cultural and other social activities. During the first months, recognized asylum seekers were not entitled to social benefits. Asylum seekers had limited access to the labour market. They had to wait for seven to eight years until they were given the final decision, during which time they were not allowed to have access to employment. The guardianship procedure was refused by the authority that was entrusted to do so with regard to separated minors. Foreign victims of trafficking were subjected to expulsion according to the new law, and the criminal law was lenient towards perpetrators of the crime of trafficking.

DIETMAR KOHLER, Arbeitslose-Initiative, said while article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognised the right to freely accept or refuse work, Austrian employment law referred to suitable work. With regard to long-term unemployment, any form of work was judged suitable, and this could be likened to coerced work. The Austrian Administrative Court had found that based on employment law, employment had to be accepted by any long-term unemployed person, under certain conditions, including for a salary that was well below the poverty threshold. The right to social security was not ensured in Austria, as unemployed persons who did not receive any benefits were not covered by health insurance. The widest possible protection provided to the family was not provided, and this was a breach of the insurance principle. Many other articles of the Covenant were also ignored. What was also very surprising was that parallel to a rising Brute National Product, poverty was also rising. The Government had not fulfilled its obligation to take steps to achieve progressively the rights included in the Covenant.

EVA LACHKOVICS, FIAN Austria, speaking on the feminisation of poverty in Austria, said women were among the most vulnerable segments of the population. Although Austria was one of the world’s ten richest countries, 13.2 per cent of its 1,044,000 population lived on the brink of poverty. With the dramatic increase of poverty by 20 per cent, Austria’s women were at risk. They made up 54.7 per cent of the people at risk. The risk of becoming poor was 50 per cent higher for a woman than for a man. The Government was not taking measures to rectify the unequal payments of salaries between men and women. Women were paid lower salaries than men for the same amount of work. Many mothers with children did not earn an adequate income to support themselves. Even when they worked; women were paid less than men.

GERTRUDE KLAFFENBOCK, FIAN Austria, said concerning Austria’s extra-territorial obligations, there were currently two major starting points that could link them with development policies. The goals and principles of Austrian development were required to be taken into account in all federal policies that could impact on developing countries. There was a political space in Austria for creating coherence with regard to existing human rights obligations, especially those derived from the Covenant. The Committee should give guidance to the Government on how to give coherence to all policies with respect to economic, social and cultural rights. The Government had formally acknowledged the relevance of development policy aims in many areas, and should adopt a human rights approach in others. Strategic guidelines for Austria’s international obligations with regard to financial bodies had been adopted, and these contained many valuable initiatives. Nevertheless, it was disappointing that they did not address compatibility of policies adopted by international financial institutions and human rights. The Government should pay special attention to the improvement of internal control mechanisms. Policies promoted in the international financial institutions should be implemented through a coherent human rights approach. The Government should also commit a higher share of its budget to development policies.

LOISA STERZINGER, Evangellishce Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, speaking on the Austrian contribution to the fight against HIV/AIDS in the Overseas Development Assistance, said the Government’s contribution in that field was modest. The Government had more economic power to further contribute to the fight against HIV/AIDS and other pandemics such as malaria and tuberculosis. A coherent approach to HIV/AIDS was important in order to adequately fight the pandemic.

YURI KOLOSOV, Committee Expert, asked for information about the use of Genetically Modified Organisms, including the names of companies and corporations using them. Regarding trafficking of women, he noted that there were 300 women who had been trafficked, and asked what were their countries of origin.

ANTON MOSER, ProLife, said information on Genetically Modified Organisms was available, and provided this list verbally, saying that in Europe at the moment there was only a minimum of Genetically Modified Organism seeds being used. Agri-business used these only in interesting areas, and he gave a list of the names of the companies involved.

ANNY KNAPP, Obfrau Asykoordination, said most of the victims came from Ukraine, Georgia, and from Latin America. If necessary, detailed information could be sent on the countries of origin.

Statements with Respect to Bosnia and Herzegovina

BOZANA KORDIC, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, said the initial report of Bosnia Herzegovina had already been submitted and it had been commented on by non-governmental organizations. The report dealt with the Constitutional structures of the country. Although there was a sound Constitutional structure, the implementation of the provisions was inadequate. The State was not fully implementing the provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The war had destroyed the industrial structures of the country. The unemployment rate was high among all age groups. The rights of minority groups, such as Roma, were violated, and they had no access to employment. Schools segregated children in accordance to their ethnic groups. Although there was a law on gender equality, the legislation was not respected. The process of privations should be review because of its tendency to favour very few individuals and impoverish many workers.

JAIME MARCHAN ROMERO, Committee Expert, said that apparently one of the problems in Bosnia and Herzegovina was the existence at the federal level of so-called umbrella laws, but these were not implemented at the cantonal level. This was contradictory and incompatible, and he inquired whether there were laws that gave effect to federal laws at the cantonal or lower or provincial levels.

BOZANA KORDIC, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, said the problem in Bosnia was that there were two entities. Each canton had its own Constitution, and the Government did not have the power to push each canton to implement a law. It depended sometimes on the will of one person, for example the President of that canton, for the law to be implemented. There should be one law on the State level, that was applied to all parts of the country and implemented by each part. The Constitution needed to be changed to this effect.

YURI KOLOSOV, Committee Expert, said there was talk of segregation, which was criticised. Many Governments came into criticism because they practised assimilation of minorities. He was not sure what recommendation the Committee could make to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina: what was better, segregation, or assimilation so all studied the same curricula, irrespective of their specificities. Privatisation was also an issue. The Committee had to address the reports from Governments with the strictest respect for the sovereignty of the State, which incorporated and included the right of each country and people to freely determine their own domestic policy, including the economy.

BOZANA KORDIC, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, said the curriculum should be the same in all schools, primary and secondary. With regard to the privatisation process, a country or State should review all contracts linked to privatisation, as those who bought companies had an obligation to ensure work and conditions for retirement, as well as to pay all benefits, as people did not now have that status, and health insurance was not covered.

JAIME MARCHAN ROMERO, Committee Expert, said with respect to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was there an advisory or consultation mechanism, and had there been any consultations on the report, and had it been a discussed with civil society.

BOZANA KORDIC, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, said in general, there was not good cooperation between civil society and the Government. The initial report had been received, and Bosnian non-governmental organizations had a duty to make a report and statement to the Government on that subject.

EIBE RIEDEL, Committee Expert, asked if the Government invited non-governmental organizations to come along and participate in the debate.

BOZANA KORDIC, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights, said there was no such committee, and non-governmental organizations had an unofficial group.

General Statement

MICHAEL WINDFUHR, Secretary-General of FIAN, said his network was impatient about the adoption of an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Commission on Human Rights had only started to set up a Working Group to come up with options instead of directly drafting the Optional Protocol. The adoption of an Optional Protocol was urgent in order to deal with the needs of millions of people who were not enjoying the rights enshrined in the International Covenant. FIAN believed that there should be an indivisible instrument to implement all rights in the Covenant. It was impossible to select one right from the others. Access to land by all individuals, including women, should be unhindered. The African Group and GRULAC had been advocating for a comprehensive mandate and the adoption of an Optional Protocol.

PHILIPPE TEXIER, Committee Expert, said the interests of the Committee and the non-governmental organizations that had formed a coalition to support an Optional Protocol were the same. The Commission on Human Rights should give a special mandate to the Working Group to draft an Optional Protocol. The Optional Protocol should cover all the provisions of the International Covenant, from articles 1 to 15, and it should not be negotiable. The reform of the human rights procedures should be dissociated from the drafting of the Optional Protocol. The Committee should do its utmost to assist the drafting process.

JAIME MARCHAN ROMERO, Committee Expert, asked for details about FIAN's strategy in working with civil society against those States that were reluctant to support the drafting of the Optional Protocol.

WALEED M. SADI, Committee Expert, said it was essential to mobilize regional support for the drafting of the Optional Protocol. The African Group and GRULAC were solidly behind the Optional Protocol. Likewise, the Asian group should be mobilized.

EIBE RIEDEL, Committee Expert, said articles 1 to 15 of the Covenant should not be negotiated as indicated by Mr. Texier. No instance should be allowed to marginalize economic, social and cultural rights. The series of reservations made by States should not affect the essence of the Covenant. One should be careful in considering a collective complaints procedure, which might prevent individuals from such procedures.

GIORGIO MALINVERNI, Committee Expert, said there was one non-negotiable approach, which was an "à la carte" procedure relating to the provisions of the Covenant. An individual complaints system was an appropriate approach to the violation of individual rights by States. More emphasise should be given to an individual complaints procedure.

For use of the information media; not an official record

ESC05011E