Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions:

QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO COLONIAL AND OTHER DEPENDENT COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES:

Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions*/

Report by the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiaye, submitted pursuant
to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1993/71

CONTENTS

1. The present report is submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1993/71 of 10 March 1993, entitled "Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions".

2. This report is the second presented to the Commission on Human Rights by Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiaye. It is the eleventh since the mandate was established by the Economic and Social Council in its resolution 1982/35 of 7 May 1982.

3. In chapter I of the present report, the Special Rapporteur refers to the terms of reference for the discharge of his mandate in conformity with the aforementioned resolution as well as requests, made to him by the Commission on Human Rights in other resolutions, to pay special attention to a number of issues related to violations of the right to life. Chapter I also contains comments on the procedures followed by the Special Rapporteur during 1993 and, in particular, development of these procedures since he first took up his mandate in 1992. In chapter II, the Special Rapporteur provides a short overview of the legal framework for his mandate. In chapter III, he describes the activities undertaken since the finalization of his report to the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-ninth session. Chapter IV contains country-specific situations in which the Special Rapporteur has pursued his mandate: these include an analysis, in general terms, of allegations received concerning violations of the right to life as well as a summary of the correspondence with the Governments regarding allegations received since 1992. Where pertinent, the Special Rapporteur also makes observations on issues of particular interest to the mandate. In chapter V, the Special Rapporteur refers to violations of the right to life in the former Yugoslavia. Finally, in chapter VI, the Special Rapporteur sets forth his conclusions and closes his report with recommendations designed to ensure in future more effective respect for the international instruments and standards to which his mandate refers.

4. Two addenda to the present report (E/CN.4/1993/7/Add.1 and Add.2) contain the findings and concerns of the Special Rapporteur with regard to the situation of the right to life in Rwanda and Peru on the basis of on-site visits carried out in 1993. In these mission reports, the Special Rapporteur also provides observations, conclusions and recommendations.

5. In this chapter, the Special Rapporteur will address first the terms of reference for the discharge of his mandate as set forth by a number of Commission on Human Rights resolutions. These resolutions provide the framework for both the issues to be examined by the Special Rapporteur, with particular emphasis on certain areas of special concern, and the procedures to be followed in doing so.

6. The Commission on Human Rights, in resolution 1993/71, requested the Special Rapporteur "to continue to examine situations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions" (para. 5). In the same resolution, the Commission also requested the Special Rapporteur "to pay special attention to extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions of children and to allegations concerning violations of the right to life in the context of violence against participants in demonstrations and other peaceful public manifestations" (para. 6); and "to continue monitoring the implementation of existing international standards on safeguards and restrictions relating to the imposition of capital punishment" (para. 9).

7. In addition, in several other resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights special rapporteurs are asked to pay particular attention to a number of issues within the framework of their mandates, in particular:

(a) In resolution 1993/39, entitled "Staff members of the United Nations and of the specialized agencies in detention", the Special Rapporteur is requested to examine cases involving the violations of the right to life of staff members of the United Nations system and their families, as well as experts, special rapporteurs and consultants, and to transmit the relevant part of his report to the Secretary-General for inclusion in his report to the Commission on Human Rights;

(b) In resolution 1993/41, entitled "Human rights in the administration of justice", the Special Rapporteur is called upon "to give special attention to questions relating to the effective protection of human rights in the administration of justice (...) and to provide, wherever appropriate, specific recommendations in this regard";

(c) In resolution 1993/45, entitled "Right to freedom of opinion and expression", the Commission invites special rapporteurs to pay attention, within the framework of their mandates, to the situation of persons detained, subjected to violence, ill-treated or discriminated against for having exercised the right to freedom of opinion and expression;

(d) In resolution 1993/46, entitled "Integrating the rights of women into the human rights mechanisms of the United Nations", the Commission requests all special rapporteurs "in the discharge of their mandates, regularly and systematically to include in their reports available information on human rights violations affecting women";

(e) In resolution 1993/47, entitled "Human rights and thematic procedures", the Commission, inter alia, requests the thematic special rapporteurs to include in their reports gender-disaggregated data, as well as comments on problems of responding and the result of analyses, as appropriate, in order to exercise their mandates even more effectively;

(f) In resolution 1993/48, entitled "Consequences for the enjoyment of human rights of acts of violence committed by armed groups that spread terror among the population and by drug traffickers", the Commission requests all special rapporteurs to continue paying particular attention to the adverse effect on the enjoyment of human rights of such acts of violence committed by armed groups, regardless of their origin, that spread terror among the population and by drug traffickers;

(g) In resolution 1993/54, entitled "Civil defence forces", the Special Rapporteur is invited to continue to pay due attention to the matter of civil defence forces in relation to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms;

(h) In resolution 1993/64, entitled "Cooperation with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies", the Special Rapporteur is requested to continue to take urgent steps to help prevent the occurrence of intimidation and reprisals against persons who seek to cooperate, or have cooperated with United Nations human rights procedures, as well as relatives of victims of human rights violations, and to continue to include in his report to the Commission on Human Rights a reference to allegations of intimidation or reprisal, or of hampering access to United Nations human rights procedures, as well as an account of action he has taken in this regard;

(i) In resolution 1993/70, entitled "Human rights and mass exoduses", the Commission recommends that special rapporteurs "pay attention to problems resulting in mass exoduses of populations and, where appropriate, report and make relevant recommendations to the Commission on Human Rights";

(j) In resolution 1993/81, entitled "The plight of street children", the Special Rapporteur is called upon to pay particular attention to the plight of street children.

8. In examining and analysing the information brought to his attention, the Special Rapporteur has taken into consideration these requests by the Commission on Human Rights. Reference to the issues concerned will be made in chapter IV, within the description of the country-specific situations. They will also be addressed in the conclusions and recommendations contained in chapter V of the present report.

9. The "situations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions" which the Special Rapporteur is requested to investigate comprise a variety of cases. All acts and omissions of State representatives that constitute a violation of the general recognition of the right to life embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art. 3) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art. 6 and also arts. 2, 4 (2), 26 and, particularly with regard to the death penalty, also arts. 14 and 15), as well as a number of other treaties, resolutions, conventions and declarations adopted by competent United Nations bodies, fall within his mandate.

(a) The Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989);

(b) The Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty (Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 of 25 May 1984) and their implementation (Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/64 of 24 May 1989);

(c) The Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (General Assembly resolution 3452 (XXX) of 9 December 1975);

(d) The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984);

(e) The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (Economic and Social Council resolution 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2706 (LXII) of 13 May 1977);

(f) The Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners (General Assembly resolution 45/111 of 14 December 1990);

(g) The Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988);

(h) The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice ("The Beijing Rules") (General Assembly resolution 40/33 of 29 November 1985);

(i) The Convention on the Rights of the Child (General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989);

(j) The Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (Havana, 27 August-7 September 1990);

(k) The Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (General Assembly resolution 34/169 of 17 December 1979);

(l) The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto of 1977;

(m) The Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict (General Assembly resolution 3318 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974);

(n) The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (General Assembly resolution 429 (V) of 14 December 1950);

(o) The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948);

(p) The Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (General Assembly resolution 40/34 of 29 November 1985).

11. An analysis of the provisions of these international instruments relevant to the protection of the right to life makes it possible to group these situations according to the following categories:

(h) Breach of the obligation to provide compensation to victims of violations of the right to life.

12. A detailed analysis of these categories, together with a summary of the provisions contained in international instruments specifically relating to them, can be found in chapter II of the Special Rapporteur's report to the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-ninth session (E/CN.4/1993/46, paras. 42-68).

13. In resolution 1993/71, the Commission on Human Rights requested the Special Rapporteur "to respond effectively to information which comes before him, in particular when an extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution is imminent or threatened or when such an execution has occurred" (para. 10). By the same resolution, the Commission requested the Special Rapporteur "to enhance his dialogue with Governments by following up on communications dispatched to Governments transmitting allegations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, as well as by following up on recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur in reports on on-site visits to particular countries" (para. 16).

14. Resolution 1993/47 of the Commission contains a number of provisions regarding visits and follow-up visits by thematic special rapporteurs; follow-up on recommendations made by them as well as on progress made by Governments with regard to their specific mandates; cooperation between thematic procedures and non-governmental organizations as well as between thematic special rapporteurs and working groups, relevant treaty bodies and country rapporteurs.

15. On the basis of these provisions, the Special Rapporteur has continued to transmit allegations of violations of the right to life to the Governments concerned in the form of urgent appeals and letters. The follow up to such communications has been intensified. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur has carried out visits to Rwanda and Peru and enhanced his cooperation with non-governmental organizations as well as other United Nations human rights procedures.

16. In his report to the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-ninth session, the Special Rapporteur presented a detailed analysis of the procedures established and developed in the course of the first 10 years of the mandate. He also described in detail certain difficulties encountered with regard to these procedures during the first six months of his activity as Special Rapporteur (E/CN.4/1993/46, paras. 11-41 and 689-705). In 1993, the Special Rapporteur continued his efforts to increase the effectiveness of the mandate through further refinement of the criteria for the evaluation of communications containing allegations and of government replies thereto. A number of questions have arisen as a result of these increased follow-up activities. This chapter contains a description and analysis of the Special Rapporteur's methods of work.

17. The Special Rapporteur continues to discharge his mandate mainly on the basis of information brought to his attention by non-governmental organizations, Governments, individuals and some intergovernmental organizations. These communications contain specific cases of alleged extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions or death threats, and/or general information about questions related to the right to life. During 1993, the Special Rapporteur received a large number of general allegations, in particular with regard to legislation or practices concerning the death penalty or the phenomenon of impunity and its impact on the perpetuation of violations of the right to life in certain countries.

18. While many of the non-governmental organizations and individuals providing allegations are well known to the Special Rapporteur and other United Nations human rights procedures as sources of credible information, sometimes allegations are received from less well-known non-governmental organizations or entirely new sources.

19. In his report to the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-ninth session, the Special Rapporteur outlined the main criteria applied in the evaluation of such allegations, namely the degree of detail they contain concerning the victim and the precise circumstances of the incident (see E/CN.4/1993/46, paras. 16-17). Where doubts persist, the Special Rapporteur will continue to seek corroboration of allegations from other sources of undisputed credibility.

20. The extent to which information received from Governments in their replies is taken into account in evaluating the credibility of the sources will increase as the latter are informed of the contents of these replies and invited to provide comments and/or additional clarifications and information within the follow-up procedure recently initiated (see below, paras. 32-63). As already expressed in the Special Rapporteur's report to the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-ninth session (E/CN.4/1993/46, para. 18), information provided by Governments that simply clarifies facts reported by a non-governmental organization or sheds new light on them does not adversely affect the credibility of the source, nor do general accusations concerning the motives or reliability of the source. It is to be expected that the Government has more information than a non-governmental organization concerning factual aspects of incidents involving the loss of life, and it is also normal that their evaluation of the significance of such incidents may differ. The situation may change where Governments state in their replies that allegations submitted to the Special Rapporteur were unfounded or substantially distorted. The way in which the sources of allegations respond to the Special Rapporteur's requests for comments on the contents of government replies and/or additional details to clarify the cases submitted by them will provide the Special Rapporteur with a basis for assessing reliability of the sources.

Information required to process allegations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions

21. While there is no formal procedure for the submission of allegations, certain requirements should be met so as to enable the Special Rapporteur to bring appropriate cases to the attention of the Governments concerned without unnecessary delay. The following points indicate which type of information is needed. This may serve as guidance for those wishing to submit cases of alleged violations of the right to life:

(a) Information regarding the victim: full name; age; sex; place of residence or origin; profession and/or any activities, if related to the alleged extrajudicial execution or threat; any other pertinent information that may help identify a person (e.g. the registry number of a prisoner or the number of his passport or identity card);

(b) Information regarding the event: date; place; description of how the events occurred; in cases of alleged violations of the right to life in connection with the death penalty, detailed information on shortcomings with regard to fair trial guarantees, pertinent legislation, texts of sentences imposed and appeal submissions, etc.;

(c) Information regarding the alleged perpetrators, including an explanation of the reasons why they are suspected to be responsible: names, if known; if they are members of the security forces, their rank, functions, the unit or service to which they belong, etc.; if they are members of civil defence groups, paramilitary or other forces, details on how these forces relate to the State (e.g. cooperation with State security forces including information on chains of command; State connivance with, or tolerance of their operations, etc.);

(d) Information regarding steps taken by the victims or their families and, in particular, about complaints filed (by whom; before which organ). If no complaints where filed, why not;

(e) Information regarding steps taken by the authorities to investigate the alleged violation of the right to life and/or measures adopted to protect persons under threat as well as to prevent similar incidents in the future, in particular: if complaints were filed, the action taken by the competent organs upon their receipt; progress and status of investigations at the time of the submission of the allegation; where the results of the investigation are said to be unsatisfactory, explanation of why this is so;

(f) Information regarding the source of the allegations: name and full address of the organization or individual to facilitate clarifications of unclear details and follow up.

B. Allegations transmitted by the Special Rapporteur to the Governments concerned

22. Where there are no serious grounds to believe that the information provided by the source is not credible, the Special Rapporteur transmits them to the Governments concerned, either in the form of an urgent appeal or in a letter to the authorities.

23. As in previous years, such urgent transmissions have been made in cases of death threats, fear of imminent extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, or particularly grave incidents of violations of the right to life, especially abuse of force. The Special Rapporteur also sent urgent appeals after being informed of the imminent expulsion of persons to a country where they may be at risk of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution.

24. The Special Rapporteur appealed to the Governments concerned to ensure effective protection of those under threat or at risk of execution. He also urged the competent authorities to carry out full, independent and impartial investigations and to adopt all necessary measures to prevent future violations of the right to life. The Special Rapporteur requested that he be kept informed about all steps taken in this regard.

25. As in 1992, where urgent appeals also concerned cases of alleged imminent execution of the death penalty, grave incidents of abuse of force by members of the security forces, particularly against participants in demonstrations and manifestations, or alleged fear for the life and physical integrity of persons as a consequence of torture and any other form of cruel or inhumane treatment, the Special Rapporteur also reminded the Governments concerned of specific safeguards and guarantees of the right to life contained in international instruments regarding restrictions on capital punishment and the use of force and firearms, the prohibition of torture as well as minimum conditions of detention.

26. The aim of urgent appeals is the prevention of irreparable loss of life. Consequently, the Special Rapporteur transmits allegations of imminent extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions regardless of whether domestic remedies have been taken. This applies to cases of imminent execution of a death sentence alleged to contravene the limitations on capital punishment set forth in the pertinent international instruments but also to allegations of death threats or fear of imminent extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, where the Special Rapporteur does not consider it appropriate to wait for such action, whether penal or civil, as may be undertaken by those under threat before conveying his concern to the authorities.

27. Alleged cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions of a less urgent character and questions related to the right to life in general terms were transmitted to the Governments concerned in the form of individual case summaries in letters, together with a request to provide the Special Rapporteur with information concerning the progress and results of investigations carried out into these cases, specific measures adopted to prevent future violations of the right to life, as well as any other pertinent comments or observations.

28. The Special Rapporteur has devised a "reply form" for cases of alleged extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions which has been used in all letters transmitting such cases since 29 July 1993. This is an effort to facilitate the governments' response to the Special Rapporteur's communications by providing them with very specific guidance as to the type of information needed for an assessment of the situation. The Governments concerned have therefore been requested to fill in the following questionnaire, where the questions were pertinent to the cases transmitted:

"1. Are the facts alleged in the summary of the case accurate? If not, please provide details of the inquiries carried out to refute these allegations.

3. Was an autopsy performed? If so, by whom? What are the results of the autopsy? (Please provide a copy of the complete autopsy report.)

4. Which is the authority responsible for investigating these allegations? Which is the authority responsible for prosecuting perpetrators?

9. Are any inquiries, judicial or other procedures under way? If so, please provide details of their progress to date, and the timetable envisaged for their conclusion. If such inquiries or procedures have been completed, please provide details of the conclusions reached (please attach copies of any relevant documents). Are such conclusions definitive?

10. Has the person alleged to have carried out the extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution been identified? To which unit or branch of the security forces or groups cooperating with them does he/she belong?

11. Have penal or disciplinary sanctions been imposed on the alleged perpetrators? If so, please provide details of the procedures followed to ascertain the penal or disciplinary responsibility of the perpetrators before imposing such penalties. If no such sanctions have been imposed, why not?

12. If no inquiries have been undertaken, why not? If such inquiries as have been carried out were inconclusive (for example, if the individuals responsible have not been identified), why so?

13. Has any compensation been provided to the family of the victim? If so, please provide details including the type and amount of compensation involved. If no compensation has been provided, why not?

14. Please provide such other information or observations concerning the present case as you consider relevant."

29. As regards questions related to the right to life in more general terms, such as, for example, reports about persistent impunity or legislation alleged to be in contravention of restrictions on the application of capital punishment contained in pertinent international instruments, these have been transmitted to the Governments concerned together with requests for specific information, legislative texts or other documents.

30. In resolution 1993/47, the Commission on Human Rights encouraged Governments "to respond expeditiously to requests for information made to them through the procedures, so that the thematic special rapporteurs concerned (...) may carry out their mandates effectively." In resolution 1993/71, the Commission urged "all Governments, in particular those which consistently have not responded to communications transmitted to them by the Special Rapporteur, and all others concerned to cooperate with and assist the Special Rapporteur so that his mandate may be carried out effectively".

31. Information provided by the Governments concerned in reply to the allegations transmitted to them is indeed of great importance for the Special Rapporteur to form an opinion on the situation in a given country. The Special Rapporteur has received a number of replies to his urgent appeals and letters transmitting allegations of violations of the right to life. As is the case for the communications by which the Special Rapporteur received such allegations, government replies also have to be evaluated. This is closely related to the question of when an alleged extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution can be considered as "clarified". It is particularly important with regard to the request for follow up on allegations transmitted which the Commission on Human Rights made to the Special Rapporteur.

32. As described earlier, the Commission on Human Rights requests the Special Rapporteur to follow up on allegations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Such a request was first made by the Commission to the Special Rapporteur in 1992. In response to this request, the Special Rapporteur had sent, in late 1992, a first series of letters to a number of Governments requesting updated information on cases transmitted in 1991 by his predecessor, Mr. S. Amos Wako (see E/CN.4/1993/46, paras. 81-85).* /* Due to the fact that a database for cases of alleged extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions could only be created last year, the Special Rapporteur has decided to concentrate his follow up on allegations transmitted since he was appointed to succeed Mr. Wako in 1992. However, replies received concerning cases transmitted earlier will be reflected in the chapter of the present report which contains an analysis of specific country situations./

33. Until now, allegations transmitted to Governments, as well as any reply received, were reflected in the Special Rapporteur's report concerning the year in which they were transmitted. In most cases, replies received from Governments were reproduced, in full or in part, in the Special Rapporteur's reports without any comment or analysis. Once presented in this manner, the vast majority of cases were never referred to again in later reports. Only in the report presented to the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-ninth session did the Special Rapporteur include specific observations regarding some of the replies (see, for example, E/CN.4/1993/46, paras. 20, 183-184, 229, 501, 615, 692-693).

34. In 1993, the Special Rapporteur undertook various follow-up initiatives. In doing so, a number of issues have arisen in relation to the follow up on allegations, in particular with regard to the assessment of government replies as well as the questions of when to consider a case "clarified" and what to do where Governments do not reply to the allegations transmitted. It has become evident to the Special Rapporteur that additional human and material resources are indispensable if such a follow-up task is to be carried out in a meaningful way. The following paragraphs contain a description of follow-up activities and an analysis of the above-mentioned issues.

35. The Special Rapporteur sent letters to Governments concerning allegations transmitted in 1992 for which no reply had been received and reiterated his request to be provided with information concerning the progress and results of investigations as well as any measures adopted with a view to preventing further loss of life.

36. The Special Rapporteur also sent communications to Governments concerning allegations transmitted to them in 1992 and 1993 for which replies had been received but which could not be considered as final. These letters contained very specific requests for additional information which is needed in order to determine whether the cases in question can be considered "clarified".

(a) In some instances, replies are general in character and do not refer to the particular cases transmitted. While such information is most welcome and helpful for the Special Rapporteur to form an opinion on the situation in a given country, details are needed concerning the specific allegations and, in particular, the progress and results of investigations carried out by the competent authorities. The same applies where Governments address issues relating to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur without going into detail with regard to the cases;

(b) Often, Governments inform the Special Rapporteur that investigations into the allegations have been initiated. In such cases, the Special Rapporteur asks the Governments to provide him with updates on the progress of such investigations or, if they have been concluded, the decisions taken as a result thereof. Where such information has not been provided already, the Special Rapporteur also requests that he be informed about the proceedings followed in such investigations, in accordance with the relevant legislation of the country concerned. The procedural questions apply both to the specific cases in question and in general, including details about the organs investigating, the rights of victims or their families to participate in such investigations, the sanctions that may be imposed as a result of such proceedings, as well as the possibilities of appeal against decisions taken and whether such decisions are made public;

(c) In some instances, Governments state that investigations have been initiated but then halted for lack of evidence, particularly if it has not been possible to identify the presumed authors of the alleged extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution. In such cases, the Special Rapporteur also requests detailed information concerning the investigation, in particular with regard to any right of the victims' families to participate in the proceedings and to challenge any decision to halt the inquiry before a higher instance or another body;

(d) In other cases, Governments state that the allegations are factually incorrect, or they provide a different explanation of events leading to the death of the person in question. In such cases, the Special Rapporteur asks the Governments to provide him with detailed information about the investigations on which these assertions are based, in particular with regard to the organ which carried out the investigation, the methods applied for the gathering and assessment of evidence, whether the results of the investigation have been made public and whether they are final.

38. In response to these requests for follow-up information, some Governments have provided the Special Rapporteur with updated information about investigations under way.

39. For the first time since the establishment of the mandate, the Special Rapporteur has addressed letters to the sources of allegations to inform them of the contents of government replies concerning the cases they submitted. The Special Rapporteur has requested them to provide him with their comments and, in some instances, further details regarding these cases.

40. Several non-governmental organizations have already submitted comments or additional information in response to the Special Rapporteur's request.

41. In resolution 1993/47, the Commission on Human Rights encouraged the Special Rapporteur to follow closely the progress made by Governments with regard to the protection of the right to life. In devising and putting into practice a scheme for follow-up on allegations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions enabling him to do so, the Special Rapporteur has encountered a number of difficulties.

42. First, it is often very difficult to assess progress made with regard to respect for the right to life. The amount and type of information which comes before the Special Rapporteur continue to depend to a very large extent on the level of organization of non-governmental organizations and their awareness of United Nations human rights procedures. Consequently, the number of allegations received for a given country does not necessarily reflect, in an accurate manner, the scale of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions which may take place there. Even greater caution is warranted if, on the basis of such information as may be received, comparisons between different countries were to be made - this is not the aim of follow-up as the Special Rapporteur understands it.

43. In the opinion of the Special Rapporteur, follow-up efforts should focus on how Governments comply with their obligation under international law to carry out full, independent and impartial investigations into all allegations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions transmitted to them, with a view to clarifying the circumstances, identifying and prosecuting those responsible, granting compensation to the victims or their families, and preventing future violations. The Special Rapporteur believes that close monitoring of, and reporting on States' compliance with this obligation and, in particular, progress made by them may constitute an incentive for Governments to increase their efforts in this regard. A greater probability of being held responsible for violations of the right to life may, in turn, help prevent similar incidents from happening in the future.

44. However, the Special Rapporteur will also continue paying attention to, and reporting on problems affecting the right to life as well as progress in its enjoyment in certain countries, such as legislation regarding the application of the death penalty or the use of force and firearms or the phenomenon of impunity in general. While this monitoring of general trends and developments seems to pose less difficulties in practice, there are a number of points which have to be addressed with regard to the follow-up on individual cases, namely the question of when a case is "clarified", how to come to a conclusion where information provided by the Government concerned and the source of the allegation is contradictory, and what to do in cases where Governments do not reply at all to requests for information made to them by the Special Rapporteur.

45. If the monitoring of allegations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions transmitted to Governments takes the form of observing, on the basis of information provided by the Government concerned and the source of the allegation, investigations into these cases until they have been solved, it is necessary to establish the conditions which must be fulfilled before the case may be classified as "clarified" and removed from the list of "open" cases, on which the follow-up continues.

46. Whether or not a case can be regarded as "clarified" is closely linked with the question of whether a reply provided by the Government concerned is in itself satisfactory. In his report to the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-ninth session, the Special Rapporteur had addressed the problem of evaluating government replies and outlined examples of information that may be regarded as satisfactory (E/CN.4/1993/46, paras. 29-34). In 1993, he continued his analysis of government replies with a particular view to their obligation to investigate violations of the right to life, as mentioned above.

47. On the basis of this analysis breaking down government replies into various categories according to their contents, a number of points are taken into account by the Special Rapporteur in his evaluation. First, as a minimum, it is essential that the reply specifically refers to the cases transmitted by the Special Rapporteur. As stated earlier, general information on legislation, investigation procedures and practice, etc. is most welcome and helpful but does not permit him to assess the merits of the specific allegations transmitted. It is also essential that the Government, when refuting allegations as factually incorrect, provides information on the investigations carried out which permit this conclusion to be drawn.

48. It is the obligation of Governments to carry out full, independent and impartial investigations into all alleged violations of the right to life. When carrying out such investigations, Governments must meet the standards set forth in the pertinent international instruments, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. In keeping with the mandate entrusted to him, the Special Rapporteur evaluates government replies in the light of these provisions.

49. Where the Government replies that investigations into the case have been initiated, the Special Rapporteur takes account of the following:

(a) The character of the investigation (judicial or administrative) and its objectivity;

(b) The independence, impartiality and competence of the organ carrying out the investigation;

(e) The decisions that may be reached as a result of such investigations, and the sanctions that may be imposed as a result thereof;

(f) The possibilities for the victims or their families to receive compensation;

(g) Whether the investigation was initiated, carried out and concluded within a reasonable time.

50. Disciplinary investigations can be considered as being in keeping with the obligation to investigate only if there is a guarantee of objectivity, impartiality and competence on the part of the investigating officials, and if this procedure may result, within a reasonable length of time, in sanctioning according to the gravity of the offence those found responsible, as well as compensation for the family of the victim. If these criteria are not fulfilled, and if it is the only measure taken by the Government concerned, a disciplinary procedure is not satisfactory. Similar considerations apply where special investigative organs are established to inquire into allegations of violations of the right to life.

51. In cases where Governments reply that those responsible have been identified, tried and convicted, the Special Rapporteur takes into account not only the way in which such proceedings have been conducted but also whether the sentence appears to be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and whether compensation has been granted to the victims or their families. It is important to note that all those involved in the planning and carrying out of violations of the right to life must be held responsible. The conviction and sentencing of "scapegoats" cannot, and must not, be considered as being in compliance with the Governments' obligation under international law to punish all those involved in the planning and execution of violations of the right to life.

52. Where Governments reply that investigations have been stopped for lack of evidence, particularly if the alleged perpetrators could not be identified, the Special Rapporteur also proceeds to an assessment of the investigation according to the criteria described above. In such situations, particular attention is paid to the methods of gathering and evaluating evidence applied during the investigation as well as the possibilities for the victims, their families or representatives to challenge the decision to stop the investigation before a higher instance or another body, or to have it reopened on the basis of new evidence becoming available.

53. If, as a result of his analysis, the Special Rapporteur comes to the conclusion that the reply is not in itself satisfactory, he seeks clarification from the Government concerned and transmits the contents of the reply to the source for comments and/or additional details. The case remains "open" and the Special Rapporteur continues to follow the way it is being investigated. It is envisaged that a list containing all "open" cases will be available, between one and three times a year, to the members of the Commission on Human Rights and that it be included in the Special Rapporteur's annual reports to the Commission.

54. If the Government replies that investigations into a case have been concluded and the reply is satisfactory, the Special Rapporteur also transmits the reply to the source of the allegations. If the source confirms the information provided by the Government, or if it does not respond at all within a reasonable lapse of time, the Special Rapporteur will consider the case as "clarified". The list of clarified cases will, of course, also be reflected in his annual reports to the Commission on Human Rights.

55. The Special Rapporteur will continue monitoring those cases where investigations have been opened and are being carried out in keeping with the standards set forth in the pertinent international instruments. While such cases cannot yet be regarded as completely "clarified", they will nevertheless have to be distinguished from cases where no investigation at all has been opened, or where such investigations cannot be considered as satisfactory. They will form a separate and distinct category in the list of "open" cases.

56. In some instances, Governments have told the Special Rapporteur that no investigation was carried out. In a number of cases involving alleged death threats, this was justified by the fact that the persons said to be under threat had not filed a complaint with the authorities purportedly competent under the law in the country concerned. Other Governments reply that amnesty laws have been passed which encompass the cases of alleged extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions transmitted to them by the Special Rapporteur, and as a consequence, no investigations into those cases have been opened. With regard to these two, relatively frequent, types of unsatisfactory replies, the Special Rapporteur wishes to emphasize the following:

(a) If alleged violations of the right to life are brought to their attention, for example by the Special Rapporteur, Governments are obliged to carry out thorough, prompt and impartial investigations into all such allegations and, where violations of the right to life are said to be threatened or imminent, adopt all necessary measures to ensure the safety of the purported victim. This obligation exists regardless of whether the purported victim has taken any judicial or other action;

(b) Governments are obliged under international law to bring perpetrators of extrajudicial executions to justice and compensate surviving victims or their dependants. This obligation is clearly expressed in the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Summary or Arbitrary Executions: "In no circumstances, including a state of war, siege or other public emergency, shall blanket immunity from prosecution be granted to any person allegedly involved in extra-legal, summary or arbitrary executions" (principle 19). Accordingly, even if, in exceptional cases, Governments may decide that perpetrators should benefit from measures that would exempt them from, or limit the extent of their punishment, their obligation to bring them to justice and hold them formally accountable remains, as does the obligation to carry out prompt, thorough and impartial investigations, grant compensation to the victims or their families and adopt effective preventive measures for the future.

57. In the vast majority of cases where, in the past, replies had been received from Governments, the information they provided refuted, with or without giving details of the basis for this, the allegations transmitted by the Special Rapporteur. This is likely to continue to occur. Indeed, during the short period since the follow-up procedure described above was initiated, there have already been several cases in which the source of the allegation, when asked for comments and additional details in response to the Government's refutation, reiterated its earlier allegations.

58. In this context, it should be recalled that the Government is not only obliged to carry out investigations into alleged cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, but also disposes, in most cases, of much greater facilities to do so than non-governmental sources of allegations. Consequently, it is incumbent upon the Government to provide a satisfactory reply, i.e. to demonstrate that these investigations have been carried out in keeping with the standards set forth by the pertinent international instruments. So long as it is not shown that the Government has done so, the reply cannot be considered as satisfactory and the case will therefore continue to be regarded as "open".

59. A problem arises where the Government reply appears to be satisfactory, but where the source of the allegation maintains that it has a well-founded reason to believe that the evaluation of facts by the Government does not correspond with reality; or that those identified and punished are not, or not exclusively, responsible; or that no compensation has been granted to victims or their families, despite affirmations to the contrary made by the Government. One way for the Special Rapporteur to come to a conclusion as to the merits of the allegations and the veracity of information provided, respectively, by Governments and sources would be to benefit from the opportunity provided by on-site visits.

60. However, even where it is not possible to conclude whether allegations are accurate or not, they may still provide the Special Rapporteur with a useful basis for the consideration and analysis of issues of a more general nature which arise therefrom. On the basis of such analysis, the Special Rapporteur may propose recommendations such as, for example, changes in legislation so that it conforms more closely to international standards or other measures to prevent future violations of the right to life.

61. In the past, no replies have been received from the Governments concerned to the majority of the allegations transmitted by the Special Rapporteur. Very few Governments have replied regularly, and to all cases brought to their attention. Many others have replied to some cases, omitting to mention others, and some have never replied at all.

62. Where Governments reply to the allegations transmitted to them, they are likely to receive requests for further details and the way they discharge their obligation to investigate such cases will be closely monitored by the Special Rapporteur. Even where replies are satisfactory, there may be follow-up correspondence, such as, for example, where investigations have not yet been concluded and the Special Rapporteur asks the Government to provide him with updated information. The Special Rapporteur will, of course, include all follow-up activities in his report to the Commission on Human Rights. It may therefore happen that those Governments which do comply with the request made to them by the Commission to provide the Special Rapporteur with information could find themselves extensively referred to in the report, while less reporting space and attention may seem to be given to those Governments which do not reply at all and which, consequently, only receive reminder letters. In such a situation, those providing replies may feel "penalized" for their diligence.

63. It is important in this context to stress that the Special Rapporteur highly appreciates the will to cooperate shown by those Governments which provide him with replies. If he writes back to them with a request for additional details, this is not done in a spirit of accusation. It is clear that, since there are at present concerns regarding the more than 70 countries being dealt with under his mandate, the Special Rapporteur is not in a position to know details and differences in legislation and practice in each of them; he needs to be provided with extensive information about the way Governments comply with their obligations under international law. The follow-up procedure recently initiated by the Special Rapporteur endeavours to distinguish very clearly between cases that have been clarified, those being investigated in a satisfactory way and those remaining "open", in which the Governments have not fulfilled their obligation to investigate and prosecute.

64. The Special Rapporteur continues to view on-site visits as an essential component of his mandate. As pointed out in his report to the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-ninth session (E/CN.4/1993/46, paras. 35-37), the aim of such visits is to obtain first-hand information on the situation of the right to life in the countries visited, to report on the findings and propose, in a spirit of cooperation and assistance, recommendations to improve on areas identified as matters of concern. In conformity with the request made to him by the Commission on Human Rights in resolution 1993/47, the Special Rapporteur intends to keep close contact with the Governments of the countries visited to assist them to the maximum extent possible with the implementation of such recommendations. Follow-up visits within a reasonable time are also envisaged.

65. In 1993, the Special Rapporteur carried out two visits to investigate allegations of violations of the right to life in Rwanda and Peru. He solicited further visits to a number of countries. The selection of countries which he wishes to visit is made primarily on the basis of the number and gravity of allegations and reports he receives concerning violations of the right to life. It is expected that increased follow-up activities will also contribute to the identification of countries where a visit by the Special Rapporteur may be appropriate.

66. The Special Rapporteur also attaches great importance to cooperation with other United Nations bodies dealing with issues related to his mandate and to the coordination of his activities with those carried out by such bodies. In past years, this has taken the form of consultations, either on questions concerning the day-to-day operation of his mandate or in preparation of, and during, on-site visits, as well as joint missions with other special rapporteurs and working groups of the Commission on Human Rights. In 1993, this cooperation between the special rapporteurs and members of working groups of the Commission has intensified and several meetings were held in the process of the preparation of, and during the World Conference on Human Rights in June 1993. Furthermore, as regards the questions of fair trial and impunity, the Special Rapporteur has greatly benefited from the reports prepared by the Special Rapporteurs on the administration of justice of the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.

67. The Special Rapporteur continued to seek the cooperation of United Nations human rights monitoring missions based in certain countries by sending them copies of the allegations sent to the respective Governments and requesting them to provide him with any comments and observation they might have, either concerning these cases or the situation of the right to life in general. In addition, the Special Rapporteur has intensified his contacts with different United Nations treaty bodies, and especially the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Finally, with regard to his missions, the Special Rapporteur has greatly benefited from the cooperation extended to him by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) representatives based in the host State.

68. In 1993, the Special Rapporteur has carried out a number of different activities, including those referred to below.

69. The Special Rapporteur visited Geneva from 27 February to 5 March 1993. On 2 March 1993, he presented his report to the Commission on Human Rights. The Special Rapporteur also visited Geneva from 26 to 30 July 1993, 23 to 29 September 1993 and 15 to 19 November 1993 for consultations with the Secretariat. During his visits to Geneva, he met with a number of other special rapporteurs, representatives and members of working groups of the Commission on Human Rights. He also held meetings with government representatives of regional groups represented in United Nations bodies, as well as with delegations of certain Governments, and consulted with representatives of non-governmental organizations.

70. Furthermore, in April 1993, the Special Rapporteur participated in a meeting in Geneva of the Preparatory Committee for the World Conference on Human Rights, which he attended from 14 to 25 June 1993. Also in the process of the preparation of the World Conference on Human Rights, the Special Rapporteur attended the African regional meeting at Tunis in November 1992.

71. As in the past, the Special Rapporteur has received an enormous amount of information; some referred to the phenomenon of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in general, some consisted of allegations of violations of the right to life in particular cases, while others were related to follow-up on cases and general concerns transmitted to Governments earlier. This information was processed and allegations sent to the Governments concerned according to the methods of work described in chapter II of the present report.

72. In total, the Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Governments concerned allegations he had received concerning violations of the right to life of over 3,700 persons in more than 73 countries. One hundred thirty-five cases concerned alleged extrajudicial executions or death threats of minors, 16 of whom were said to be below 10 years of age, the youngest only 9 months old; 168 cases concerned alleged violations of the right to life of women.*/* However, these figures do not necessarily reflect the actual proportion of minors and women among the victims of alleged violations of the right to life, since they constitute cases in which the age or sex of persons identified by their names has been specifically indicated to the Special Rapporteur./ More than 700 persons were said to have been killed or threatened with death for exercising their right to freedom of opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association.

73. Since 14 December 1993, the date of the finalization of his report to the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-ninth session, the Special Rapporteur has sent 217 urgent appeals concerning more than 1,300 persons to the following 52 countries: Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Israel, Jamaica, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Tajikistan, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zaire.

74. In 86 cases, the victims of alleged violations of the right to life have been identified to the Special Rapporteur as minors, 87 as women. Six urgent appeals concerned 41 identified minors living as "street children" in Brazil, Colombia and Guatemala. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur urgently intervened on behalf of more than 200 persons after receiving information concerning alleged violations of the right to life in the context of demonstrations or other peaceful public manifestations in Argentina, Brazil, Chad, Colombia, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Haiti, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Israel, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, Rwanda, South Africa, Togo and Turkey.

75. Pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1993/64, the Special Rapporteur sent six urgent appeals to the Governments of Argentina, Colombia, Guatemala and Rwanda on behalf of members of several human rights organizations who had allegedly received death threats after availing themselves of United Nations procedures for the protection of human rights. Pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1993/39, the Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the President of Zaire in which he expressed grave concern for the safety of Mikuin Leliel Balanda, President of the ad hoc Working Group of Experts on southern Africa.

76. Allegations concerning the extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution of over 2,300 persons (49 of whom were identified as minors, 79 as women) were transmitted to the following 51 countries: Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkey, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire and Zimbabwe.

77. Forty-nine of these cases concerned alleged extrajudicial executions of minors, two of whom were living as "street children" in Brazil and Guatemala. More than 250 persons were said to have been extrajudicially killed in violation of their right to freedom of opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association in Brazil, the Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, India, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Lebanon, Malawi, Nepal, Nigeria, Peru, South Africa, Togo, Turkey, Venezuela, Zaire and Zimbabwe.

78. In addition to these specific cases, allegations referring to questions related to the right to life in general terms were sent to the following 26 countries: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Colombia, Egypt, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Kenya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Turkey and Zaire.

79. Since the finalization of his report to the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-ninth session, the Special Rapporteur received replies on cases transmitted by him in 1992 from the following Governments: Bangladesh, Cameroon, Chad, Colombia, Ethiopia, India, Iraq, Israel, Lesotho, Mexico, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, South Africa, Sudan, Turkey, United States of America, Venezuela.

80. Replies concerning allegations transmitted by the Special Rapporteur in 1993 were received from the Governments of: Algeria, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Israel, Kenya, Kuwait, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Venezuela, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

81. The following countries have not provided the Special Rapporteur with any replies to the cases transmitted by him in 1992: Afghanistan, Angola, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Cambodia, Chile, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Mali, Pakistan, Paraguay, Rwanda, Togo, Ukraine, Yemen, Zaire.

82. The following countries have not provided the Special Rapporteur with any replies to the cases or general allegations transmitted by him in 1993: Angola, Burundi, Cambodia, China, Central African Republic, Comoros, Cuba, Djibouti, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Honduras, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Myanmar, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zimbabwe.

83. The Special Rapporteur transmitted the contents of the above-mentioned government replies to the sources of the allegations for comments and observations.

84. The Special Rapporteur sent letters in which he reiterated his request for information with regard to cases transmitted by him in 1992, for which until 27 April 1993 no replies had been received, to the following Governments (the number of outstanding cases is indicated in brackets): Angola (2), Azerbaijan (5), Bangladesh (18), Brazil (7), Cambodia (11), Cameroon (4), Colombia (76), El Salvador (39), Guatemala (60), Honduras (3), India (43), Iran (Islamic Republic of) (5), Israel (5), Mexico (4), Nepal (10), Pakistan (7), Philippines (7), South Africa (47), Turkey (95), Venezuela (11). A request for information on 106 outstanding cases was transmitted to the de facto authorities in Haiti.

85. The Governments of Bangladesh, Brazil, Cameroon, Colombia, India, Israel, Mexico, Nepal, the Philippines, Turkey and Venezuela provided information on some or all of these cases later during the year.

86. The Special Rapporteur sent follow-up letters on cases transmitted by him in 1992 and/or 1993, where replies were received but could not be considered as final, to the following Governments: Bangladesh, Brazil, Chad, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Iraq, Israel, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mexico, Myanmar, Peru, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Venezuela, Yemen.

87. From 8 to 17 April 1993, the Special Rapporteur visited Rwanda after he had received allegations of grave and massive violations of the right to life in the context of an armed conflict opposing Rwandese government forces and the armed opposition movement Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) since October 1990. The Special Rapporteur's report on this visit, which includes his findings, conclusions and recommendations, was published in August 1993 (E/CN.4/1994/7/Add.1).

88. From 24 May to 2 June 1993, the Special Rapporteur undertook a visit to Peru to look into allegations of violations of the right to life in this country. A report on this visit was published in November 1993 (E/CN.4/1994/7/Add.2).

89. During the forty-ninth session of the Commission on Human Rights, the leader of the Sri Lankan delegation reiterated an earlier invitation to the Special Rapporteur to visit Sri Lanka. The Special Rapporteur also received an invitation from the Government of Argentina to carry out in situ investigations into alleged death threats against journalists and human rights activists (see below, paras. 122-123). The Special Rapporteur also received invitations to conduct visits to Algeria and Colombia.

90. No progress has been made in the preparation of a possible visit to Turkey. The Special Rapporteur has reiterated his request to be invited to carry out a mission to China. Furthermore, he has approached the Government of India and expressed his interest in visiting that country, possibly together with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture.

91. In resolution 1993/97, the Commission on Human Rights requested the Government of Indonesia to consider inviting the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions to carry out a visit to East Timor. However, to date no such invitation has been forthcoming.

92. From 15 to 20 December 1992, at the request of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the Special Rapporteur undertook a mission to Croatia to investigate allegations of mass graves holding the remains of victims of war crimes. The report on the findings of this mission was transmitted in its entirety to the Commission of Experts established under Security Council resolution 780 (1992). A summary has been made public as annex I to the report of the Special Rapporteur on the former Yugoslavia to the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-ninth session (E/CN.4/1993/50; see also below, chapter V).

93. From 16 to 27 August 1993, the Special Rapporteur participated in the field mission of the Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts on southern Africa to Botswana and Zimbabwe.

94. During his visits to Geneva, the Special Rapporteur has held informal consultations with several other special rapporteurs and members of working groups of the Commission on Human Rights. The Special Rapporteur also met with Committee on the Rights of the Child for an exchange of views on the protection of the right to life of children in Rwanda and Peru. During the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, he took part in several meetings of special rapporteurs, representatives and members of working groups of the Commission on Human Rights and, acting as their spokesperson, presented a common paper to the plenary session of the World Conference.

95. Letters transmitting copies of the allegations sent to the respective Governments and asking to be provided with comments and observations on the situation of the right to life were sent to the United Nations field operations in Angola (UNAVEM), Cambodia, El Salvador (ONUSAL) and Haiti. The Special Rapporteur also sent a letter to the head of UNOSOM II in which he requested to be provided with information regarding violations of the right to life and expressed concern at allegations involving members of the international peace-keeping forces in a number of killings.

96. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur consulted with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on a number of specific cases involving refugees and, more particularly, before and during the mission to Rwanda.

97. During his missions to Rwanda and Peru, the Special Rapporteur greatly benefited from excellent cooperation from the UNDP representatives in Kigali and Lima.

98. In order to enhance the public awareness of the working of his mandate, the Special Rapporteur held a number of press conferences during his visits to both Rwanda and Peru. The report on these missions was accompanied by press statements. The Special Rapporteur also held a number of press conferences during his visits to the Netherlands and Australia (see below, para. 100).

99. In addition, the Special Rapporteur attended the following meetings and conferences: In January 1993, he was invited to participate in a meeting to prepare for the World Conference on Human Rights, organized by the Carter Center in Atlanta, United States of America. In February 1993, the Special Rapporteur spoke to the African Regional Meeting of the International Association of Young Lawyers in Douala, Cameroon, about the role of United Nations mechanisms in the protection of human rights. Also in February 1993, the Special Rapporteur participated in a meeting on "Human Rights at the eve of the twenty-first century", organized by the Council of Europe, where he presided over the working group on "Human rights and development". Twice, in March and June 1993, the Special Rapporteur was invited by the University of Bochum, Germany, to participate in meetings aimed at the establishment of a non-governmental organization for the promotion of and respect for humanitarian law.

100. Furthermore, in September 1993 the Special Rapporteur was invited by the Dutch section of Amnesty International to deliver a speech on the role of the United Nations in efforts to prevent extrajudicial executions and disappearances. Also in September 1993, the Special Rapporteur attended as a "special guest" an international commission of inquiry organized by Amnesty International's United States section to examine the practice of capital punishment in that country. Finally, in October 1993, the Australian section of Amnesty International invited the Special Rapporteur to carry out a tour through several Australian cities and speak on the role of United Nations mechanisms with regard to the protection of the right to life and the prevention of extrajudicial executions and disappearances, as well as the role of non-governmental organizations in this field.

101. In this chapter, the Special Rapporteur gives an account of the reports and allegations that have come before him concerning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. It describes the way he has dealt with this information by sending urgent appeals and letters to the Governments concerned as well as the replies he has received. Follow-up action taken by the Special Rapporteur is also mentioned. (The contents of all replies received from Governments have been transmitted to the sources of the allegations. For reasons of brevity, this is not mentioned specifically for each country.) Where appropriate, the Special Rapporteur included country-specific observations, comments and recommendations.

102. It may be noted that the dates of urgent appeals sent by the Special Rapporteur and of communications received from Governments are included in parenthesis in the paragraphs which describe their contents. All urgent appeals sent until 22 November 1993 are reflected in this report. The communications described as "other allegations" were sent on three occasions, on 27 April 1993, 29 July 1993 and 24 September 1993. Allegations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions received by the Special Rapporteur at a later date will be dealt with in his report to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-first session. Follow-up letters were sent to the Governments concerned in late September 1993, with the exception of the follow-up letter to the Government of the United States of America which could only be sent on 19 November 1993.

103. All communications received from Governments by 22 November 1993 were taken into consideration in the preparation of the present report. Replies and other information that reached the Special Rapporteur at a later date will be included in his report to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-first session.

104. Due to restrictions on the length of documents presented to the Commission on Human Rights, the Special Rapporteur was forced to reduce considerably the detail in which cases of alleged extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions or death threats are presented in this report. In most cases, only the names and a very short description of the events could be included in the account of the Special Rapporteur's activities in a given country. However, all details of these cases as transmitted to the Governments concerned are available in the files of the Secretariat.

105. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government of Algeria allegations according to which three Special Courts had been set up by a decree of October 1992 providing for accelerated and secret justice for those accused of "terrorist" offences and doubling the sentence for such offences. It was reported that this law was retroactive: any case under instruction or awaiting judgement could be transferred to the Special Courts and thus be subjected to increased penalties which did not apply at the time of the offence.

106. The Special Rapporteur expressed his particular concern at reports that these Special Courts have passed 66 death sentences. Those sentenced to death were said to have no right to appeal but could only seek a review by cassation by the Supreme Court, which only rules on procedures without re-examining the facts. The Special Rapporteur asked the competent authorities to provide him with information regarding these issues.

107. The Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the Government of Algeria after being informed that the following 41 persons were sentenced to death by a Special Court on 26 May 1993: Abderrahim Hocine, Rachid Hechaichi, Karim Fennour, Jamal Chikou, Belkacem Tahri, Jamal Laski, Mabrouk Bakour, Ahmed Dahmoun, Meliani Mansouri, Youcef Boulesba, Rehda Boucherif, Said Soussan, Mohamed Aimet and 28 others (1 July 1993).

108. The Government of Algeria replied to the allegations transmitted by the Special Rapporteur and informed him of the following: those sentenced to death on 26 May 1993 had benefited from a fair trial and were sentenced in conformity with the legislation in force at the time they committed their crime, a bomb attack at Algiers airport in August 1992. This legislation provided for capital punishment. The Government further informed the Special Rapporteur that the Special Courts were instituted in Algeria in response to acts of terrorism and subversion spreading terror among the civilian population. The offences qualified as "terrorism" have been specified in a law decree of 30 September 1992. This decree was not retroactive. The Special Courts, composed of five judges, were "special" only with regard to the nature of the offences they were dealing with. The rights of defendants to a fair trial were fully ensured, including the right to review by cassation by the Supreme Court (12 October 1993).

109. The reply received from the Government of Algeria has been transmitted to the source for comments and observations. It should be noted that the source has informed the Special Rapporteur that six of the above-mentioned persons (Abderrahim Hocine, Rachid Hechaichi, Karim Fennour, Jamal Chkou, Meliani Mansouri and Said Soussan) were executed by firing squad on 31 August 1993 after the Supreme Court had upheld their sentences.

110. In November 1993, a delegation of the Algerian Government met with the Special Rapporteur to discuss in detail the concerns expressed by the Special Rapporteur with regard to the above-mentioned anti-terrorism decree. During this meeting, the representatives of the Algerian Government also invited the Special Rapporteur to carry out a visit to Algeria.

111. The Special Rapporteur wishes to express his great appreciation of the willingness to cooperate shown by the Government of Algeria. The meeting with a delegation of experts in the Algerian justice system was a welcome opportunity for him to deepen his understanding of the situation in the country and the anti-terrorism legislation. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of Algeria for its invitation to carry out a mission to that country. The date of the visit will be determined in further consultations with the authorities.

112. The Special Rapporteur fully understands the difficulties faced by the Government in its efforts to curb violent attacks by Islamist militants which have caused considerable human and material damage. However, he remains concerned that the October 1992 decree provides for an extension of capital punishment to a number of offences previously punishable by life imprisonment as well as restrictions on the right to an adequate defence, in particular, the possibility of a prolongation of pre-trial detention up to 12 days, time-limits set for the completion of the judicial stages of the proceedings, the fact that the choice of a lawyer is subject to approval by the judge and the right of judges to impose sanctions against lawyers during the trial and to bar them from exercising their functions. This means that the level of guarantees enjoyed by defendants in proceedings before the Special Courts is considerably lower than in trials before ordinary jurisdictions.

113. The Special Rapporteur is also concerned that the appeal procedure against convictions and sentences passed by the Special Courts, namely the review of cassation before the Supreme Court, does not ensure the full right to appeal, as the Supreme Court only reviews legal aspects and not facts. Furthermore, the decree provides for the imposition of capital punishment on persons from 16 to 18 years of age. Although, as stated by the representatives of the Government of Algeria, this provision has never been applied, it constitutes a breach of the relevant international instruments.

114. While until July 1993, 66 death sentences had been reported to the Special Rapporteur, recent information brought to his attention indicates that more than 350 death sentences were pronounced by Special Courts between February and November 1993. The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned at this increase and will continue to monitor closely all developments in this area. He calls upon the Government of Algeria to revise its anti-terrorism legislation so as to make it conform to the standards set forth in the pertinent international instruments.

115. The Special Rapporteur received alarming reports about violations of the right to life in Angola. A particularly high number of killings was said to have been perpetrated both by government forces and by members of the Uniao Nacional para a Independ�ncia Total de Angola (UNITA) in Luanda between 31 October and 3 November 1992. Extrajudicial executions were reported to have continued throughout 1993. No information has been received as concerns measures to prevent such executions from taking place or to bring to justice those responsible. The extreme gravity of the situation was brought to the attention of the Security Council on 25 May 1993, when the Secretary-General reported (S/25840) that 1,000 persons were dying every day as a direct or indirect result of the fighting . In his report to the Security Council on 27 October 1993 (S/26644), the Secretary-General underlined that this figure was a conservative estimate. Large numbers of civilians, including women, children and elderly persons, had died in cities under siege, as a result of lack of food or after the explosion of mines.

116. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government of Angola allegations he had received concerning the extrajudicial execution at different times of 1992 of the following nine persons, among them one woman, in the context of conflicts between government forces and members of the Front pour la Lib�ration de l'Etat de Cabinda (FLEC) in September 1992: Deacon Arao, Pascoal Pitra, Pedro Mbachi Ngimbi, Tereza Mzovo, Joao Maria Taty, Afonso Foumbo Mabiala, Joao Bento, Joao Louren�o and Pascoal Mazunga. The Special Rapporteur also transmitted the case of Andr� Segunda.

117. Copies of these allegations were also sent to the head of the United Nations Verification Mission in Angola (UNAVEM), together with a request for any information available concerning violations of the right to life in the country (11 October 1993).

118. At the time of the finalization of the present report, no reply had been received from the Government of Angola.

119. The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned at the alarming situation in Angola and, in particular, at the recent reports about massive violations of the right to life imputed to all parties to the conflict. The fact that only nine cases could be sent by the Special Rapporteur to the Government of Angola may be explained by the general character of the reports that have come before him. A further number of specific cases were received after the date of the most recent transmission of allegations to the Government. They will be reflected in the Special Rapporteur's report to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-first session.

120. The Special Rapporteur will continue to monitor closely the situation in Angola. He intends to do so in close cooperation with UNAVEM. In a letter to the head of this operation, the Special Rapporteur indicated his readiness to collaborate with UNAVEM in any manner that might be considered appropriate, including through a visit to Angola. In the light of the gravity of the reports summarized above, the Special Rapporteur urges the international community to give priority attention to the situation in Angola. Particular emphasis should also be given to human rights issues within UNAVEM.

121. The Special Rapporteur sent four urgent appeals to the Government of Argentina. Two (3 February 1993; 27 April 1993) concerned alleged death threats by police against Pedro Salvador Aguirre. Death threats were also reported to have been made by members of the police against Hebe de Bonafini, President of the organization Madres de Plaza de Mayo (26 August 1993). In addition, the Special Rapporteur transmitted to the authorities concerns for the lives of the following journalists and members of their families, who had allegedly received death threats in relation to their critical reporting about the Government: Hern�n L�pez Echague, Marcelo Bonelli, Magdalena Ruiz Gui�az�, M�nica Cahen D'Anvers and Graciela Guadalupe (14 September 1993).

122. The Government of Argentina replied to the reports of death threats against journalists by inviting the Special Rapporteur to carry out a visit to Argentina in order to verify in situ the full functioning of all institutional arrangements to guarantee the right to life and the exhaustive investigations being carried out by the Executive and the Judiciary to clarify illegal acts against press institutions and their employees (27 September 1993).

123. In reply to this letter of invitation, the Special Rapporteur expressed his appreciation of the willingness to cooperate shown by the Government of Argentina. He pointed out, however, that, before being in a position to decide whether the situation in Argentina warranted a visit by the Special Rapporteur, he would need concrete and factual details concerning the allegations transmitted and, consequently, reiterated his request to the Argentine authorities to provide him with such information. The Special Rapporteur also explained to the Government of Argentina that, due to time and budgetary constraints, only a very small number of visits could be carried out each year, and that it was therefore necessary to set priorities. On the basis of the information received, the overall situation with regard to the right to life in Argentina did not appear to place this country in the most urgent category (26 October 1993).

124. The Special Rapporteur has received a number of reports concerning serious violations of the right to life in the context of the ongoing armed conflict between the armed forces of Azerbaijan and forces composed of Armenians fighting for self-determination and the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh, an enclave within the territory of Azerbaijan, populated mainly by ethnic Armenians. Thousands of civilians are said to have lost their lives since 1988.

125. Various sources expressed particular concern at the resurgence of the conflict in 1992. Since January 1992, the armed forces of Azerbaijan were said to have used military airplanes and helicopter gunships in attacks on civilian targets in a number of towns and villages. It was reported that 500-kilogramme bombs and cluster bombs were dropped on civilian homes, killing and wounding many of their inhabitants and causing great damage. Reportedly, the armed forces also employed heavy weapons such as "Grad BM-21" long-range multiple missile launchers, tanks and artillery in highly populated areas. The death toll among civilians from June 1992 through January 1993 has been estimated at 1,500. Air raids, shelling and heavy artillery attacks were reported in and near Stepanakert as well as several towns and villages in the regions of Martakert and Askeran.

126. The Special Rapporteur has also received reports of extrajudicial executions by members of the Azerbaijani armed forces of civilians or former combatants no longer taking part in hostilities. In several cases, the victims had allegedly been taken hostage and were later killed by their captors.

127. The Special Rapporteur sent two urgent appeals to the Government of Azerbaijan by which he expressed concern at the alleged imminent execution of death sentences passed by the Military Collegium of Azerbaijan's Supreme Court. According to the information received, there is no right to appeal against death sentences passed by the Military Collegium. The urgent appeals sent by the Special Rapporteur concerned Sergej Alexandrovitch Grebenkov (22 February 1993) and five Russian privates: Vladislav Kudinov, Konstantin Tukish, Yaroslav Yevstigneyev, Andrej Filippov and Mikhail Lisovoy (21 May 1993).

128. The Special Rapporteur also transmitted to the Government of Azerbaijan a number of specific cases which were said to have occurred in the context of the armed conflict. They concerned the following four persons, who were said to have been killed while held in detention by Azerbaijani security forces: Youri Housepi Osipovitch Dshangiryan, Vitali Verdyan, Youra Goulyan, Hratchik Shabazyan. He also retransmitted to the authorities the case of Sergej Alexandrovitch Grebenkov, who was found dead in his cell shortly before the scheduled date of his execution.

129. The Special Rapporteur also sent a letter to the Government of Azerbaijan by which he transmitted the general allegations described above and requested to be provided with information in that regard.

130. The Government of Azerbaijan replied to the Special Rapporteur's letter containing general concerns about the situation of the right to life in the country, informing him that the Azerbaijani Republic was defending its territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty against unlawful encroachments. The Government also stated that, as a result of large-scale aggression on the part of Armenia, about 20 per cent of the territory of Azerbaijan had been annexed by regular army forces with the participation of Armenian military formations from Nagorno-Karabakh and foreign mercenaries, and accused the Government of Armenia of pursuing a policy of genocide and "ethnic cleansing". The number of dead among the peaceful population, essentially women, old people and children, was said to total some 17,000. Furthermore, hundreds of prisoners taken by the Armenian forces had been brutally murdered. Journalists covering the events in Azerbaijan and Armenians advocating a peaceful dialogue with Azerbaijan were also said to have been killed by Armenian forces (22 September 1993).

131. The Special Rapporteur appreciates the willingness to cooperate shown by the Government of Azerbaijan in providing him with the above-mentioned reply. However, he wishes to note that no reference has been made by the authorities to the allegations attributing human rights violations to Azerbaijani government forces nor to any steps taken to investigate such allegations or to prevent abuse of force in the context of the armed conflict. No details have been provided on the concrete cases transmitted by the Special Rapporteur in 1992 and 1993.

132. The Special Rapporteur remains concerned at the reports of violations of the right to life and, in particular, large numbers of civilian casualties in the context of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. He will continue to pay special attention to this problem and may envisage requesting the Government of Azerbaijan to invite him to carry out a visit to the area.

133. The Special Rapporteur received reports about a number of positive steps towards an increased protection of human rights taken by the Government of Bangladesh, namely an amnesty of prisoners detained under the previous government, a review of charges brought against political opponents under the previous government, and the opening of investigations into several cases of human rights violations. However, he also continued to receive many reports and allegations indicating that human rights abuses, including extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, continue to occur in Bangladesh.

134. Different sources expressed particular concern at the situation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, a remote area under military control in south-east Bangladesh, traditionally inhabited by tribal people known as Jumma. Negotiations between the Government of Bangladesh and the Shanti Bahini, the armed wing of the tribal political organization Jana Shanghati Samiti (People's Solidarity Association), aiming at regional autonomy, have not yet led to a political solution of an armed conflict which have opposed the government security forces and the Shanti Bahini since the mid-1970s. While the latter are said to have been responsible for a large number of killings, many violations of the right to life are said to have occurred in the context of the counter-insurgency policy pursued by the Government of Bangladesh. Those allegedly responsible for extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions are members of the security forces as well as paramilitary forces reported to be cooperating with them, such as the "Bangladesh Rifles" or the "Ansar" guards.

135. It was further reported that members of the security forces responsible for human rights violations enjoy virtual impunity from the law. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur was informed that section 132 of the Code of Penal Procedure of Bangladesh states that no prosecution against any person for any act purporting to be done under this chapter (Unlawful assembly) shall be instituted in any court, except with the sanction of the Government. Reportedly, no magistrate, police, civil or military officer or any subordinate officer or soldier or volunteer doing any act in obedience to any order which he was bound to obey shall be deemed to have committed an offence thereby. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur was informed that under the Presidential Security Force (Amendment) Act 1992, passed on 15 July 1992, officers of the security forces are granted legal immunity if they shoot or kill anyone whose presence or movement is believed to threaten the physical security of the Prime Minister and of certain other important persons.

136. With regard to the death penalty, the Special Rapporteur received information according to which the Parliament of Bangladesh had approved, on 1 November 1992, the Curbing of Terrorist Activities Act 1992. This law reportedly extended the death penalty to a number of offences for which the maximum punishment previously was imprisonment. Nine offences listed under the heading of terrorism or anarchy were said to be punishable with from five years' imprisonment to the death penalty, without relating specific offences to specific punishment. The Act reportedly provided that investigations of such offences were to be completed within 30 (exceptionally 45) days and that detainees could not be granted bail. The trial, held before a special tribunal, was to be completed within 60 (exceptionally 90) days.

137. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government of Bangladesh communications concerning the alleged extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution of over 30 persons, 5 of them women. Four cases concerned alleged violations of the right to life of minors.

138. The Special Rapporteur sent three urgent appeals to the Government of Bangladesh after being informed of the alleged imminent involuntary repatriation of a group of Muslim (Rohingya) refugees from Rakhine State, Myanmar (31 December 1992); of the imminent execution of the death penalty against Munir Hussain, allegedly in breach of internationally recognized fair trial guarantees (23 July 1993); and of death threats against novelist Taslima Nasran (26 October 1993).

139. The Special Rapporteur transmitted two communications to the Government of Bangladesh which contained the general concerns summarized above as well as the following specific cases of alleged violations of the right to life (27 April 1993 and 29 July 1993):

(a) Chempu Chakma, Mohini Ranjan Chakma, Mohini Bala Chakma, Master Nittamay Chakma (10), Subilash Chakma, Shabika Chakma (7), Nirashadebi Chakma (17), Prasannakumar Chakma, Nishi Kumar Chakma, Ramkamal Chakma and several unidentified civilians were reportedly extrajudicially executed by members of the security forces in the Chittagong Hill Tracts;

(b) Fulakamal Chakma, Goladhan Chakma, Ahmed Mominuddin and Momina Khatum reportedly died as a consequence of torture while held in detention by the security forces. A man called Quader was also said to have died while in police custody;

(c) Hussain Anwar, Ali Wajed, Islam Shahidul, Muddin Hasiruddin, Rahman Azizar, Zaidur and Islam Manirul (16) were reportedly killed by members of the "Bangladesh Rifles" in the Chittagong Hill Tracts when they tried to prevent the soldiers from stealing cattle in their villages;

(d) Moin Hussain Raju was reportedly killed by police during a peaceful student demonstration on the campus of Dhaka University.

140. The Government of Bangladesh provided replies regarding a number of these cases. With regard to the death sentence against Munir Hussain, the Government reported that three courts, namely the Sessions Court, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court had reached the conclusive opinion that Mr. Hussain had murdered his wife. He had been defended by competent lawyers. Allegations concerning shortcomings in the right to a fair trial were without basis. His trial, conviction and execution was not extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary (2 August 1993).

141. With regard to the cases transmitted by the Special Rapporteur in his letter of 27 April 1993, the Government of Bangladesh reported that most deaths had occurred during armed encounters between government forces and the Shanti Bahini, or as a result of armed attacks by the latter. Several of those killed were said to have been active members of the insurgents. One of them, Fulkamal Chakma, committed suicide in his cell; one other, Goladhan Chakma, died of natural causes while being escorted by a patrol towards Guimara army camp (19 October 1993).

142. In the same letter, the Government of Bangladesh repeated information provided in an earlier communication (27 May 1993) concerning a number of the allegations transmitted by the Special Rapporteur in 1992. These incidents were described as terrorist attacks in which the security forces had not been involved at all; a clash in which no innocent civilians had been affected; and one case in which law enforcement agents had to open fire to prevent the escape of a terrorist.

143. The Government of Bangladesh also informed the Special Rapporteur that the information whereby a religious group, infuriated by passages in a novel published by Taslima Nasreen, had condemned her to death, were false, concocted and politically motivated. The group itself had denied in a press conference having pronounced such a condemnation. After the publication of the false reports, the writer had requested, and was granted, police protection. Her normal life had not been restricted or disturbed in any way. This has been confirmed by the source of the allegation (17 November 1993).

144. The Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the Government of Bangladesh in which he requested additional information concerning the replies received during 1992 (see E/CN.4/1993/46, paras. 115-117), as well as on 27 May and on 2 August 1993. These requests concerned, in particular, details on the grounds for the Government's affirmation that the reports of alleged violations of the right to life were without factual basis. With regard to the massacre at Logang cluster village (E/CN.4/1993/46, paras. 116-117), the Special Rapporteur asked to be provided with additional information concerning the inquiry carried out, the text of the decision which concluded the investigation, as well as clarifications concerning the role of the "Bangladesh Rifles" and other paramilitary groups and measures adopted to prevent excessive use of force in counter-insurgency operations.

145. The contents of the replies provided by the Government to the cases transmitted in were communicated to the sources of the allegations. One source already provided the Special Rapporteur with comments, reinforcing the earlier allegations.

146. The Special Rapporteur appreciates the replies provided by the Government of Bangladesh to a number of the cases transmitted. He has taken note with appreciation of the above-mentioned reports of measures taken with a view to better protection of human rights. However, the Special Rapporteur remains concerned at the situation in the country, particularly since similar allegations continue to be received. In the process of follow-up, the disparity between the allegations received from different sources and the information provided by the Government in its replies has increased further, after additional details have been provided by a source. In this context, the Special Rapporteur wishes to express his continued interest in carrying out an on-site visit to Bangladesh. Such a visit had been requested in 1992, in connection with the killings at Logang cluster village in April 1992 (see E/CN.4/1993/46, paras. 112, 113, 116, 117). The Government of Bangladesh had informed the Special Rapporteur that, since an official commission had investigated the incident, a further investigation would not serve any useful purpose. In a letter to the authorities, however, the Special Rapporteur reiterated his interest in visiting Bangladesh, since the objective of his visit, rather than carrying out an investigation which falls within the responsibility and competence of the local authorities, would be to gather first-hand experience of the situation in the country so as to be in a position to evaluate better the information that comes before him and to make recommendations concerning the protection of the right to life.

147. As in former years, the Special Rapporteur has received various reports indicating that violence against "street children" and in the context of land conflicts in rural regions are the two principal causes for violations of the right to life in Brazil.

148. As regards "street children", the Special Rapporteur was informed that in February 1992, a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry published a report on "The extermination of minors" and concluded that the participation of members of the civil and military police in the killings of children and adolescents was far from being exceptional. According to this commission, police killings were the third highest cause of homicide of children and adolescents in Brazil. "Death squads", often composed of off-duty civil and military police officers hired by local shopkeepers to "clean up" the streets where they have their business, are also often reported to be responsible for killings, death threats and acts of harassment and intimidation against "street youth". Allegedly, local police often support such "death squads" and sometimes even participate in their operations.

149. The Special Rapporteur has recently received information according to which, during the first half of 1993, 320 "street children" were killed in Brazil. Particularly disturbing reports referred to mass killings by members of the military police of "street children" in shantytowns of Rio de Janeiro, and about threats to the safety of eye-witnesses to these massacres who presented their testimony in judicial investigations and identified those responsible.

150. The Special Rapporteur also received numerous reports and allegations concerning extrajudicial killings of and death threats against peasants, particularly if they are of indigenous origin, who claim their property rights to land. These rights are said to be guaranteed in the 1988 Constitution. Persons representing these peasants in their efforts to have their land demarcated, such as human rights workers, trade unionists, lawyers or religious figures, are also often said to be victims of executions or death threats. The States of Par� and Mato Grosso do Sul have repeatedly been named as being particularly affected by this phenomenon. Several observers have denounced the persistent failure on the part of the authorities to assure effective protection for the peasants and to impose sanctions upon those responsible for killings and threats. According to the information received, in most cases these are gunmen hired by local landowners who are said to be enjoying support from the police.

151. The killing in August 1993 of at least 50 Yanomami indians in the north of Brazil by a group of garimpeiros (goldminers) who were said to have threatened them on earlier occasions was reported to the Special Rapporteur as a particularly serious case in which the authorities failed to protect the right to life.

152. The Special Rapporteur communicated to the Government of Brazil allegations concerning violations of the right to life of 128 persons; 20 cases concerned alleged violations of the right to life of women. Ten urgent appeals were sent on behalf of persons whose life and physical integrity was said to be under threat. Three urgent appeals concerned particularly grave mass killings. In three letters to the authorities, the Special Rapporteur transmitted seven further cases of alleged extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Twenty-five cases concerned alleged violations of the right to life against "street children". Ten cases were said also to constitute violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association.

153. The Special Rapporteur urged the Government of Brazil to ensure effective protection of the right to life of:

(a) "Street child" Valdeci Souza Santos, after the killing of six others: Carlos Henrique Moreira, Carlos Andre dos Santos, Antonio Carlos de Oliveira, Alexandre Silva Neves, Carlos Henrique de Souza Santos and Alexandre Marcio Pacheco de Oliveira (31 December 1993); "street children" Ademir Silveira dos Santos and Moises Silva do Nascimento, as well as street educators Father Horacio Caballero and Sister Maria Cecilia Garez Leme (30 April 1993); human rights activist Raimundo Nonato Souza Santos (16 August 1993); "street children" Fabio de Oliveira (Barao) (13), Michael Andre de Aguiar (13), Marcos Pereira Muniz (14), Fabio Ribeiro (15), Elizabeth Cristina (Beth) de Oliveira Maia (16), Rogerio da Silva (16), Sergio Dias Gomes (16), Leonardo Teixeira de Sa, as well as Neilton Pereira dos Santos and Wagner dos Santos, all of whom had eye-witnessed the killing of seven "street children" in Rio de Janeiro (15 October 1993);

(b) Marilene Lima da Souza, Vera Lucia Flores, Denise Vasconcelo, Euzilar Joana da Silva Oliveira, Edneia Santos Cruz and Teresa Souza Costa, mothers of children who had disappeared in June 1990, after the killing of two of them, Edmeia da Silva Eusebio and Sheila da Concei�ao (28 January 1993);

(c) Trade unionists Valdinar Pereira Barros and Francisco Geronimo da Silva (22 December 1992); missionary Elsa Rosa Zotti (13 July 1993); lawyers Valdenia Brito, Katia Costa Pereira and Jayme Benvenuto de Lima Jr. (2 August 1993); nun and lawyer Cecilia Petrina de Carvalho, municipal counsellor Analdino Laranjeira and Bishop Pedro Casald�liga (22 November 1993).

154. The Special Rapporteur also sent urgent appeals to the Government of Brazil after receiving reports of the killings of "street children" Paulo Roberto de Oliveira, Marcelo Candido de Jesus, Valderina Miguel Rogerio de Almeida, Paulo Jose da Silva, Anderson Thome Pereira, Marcos Antonio Alves da Silva, Gamabzinho and Nogento in Rio de Janeiro (30 July 1993); approximately 50 Yanomami indians in northern Brazil (26 August 1993); Gilberto Cardoso dos Santos and 20 others (names available with the Secretariat) in the Vigario Geral shantytown of Rio de Janeiro (7 September 1993).

155. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government of Brazil the alleged extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution of:

(b) Local counsellor Renildo Jos� dos Santos, trade union leader Arnaldo Delcidio Ferreira, Paulo Henrique da Silva, trade union leader Amancio Francisco Dias, Reinaldo Silva and agricultural cooperative leader Joaci Rodrigues da Silva.

156. In 1993, the Government of Brazil provided the Special Rapporteur with replies informing him that inquiries had been opened and continued to be carried out into alleged death threats against Nivaldo Vieira do Nascimento (see E/CN.4/1993/46, para. 125 (g)) (1 July 1993) and lawyers Valdenia Brito, Katia Costa Pereira and Jayme Benvenuto de Lima (2 November 1993). All four were granted special protection. The latter three subsequently considered that police protection was no longer necessary and requested its suspension. The Government of Brazil also informed the Special Rapporteur that judicial investigations had been opened into the massacre of "street children" in Rio de Janeiro, and that the eye-witnesses were being protected by military police in the "Witnesses House" in Rio de Janeiro (2 November 1993).

157. With regard to the massacre of 21 people in Vigario Geral, the Government of Brazil informed the Special Rapporteur that the allegations were accurate, and that the crime had roused the abhorrence of the Brazilian Government and the society as a whole. The authorities publicly condemned the massacre as an inadmissible act of revenge. As a consequence, the Minister of Justice announced the creation of a special unit within the Federal Police to investigate crimes perpetrated by gangs and death squads in Brazil, with particular attention to the activities of death squads in Rio. As concerns the police investigation into the crime of Vigario Geral, 28 military police officers had been arrested and warrants had been issued against five others. The commander under whose orders those accused served was dismissed. Legal procedures were initiated to grant compensation payments to the relatives of the victims (15 November 1993).

158. The Government of Brazil also provided information with regard to the following cases transmitted in 1993:

(a) Raimundo Nonato Souza Santos: in response to his claim that the State police in Manaus was giving paramilitary training to children from 9 to 17 years old, this police project was suspended by preliminary ruling on 18 August 1993 and proceedings were initiated by the Attorney for Children and Youth of the State of Amazonas and on the Federal level. The municipality of Manaus was called upon by the federal authorities to provide an alternative form of assistance to the 348 boys involved (10 November 1993);

(b) Elsa Rosa Zotti: the State authorities of Mato Grosso were instructed to provide the necessary protection to the missionary (11 November 1993);

(c) Jos� Renildo dos Santos: the allegations corresponded to the findings of the police inquiry into the case. Six persons, namely the mayor of Coqueiro Seco, his father and four military police officials were formally charged with murder with aggravating circumstances. Their preventive detention was requested (11 November 1993);

(d) The massacre of Yanomami indians: an ad hoc bilateral commission under the joint responsibility of the Brazilian and Venezuelan Ministries of External Relations was set up and had started investigating the events, which occurred inside Venezuelan territory. The commission held its first meeting to exchange information on 21 September 1993. The Brazilian authorities had arrested two suspects and arrest warrants for 19 others had been issued (18 November 1993).

159. In addition, the Government of Brazil informed the Special Rapporteur about the recent sentence of 516 years' imprisonment imposed on a police officer found responsible for the deaths of 18 inmates of Parque Sao Lucas prison in Rio de Janeiro in February 1989 (23 November 1993).

160. The Special Rapporteur sent a letter to the Government of Brazil in which he requested additional information on a number of cases for which the authorities had provided replies in 1992. These requests concerned the current status of investigations that had been opened as well as the concrete measures adopted to protect persons under threat, and the progress of the inquiries into alleged death threats and attempts of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (22 September 1993).

161. By the same letter, the Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government of Brazil additional information he had received concerning the investigation into the killing of 111 prisoners in the Sao Paulo Detention House in October 1992. This case had been transmitted by the Special Rapporteur in 1992 and the Government had forwarded a reply (see E/CN.4/1993/46, para. 130). Several sources had alleged serious shortcomings in the way the inquiries had been carried out, particularly with regard to the gathering and preservation of evidence. It was also pointed out that none of the official investigations concluded by attributing individual responsibility to any of the military police officers involved, despite there being sufficient evidence to do so. However, it was reported that judicial proceedings had been opened before a military court in Sao Paulo. The Special Rapporteur asked the Government of Brazil to provide him with information on the allegations summarized above, the current state of the proceedings, any sanctions imposed on any of the officers involved, any compensation granted to the families of the victims, as well as any measures adopted to prevent similar incidents from happening again in the future.

162. The Government of Brazil also informed the Special Rapporteur that the death threats against Antonio Fernandes Pereira and Isaias Mendon�a Araujo (see E/CN.4/1993/46, para. 125 (d)) had been investigated by the police and the public prosecutor of Itaguatins. It was established that they had come from their own relatives in the context of land disputes (15 November 1993).

163. During his visit to Geneva in November 1993, the Special Rapporteur met with a representative of the Brazilian Government who provided him with additional information concerning the efforts undertaken by the Brazilian authorities with a view to investigating past violations of the right to life and preventing the occurrence of similar incidents in the future. In particular, the Special Rapporteur was informed about projects to set up a special unit within the Federal Police to investigate killings by "death squads" and to carry out a reform of the judiciary, as well as measures directed at changing the mentality of the police and diminishing frictions between the federal and State security forces. There are plans to introduce new legislation under which grave human rights violations would be considered as federal offences and which would place the military police under the orders of the civilian judiciary. The Special Rapporteur was further informed that efforts to curb impunity were widely supported by the civilian population, as was shown by a recent demonstration with over 20,000 participants in Rio de Janeiro.

164. The Special Rapporteur highly appreciates the willingness to cooperate shown by the Government of Brazil. He has taken note with satisfaction of the measures announced by the authorities to bring to justice the perpetrators of human rights violations and encourages them to continue their efforts in this regard. It is hoped that the increasing awareness of both the authorities and the society, as manifested in the above-mentioned demonstration, may lead to increased protection for the right to life in Brazil. As to the difficulties arising out of the division of tasks between federal and State security forces, the Special Rapporteur wishes to stress that the obligation of the federal Government under international law to investigate human rights abuses, bring to justice those responsible, ensure victims' rights and prevent further abuses, extends to all components in the federative structure. Thus, legislation and practice in all States must conform to the international standards.

165. However, the Special Rapporteur remains concerned at persistent and grave allegations about violations of the right to life against "street children" and in the context of land conflicts. The Special Rapporteur urges the Government of Brazil to undertake every effort to grant special protection to "street children". The Special Rapporteur would also like to express deep concern at the killings of Edmeia da Silva Eusebio and Sheila da Concei�ao, two of the mothers of a group of children who had disappeared from Mag� in June 1990, despite earlier urgent appeals by the Special Rapporteur to the Government of Brazil in which he requested that they be protected from possible attempts at their lives.

		Paragraphs
	Introduction	1 - 4
	Chapter
	I. THE MANDATE	5 - 12

	A. Terms of reference	6 - 8
	B. Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions	9 - 12
	II. METHODS OF WORK	13 - 67
	A. Allegations received by the Special Rapporteur	17 - 21
	B. Allegations transmitted by the Special Rapporteur to the Governments concerned	22 - 29
	C. Replies received from Governments	30 - 31
	D. Follow-up	32 - 63
	E. Visits	64 - 65
	F. Cooperation with other United Nations procedures	66 - 67
	III. ACTIVITIES	68 - 100
	A. Consultations	69 - 70
	B. Communications	71 - 86
	C. Visits	87 - 91
	D. Cooperation with other United Nations procedures	92 - 97
	E. Other activities to promote the mandate	98 - 100
	IV. SITUATIONS	101 - 664
	A. General	101 - 104
	B. Country situations	105 - 664
	Algeria	105 - 114
	Angola	115 - 120
	Argentina	121 - 123
	Azerbaijan	124 - 132
	Bangladesh	133 - 146
	Brazil	147 - 165
	Burundi	166 - 173
	Cambodia	174 - 179
	Cameroon	180 - 186
	Central African Republic	187 - 189
	Chad	190 - 204
	Chile	205 - 208
	China	209 - 219
	Colombia	220 - 238
	Comoros	239 - 242
	Cuba	243 - 244
	Djibouti	245 - 248
	Ecuador	249 - 254
	Egypt	255 - 271
	El Salvador	272 - 285
	Equatorial Guinea	286 - 294
	Ethiopia	295 - 298
	Guatemala	299 - 313
	Haiti	314 - 324
	Honduras	325 - 326
	India	327 - 342
	Indonesia	343 - 356
	Iran (Islamic Republic of)	357 - 368
	Iraq	369 - 379
	Israel	380 - 390
	Jamaica	391 - 393
	Kenya	394 - 399
	Kuwait	400 - 404
	Kyrgyzstan	405 - 406
	Lebanon	407 - 408
	Lesotho	409 - 410
	Liberia	411 - 415
	Malawi	416 - 424
	Malaysia	425 - 428
	Mauritania	429 - 435
	Mexico	436 - 442
	Morocco	443 - 446
	Myanmar	447 - 455
	Nepal	456 - 460
	Nicaragua	461 - 462
	Nigeria	463 - 470
	Pakistan	471 - 475
	Panama	476 - 477
	Papua New Guinea	478 - 482
	Paraguay	483 - 486
	Peru	487 - 500
	Philippines	501 - 511
	Rwanda	512 - 517
	Saudi Arabia	518 - 522
	Sierra Leone	523 - 529
	Somalia	530 - 534
	South Africa	535 - 546
	Sri Lanka	547 - 556
	Sudan	557 - 566
	Sweden	567 - 570
	Syrian Arab Republic	571 - 573
	Tajikistan	574 - 581
	The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	582 - 583
	Togo	584 - 593
	Turkey	594 - 612
	Turkmenistan	613 - 614
	United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	615 - 618
	United States of America	619 - 634
	Uzbekistan	635 - 637
	Venezuela	638 - 646
	Yemen	647 - 649
	Yugoslavia	650 - 652
	Zaire	653 - 662
	Zimbabwe	663 - 664
	V. QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE RIGHT TO LIFE IN THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA	665 - 670
	VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS	671 - 730
	A. Capital punishment	673 - 687
	B. Impunity	688 - 699
	C. Allegations received and acted upon by the Special Rapporteur	700 - 711
	D. Issues of special interest to the Special Rapporteur	712 - 723
	E. Procedural aspects	724 - 728
	F. Prevention	729 - 730