Report of the Special Rapporteur on

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Forty-ninth session
Item 12 of the provisional agenda

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 1992/72

I. The mandate 5 - 41
A. Terms of reference 7 - 10
B. Procedures 11 - 41
1. Communications received by the Special Rapporteur 12 - 25
2. Communications sent by the Special Rapporteur 26 - 28
3. Communications from Governments 29 - 34
4. Visits 35 - 37
5. Cooperation with other United Nations procedures 38 - 41

II. Legal framework within which the mandate of the Special Rapporteur is implemented 42 - 68
A. Violations of the right to life in connection with the death penalty 49 - 53
B. Deaths in custody 54 - 57
C. Deaths due to the use of force by law enforcement officials 58 - 59
D. Violations of the right to life during armed conflicts 60 - 61
E. Expulsion of persons to a country where their lives are in danger 62 - 63
F. Obligation to investigate 64 - 66
G. Genocide 67
H. The rights of victims 68

III. Activities 69 - 91
A. Consultations 70 - 71
B. Communications 72 - 87
C. Visits 88 - 91

IV. Situations 92 - 656
A. General 92 - 94
B. Country situations 95 - 656
Afghanistan 95 - 97
Albania 98
Angola 99 - 101
Argentina 102 23
Azerbaijan 103 - 104
Bangladesh 105 - 118
Bhutan 119
Bolivia 120
Brazil 121 - 142
Burkina Faso 143
Burundi 144 - 151
Cambodia 152 - 156
Cameroon 157 - 162
Chad 163 - 169
Chile 170 - 171
China 172 - 184
Colombia 185 - 215
Cuba 216 - 229
Dominican Republic 230 - 232
Egypt 233 - 236
El Salvador 237 - 251
Equatorial Guinea 252 - 254
Ethiopia 255 - 257
Ghana 258 - 261
Grenada 262
Guatemala 263 - 304
Haiti 305 - 323
Honduras 324 - 329
India 330 - 347
Indonesia 348 - 353
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 354 - 369
Iraq 370 - 376
Israel 377 - 385
Jamaica 386
Jordan 387 - 388
Kenya 389 - 390
Kuwait 391 - 392
Lesotho 393 - 398
Liberia 399
Madagascar 400
Malawi 401 - 408
Malaysia 409 - 411
Mali 412 - 415
Mauritania 416
Mexico 417 - 426
Morocco 427 - 430
Myanmar 431 - 441 Nepal 442 - 443
Nicaragua 444 - 445
Niger 446
Nigeria 447
Pakistan 448 - 454
Paraguay 455 - 459
Peru 460 - 487
Philippines 488 - 501
Rwanda 502 - 509
Saudi Arabia 510 - 511
Senegal 512 - 513
Somalia 514
South Africa 515 - 531
Sri Lanka 532 - 544
Sudan 545 - 556
Suriname 557
Thailand 558 - 563
Togo 564 - 572
Trinidad and Tobago 573
Tunisia 574 - 579
Turkey 580 - 617
Uganda 618
Ukraine 619 - 621
United Republic of Tanzania 622
United States of America 623 - 636
Venezuela 637 - 649
Yemen 650 - 653
Zaire 654 - 656

VI. Conclusions and recommendations 673 - 706
A. Allegations received and acted upon by the Special Rapporteur 677 - 688
B. Other procedural aspects 689 - 706

2. After presenting his ninth report (E/CN.4/1992/30) to the Commission on Human Rights, Mr. Amos Wako resigned as Special Rapporteur on summary or arbitrary executions in early March 1992. In conformity with paragraph 5 of resolution 1992/72, the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights appointed Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiaye to succeed Mr. Wako in this function.

3. The present report is the first presented to the Commission on Human Rights by the new Special Rapporteur. It is the tenth since the mandate was established by the Economic and Social Council in its resolution 1982/35 of 7 May 1982.

4. In chapter I of the present report, the Special Rapporteur offers an interpretation of the mandate entrusted to him and sets forth his personal approach to several issues that have arisen during the first months of his activities. Chapter II contains the legal framework within which he carried out his mandate. In chapter III, the Special Rapporteur reports on the activities he has undertaken since his appointment. In chapter IV, he presents country-specific situations in which he has pursued his mandate: these include a general description of the allegations received by the Special Rapporteur and a more detailed summary of the correspondence with the Governments concerned regarding those allegations. In chapter V, the Special Rapporteur gives account of the findings, of relevance to his mandate, of two missions to the former Yugoslavia in which he participated. Finally, in chapter VI, the Special Rapporteur sets forth his conclusions and closes his report with recommendations designed to ensure more effectively, in future, respect for the international instruments and standards to which his mandate refers.

5. The present Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions was appointed in April 1992 by the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights pursuant to Commission resolution 1992/72 of 5 March 1992. He assumed his functions after that resolution had been approved by the Economic and Social Council in its decision 1992/242 of 15 July 1992. He took over the mandate from Mr. Amos Wako, who had been Special Rapporteur on summary or arbitrary executions from the establishment of the mandate in 1982 until March 1992. The experience of the first 10 years, both the achievements and the difficulties encountered, as they have been reflected in Mr. Wako's yearly reports to the Commission on Human Rights, was of great value to the Special Rapporteur when he assumed his functions, particularly since he had only some six months in which to deal with a large number of allegations.

6. In this chapter the Special Rapporteur will address a series of issues relating to his mandate. They include the task entrusted to him by the Commission on Human Rights, the procedures resorted to and some problems encountered during the first months. He wishes to emphasize that these observations do not pretend to be an exhaustive interpretation of his mandate; rather, they should be seen as personal remarks aimed at setting initial coordinates for his work, which will certainly undergo adjustments and improvements in the future. He believes that this may enhance understanding and, as a consequence, fruitful cooperation with Governments and those who provide him with allegations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

7. The Commission on Human Rights, in resolution 1992/72, requests the Special Rapporteur to "continue to examine situations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions" (para. 7). It should be noted that in this resolution the Commission has widened the title of the mandate, which now includes "extrajudicial" as well as "summary or arbitrary" executions. This seems to indicate that the members of the Commission have adopted a broad approach to the mandate on executions which encompasses all violations of the right to life as guaranteed by a large number of international human rights instruments (see chapter II of the present report).

8. In the same resolution the Commission also requested the Special Rapporteur "to pay special attention to extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions of children" (para. 8).

9. 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 1992/22, entitled "Right to freedom of opinion and expression", the Special Rapporteur is invited "to pay particular attention ... to the situation of persons ... discriminated against for having exercised the right to freedom of opinion and expression" and the Commission expressed concern about the "intrinsically linked rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, and the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs as affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights". Violations of these rights have been reported to the Special Rapporteur, for example in the context of violence against demonstrators, journalists and writers, trade unionists and members of religious or other groups and associations;

(b) In resolution 1992/31, 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". Within the framework of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, this concerns particularly the independence of judges and lawyers, the right to a fair trial, human rights and states of emergency, and the question of impunity of perpetrators of violations of human rights;

(c) In resolution 1992/37, entitled "World Conference on Human Rights", the Commission encourages "... special and thematic rapporteurs ... to contribute as observers by taking part as appropriate, in the work of the Preparatory Committee and the World Conference". The Special Rapporteur participated in the African regional preparatory meeting for the World Conference;

(d) In resolution 1992/39, entitled "Strengthening of United Nations action in the field of human rights through the promotion of international cooperation, and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity", the Commission "requests all human rights bodies within the United Nations system, as well as special rapporteurs", to carry out their responsibilities guided by the principles of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity;

(e) In resolution 1992/41, entitled "Human rights and thematic procedures", the Commission recommends that Governments which have invited any of the thematic special rapporteurs to visit their countries should consider follow-up visits". Governments are also encouraged "to respond expeditiously to requests for information ... so that the thematic special rapporteurs concerned ... may carry out their mandates effectively". Governments encountering problems in the field of human rights are further encouraged "to cooperate more closely with the Commission through the pertinent thematic procedures, in particular by inviting a thematic special rapporteur ... to visit their countries". In addition, this resolution requests special rapporteurs to take follow-up action;

(f) In resolution 1992/42, entitled "Consequences on the enjoyment of human rights of acts of violence committed by armed groups that spread terror among the population and by drug traffickers", the Special Rapporteur is requested "to continue paying particular attention to the adverse effect on the enjoyment of human rights of acts of violence" committed by such groups;

(g) In resolution 1992/57, entitled "civil defence forces" the Special Rapporteur is requested "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 1992/59, entitled "Cooperation with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies", Governments are urged "to refrain from all acts of intimidation or reprisal against" those cooperating with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies availing themselves of human rights protection procedures established under United Nations auspices or providing legal assistance for this purpose, as well as those who submit communications under procedures established by human rights instruments and relatives of victims of human rights violations.

10. 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 specific country situations. They will also be addressed in the conclusions and recommendations contained in chapter V of the present report.

11. During the 10 years of the existence of the mandate, a certain number of procedures have been established. Their nature is determined by the specific requirements defined by the nature of the human rights violations encompassed by the mandate as well as practical considerations such as the availability of resources and time constraints. Thus, the Special Rapporteur has in the past sent different types of communications to Governments. He has also carried out field missions. In the future, this will be continued and, where possible, contacts with all those involved in the functioning of the mandate will be extended.

12. The Special Rapporteur receives a large number of communications providing him with information about violations of the right to life. The main source of these communications is non-governmental organizations, but they also come from individuals, intergovernmental organizations, other United Nations procedures concerned with the protection of human rights, and sometimes also Governments. The Special Rapporteur analyses this information, which constitutes a fundamental element for the working of his mandate and lies at the basis of his activities.

13. The communications received from Governments containing information in reply to urgent appeals and other letters sent to them by the Special Rapporteur will be referred to below (see below, paras. 29 et seq.).

14. Concerning the reports and allegations received by the Special Rapporteur, there are two principal difficulties he is continuously confronted with. First, he is only mandated to act upon information about human rights violations which "comes before him" (Commission on Human Rights resolution 1992/72, para. 9). More than once, the Special Rapporteur has found himself in a situation where there were serious grounds to believe that extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions were being committed in certain countries, sometimes even on a large scale and, on occasion, covered by extensive reports in the media, concerning which he had not received any allegations. Since he does not act exclusively on the basis of media reports, with regard to some situations his report may appear incomplete.

15. It should be borne in mind, however, that the present report of the Special Rapporteur does not pretend to provide the international community with a comprehensive picture of all instances of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in the world. Rather, it gives an account of how the Special Rapporteur discharged the mandate entrusted to him by the Commission on Human Rights, within the means and possibilities at his disposal.

16. Secondly, it is sometimes very difficult for the Special Rapporteur to decide whether an allegation is credible, or whether it is politically or otherwise motivated. The Special Rapporteur and his supporting staff are not in a condition to verify all allegations received. In virtue of his human rights activities in the past, the Special Rapporteur has ample personal knowledge of non-governmental organizations. Many of them have been cooperating with different United Nations human rights procedures for years. In such cases, this experience has allowed the Special Rapporteur to form an opinion of the credibility of those sources. Allegations are also received from non-governmental organization that are less well known and sometimes from entirely new sources.

17. Nevertheless, when the Special Rapporteur has not had sufficient experience with a non-governmental organization to be able to judge the credibility of the information coming from the organization, greater care is exercised in evaluating the apparent credibility of each allegation received. The main criterion used is the tenor of the allegation itself: the more information it contains concerning the particulars of the purported victim or victims (full name, age, place of residence or origin, profession, marital status etc.) and the precise circumstances of the incident (date, place, description of how the event occurred, etc.), the more likely it is that the allegation will be considered credible and forwarded to the State concerned. In some cases, where doubts persist, the Special Rapporteur may seek corroboration from another source, in particular non-governmental organizations of undisputed credibility. In principle, though, the Special Rapporteur transmits all allegations he receives unless he has serious grounds to believe that the information provided is not credible.

18. Information received from States in their replies to allegations which have been forwarded to them is also taken into account in evaluating the credibility of the source. Information that simply clarifies facts reported by a non-governmental organization or sheds new light on them does not, of course, 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. However, replies which clearly establish that allegations submitted to the Special Rapporteur were unfounded or substantially distorted may oblige him to revise his appreciation of the credibility of the source.

19. Problems arise where no replies are received from Governments, sometimes for years. Should the Special Rapporteur in such cases consider the allegations to be substantiated until he receives proof to the contrary? Should he seek to meet with the representatives of the countries concerned to find out the reasons for their silence? Or should he envisage other measures, and if so, which? In certain situations, the only possibility for the Special Rapporteur to form an opinion on the circumstances prevailing in a given country is to conduct an on-site visit. Consequently, he will seek to do so in cases where there are important discrepancies between information received from different sources.

20. Another question which was raised by a Government in its reply to allegations submitted by the Special Rapporteur concerned the "value which the Special Rapporteur attributes to domestic national legislation and legal remedies available on the national level in the determination, processing and investigation of the truth or falsehood of allegations of summary and arbitrary executions", and whether or not the requirement of exhaustion of such remedies is applicable.

21. National law and procedures may be relevant to cases of alleged extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in different ways, depending on the nature of the execution. In so far as the death penalty is concerned, the relevant national law includes the substantive law indicating the crimes for which the death sentence is applicable; the law concerning age and other factors which preclude the imposition or application of the death penalty; the law concerning the discretion of the sentencing authority, and the kinds of information which may be taken into account; post-sentencing procedures; the law specifying how the sentence is to be carried out, as well as legislation concerning the due process procedural rights of the defendant during trial and appeal. Where extrajudicial executions are concerned, different laws and procedures come into play. Relevant law includes the law and regulations concerning justifiable homicide and the use of force by law enforcement officials; the administrative and judicial procedures for investigating such deaths, and the right of the family of the deceased to be informed of the cause and circumstances of the death, and to receive compensation for wrongful death. Given the different types of legislation, including regulations, and procedures which may be relevant, it is difficult to generalize as to the value attributed by the Special Rapporteur to national laws and remedies in the carrying out of the mandate.

22. The Special Rapporteur is guided primarily by international standards. The main substantive legal framework, as indicated by the Commission on Human Rights most recently in its resolution 1992/72 and the General Assembly in its resolution 45/162 of 18 December 1990, are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 6, 14 and 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These standards, which are applicable to all countries, are interpreted in the light of a number of other United Nations instruments, enumerated in the sixth preambular paragraph of Commission on Human Rights resolution 1992/72 (see also below chapter II). In most cases, it is the Special Rapporteur's primary concern to establish whether the State has complied with its obligation under international law to prevent violations of the right to life, or, where extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions have already occurred, to investigate the cause and circumstances of the death, identify the perpetrators and impose appropriate sanctions.

23. This leads to the question of whether or not the exhaustion of domestic remedies should be required. In so far as the death penalty is concerned, exhaustion of domestic remedies would mean waiting until the highest court of appeal has announced its decision, or until all possibilities for requesting commutation of sentence and pardon have been exhausted. However, loss of life is irreparable. If the Special Rapporteur considers that there is reason to believe that the application of the death penalty in a given case might violate applicable international standards, it would be unconscionable to wait until domestic proceedings have reached a stage at which execution is unavoidable in order to convey his concern to the national authorities.

24. With regard to extrajudicial executions, the Special Rapporteur is of the opinion that considerations which apply to other international procedures for examining human rights violations do not necessarily apply to violations of the right to life. The public interest in protecting the right to life prevails over private interests. The duty of the State to investigate any extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution that has occurred, to identify those responsible and to impose appropriate sanctions is of the highest order and is independent of any right of action, whether penal or civil, of the aggrieved parties. Failure of the dependants or legal representatives of the deceased to take legal action against those allegedly responsible in no way absolves the State of its responsibility to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute. It would therefore be inappropriate to impose exhaustion of remedies as a prerequisite for bringing a case to the attention of the Special Rapporteur.

25. In cases of consummated extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the main concern of the Special Rapporteur, as indicated above, is to evaluate how the State fulfils its duty to investigate, identify and sanction. In general, it would be inappropriate to reach any firm conclusions on the merits of an allegation until the investigations undertaken by national authorities are concluded. An exception might be made when investigations or prosecution are unduly prolonged, or when there is convincing evidence that they are not being pursued in good faith. However, this does not necessarily mean that the Special Rapporteur should on principle refuse to begin consideration of an allegation until domestic proceedings are final. In the experience of the Special Rapporteur, criminal investigations and trials often last years. Precluding consideration of allegations until such proceedings are completed would, in practice, mean that the information contained in his reports would not reflect current trends and situations. Moreover, a policy of refraining from any consideration of a case until proceedings are complete would prevent the Special Rapporteur from having a timely and constructive impact on the efforts made by national authorities to redress cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Consequently, imposition of the exhaustion of the internal remedies requirement would be incompatible with the request that the Special Rapporteur "respond effectively to information which comes before him, in particular when an extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution is ... threatened" (Commission on Human Rights resolution 1992/72, para. 9) or "when such an execution has recently occurred" (General Assembly resolution 45/162, para. 7).

26. The main types of communications sent by the Special Rapporteur have traditionally been "urgent appeals" in cases of an imminent extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution of death threats, and letters transmitting allegations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions of a less urgent character. In both cases, the Special Rapporteur has to rely exclusively on allegations he receives, mainly from non-governmental organizations but also from individuals, intergovernmental organizations and Governments.

27. Pursuant to a special request made by the Commission on Human Rights in resolution 1992/59, entitled "Cooperation with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies", the Special Rapporteur has also intervened through urgent appeals in cases where he had received allegations of acts of intimidation or reprisal in violation of the right to life against those cooperating with United Nations human rights procedures and their legal advisors and against relatives of victims of human rights violations.

28. A third type of communication which should become increasingly important in the future consists of letters following up on earlier communications. In its resolution 1992/72, the Commission on Human Rights 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 ..." (para. 14). The following up of communications will be an important element of the Special Rapporteur's work in the future. It is hoped that the Governments concerned will support him in this matter by providing him with updated information on cases under investigation.

29. Communications from Governments providing information on allegations transmitted and other issues related with the phenomenon of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions are essential to the work of the Special Rapporteur.

30. In the past, a number of replies have been received which could not be considered as complete, since they did not "clarify" the allegations transmitted to the Governments concerned. Different types of such replies can be distinguished:

(a) In some instances, replies are general in character and do not refer to the particular cases transmitted;

(b) Sometimes, Governments address special issues related with the mandate without going into detail with regard to the cases;

31. This kind of information is most welcome and helpful for the Special Rapporteur to form an opinion on the situation in a given country. However, it may also be useful to consider what details would allow the Special Rapporteur to consider a case as "clarified". This varies according to the type of allegations transmitted. The following are some examples of steps and measures taken by the competent authorities that would be considered appropriate if the allegations prove to be well founded:

(a) Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions: an independent investigation has been carried out; the authors of the execution have been identified and brought to justice; measures have been taken to ensure effective protection from extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in the future;

(b) Death threats and fear of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions: an independent investigation has been carried out; the authors of the threats have been identified and brought to justice and the persons whose lives are in danger are granted effective protection;

(c) Execution of death sentences in breach of international standards relating to the death penalty: irregularities in trial procedures have been redressed effectively; the right to appeal and to seek pardon or commutation of sentence has been ensured; the execution of the death penalty in the case of a minor, mentally deficient person, pregnant woman or young mother has not taken place;

(d) Deaths in custody due to the use of force, torture or neglect: an independent investigation has been carried out; those responsible have been identified and brought to justice; measures have been adopted to ensure adequate conditions of detention and prevent such incidents from happening again;

(e) Deaths due to abuse of force by law enforcement personnel: an independent investigation has been carried out; those responsible have been identified and brought to justice; measures have been undertaken to effectively prevent such incidents from happening in the future;

(f) Fear of execution after extradition or refoulement: the persons in danger of execution in the receiving State have not been expatriated; measures have been taken to effectively protect them from extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution upon their arrival in the receiving country.

32. By its resolution 1992/41, the Commission on Human Rights "encourages 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" (para. 2). The Special Rapporteur is aware that in some cases it takes time to examine the allegations transmitted, particularly since they have to be sent to the competent authorities in the countries concerned. However, it would be very much appreciated if in exceptional cases, where there are particular difficulties in forwarding the information requested, Governments could, in a spirit of cooperation, provide the Special Rapporteur with the reasons justifying the delay, as has been done by some countries in the past.

33. In this context, it should be noted that dates indicated in communications by the Special Rapporteur as time-limits for submitting information have no other reason than the constraints set by technical considerations in connection with the time required to process reports so that they may be made available to the Commission on Human Rights.

34. In coming years, the Special Rapporteur will endeavour to send allegations not only once but three or four times a year, in order to allow Governments more time to investigate the cases transmitted and to send their replies.

35. By resolution 1992/41, the Commission on Human Rights also "encourages Governments encountering problems in the field of human rights to cooperate more closely with the Commission through the pertinent thematic procedures, in particular by inviting a thematic special rapporteur ... to visit their countries".

36. It has been repeatedly stated that on-site visits are the only means by which the Special Rapporteur can make himself familiar with the situation in a given country and report to the Commission on Human Rights on all its aspects. The lack of reaction, or the negative reaction, to his endeavours to obtain an invitation from a Government to carry out an on-site mission experienced by the Special Rapporteur on some occasions seems to be caused by differences in the perception of the purpose of such a visit.

37. The Special Rapporteur would like to emphasize that to visit a country does not mean to "accuse" the Government concerned beforehand of human rights violations. Visits aim at understanding a situation and its problems, taking into account all the circumstances that contribute to them. The recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur following a visit should help the Government concerned to find solutions to problems that affect the right to life. This may be especially important in order to enable the Special Rapporteur to comply with the request of the Commission on Human Rights in resolution 1992/42 that special rapporteurs pay particular attention to human rights violations by armed groups. Visits can also be the only means of verifying contradictory information from different sources. The Special Rapporteur also wishes to state that visits do not have the character of a judicial inquiry; they cannot replace investigations by the competent judicial authorities. Furthermore, the existence of an independent inquiry does not impede a visit by the Special Rapporteur.

38. For an overall increase in efficiency, and with a view to benefiting from the experience gathered by any of them in their particular field of interest, the different procedures that deal with human rights issues, whether they operate under mandates established by the Commission on Human Rights or by any other decision-making body of the United Nations, should increase their cooperation and coordination.

39. During the first six months of his mandate, the Special Rapporteur was able to establish contacts with some of the other special rapporteurs, special representatives and working groups operating under mandates established by the Commission on Human Rights. Cooperation included the sharing of information, consultations and two joint missions to the former Yugoslavia. The tendency towards field missions to countries with problems in the field of human rights by two or more special rapporteurs with relevant mandates seems to be most interesting and important. It will allow them to present the Commission on Human Rights with a much more comprehensive and thorough analysis of the situation in a given country.

40. Joint visits, however, should not result in an overall reduction in the number of missions by special rapporteurs and working groups to countries encountering problems in the field of human rights. Careful coordination of such activities will therefore be needed.

41. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur wishes to cooperate and coordinate his efforts with other United Nations procedures that operate in some countries. Thus, copies of the allegations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions transmitted to the Governments of Angola, Cambodia and El Salvador were sent to the United Nations Angola Verification Mission (UNAVEM), the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) and the United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador (ONUSAL). In the future, such cooperation might also include on-site visits to ensure that legal and practical steps are put into practice to eliminate the phenomenon of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions which, in the past, has constituted one of the most tragic manifestations of the human rights crisis in the countries concerned.

II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK WITHIN WHICH THE MANDATE OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR IS IMPLEMENTED

42. The Special Rapporteur is mandated "to examine situations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions" (Commission on Human Rights resolution 1992/72). The acts and omissions to be taken into account by the Special Rapporteur therefore include all those which constitute a violation of the right to life as established in the international human rights instruments providing the normative framework for the implementation of the mandate.

43. The right to life finds its most general recognition in article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognizes the inherent right of every person to life, adding that this right "shall be protected by law" and that "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life". Moreover, the right to life of persons under the age of 18 and the obligation of States to guarantee the enjoyment of this right to the maximum extent possible are both specifically recognized in article 6 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

44. By article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and under several other United Nations declarations and conventions, everyone is entitled to the protection of the right to life without distinction or discrimination of any kind, and all persons shall be guaranteed equal and effective access to remedies for the violation of this right.

45. Further, article 4, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and principle 8 of 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, held at Havana, Cuba, from 27 August to 7 September 1990, provide that exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any derogation from the right to life and security of the person.

46. The general recognition of the right to life of every person in the aforementioned international instruments constitutes the basis for the work of the Special Rapporteur. A number of other treaties, resolutions, conventions and declarations adopted by competent United Nations bodies contain provisions relating to specific types of violations of the right to life. They, too, form part of the legal framework within which the Special Rapporteur operates.

47. One of the most pertinent of these instruments is the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, adopted by the Economic and Social Council in its resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989. In particular, principle 4 sets forth the obligation of Governments to guarantee effective protection through judicial or other means to individuals and groups who are in danger of extralegal, arbitrary or summary executions, including those who receive death threats.

48. An analysis of the international instruments concerning the protection of the right to life makes it possible to group the situations falling within the mandate of the Special Rapporteur according to the categories set forth below.

49. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights sets forth several important restrictions on the imposition and execution of the death penalty. Paragraph 2 provides, inter alia, that it may be imposed "only for the most serious crimes" and only "pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court". Paragraph 4 recognizes the right of persons sentenced to death to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence, and paragraph 5 prohibits the imposition of the death sentence for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age and the application of the sentence to pregnant women. Article 14, concerning the right to a fair trial, is also relevant, as is article 15, which prohibits, among other things, the retroactive imposition of heavier penalties than those applicable at the time when the offence was committed.

50. Apart from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the instrument most relevant to cases concerning the death penalty is the "Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty", adopted by the Economic and Social Council in resolution 1984/50 of 25 May 1984. This instrument provides expressly that the death penalty may only be carried out after a trial "which gives all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial, at least equal to those contained in article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights", reaffirms the standards contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerning persons under the age of 18 and pregnant women, and adds certain other restrictions, in particular in paragraph 3, which provides that the death penalty shall not be carried out on persons who have become insane.

51. The Economic and Social Council, in resolution 1989/65 of 24 May 1989 on implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, inter alia recommends that States further strengthen the protection of those charged with offences for which the death penalty exists by allowing time and facilities for the preparation of their defence, eliminating the death penalty for mentally retarded persons, providing for a mandatory appeal or review with provisions for clemency or pardon in all cases.

52. The imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by persons under the age of 18 is also prohibited by article 37 (a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and rule 17.2 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules), adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 40/33 of 29 November 1985.

53. The views of the Human Rights Committee in the case of Carlton Reid v. Jamaica, contained in its communication No. 250/1987, adopted on 20 July 1990 (A/45/40, vol. II, chap. IX, sect. J), concerning the right of persons accused of a capital offence to legal assistance and the right to appeal, have also been taken into consideration by the Special Rapporteur.

54. The Special Rapporteur receives many allegations concerning deaths in custody under different circumstances. When the death results from torture or other deliberate mistreatment, article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are relevant. In addition, the Special Rapporteur takes into account the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 3452 (XXX) of 9 December 1975, and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984.

55. If the death appears to have been due to the use of force, for example to prevent escape or control a disturbance, principles 15 and 16 of the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials and article 3 of the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 34/169 of 17 December 1979, are relevant.

56. If the death results from other causes, such as starvation or lack of medical care, the Special Rapporteur takes into account 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 and approved by the Economic and Social Council in its resolutions 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957 and 2706 (LXII) of 13 May 1977, the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 45/111 of 14 December 1990, and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988.

57. With regard to the treatment of prisoners under 18 years of age, the Special Rapporteur also takes into consideration rules 13.5 and 27.2 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules) and article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

58. Deaths due to the use of force by law enforcement officials, in response to public demonstrations or communal violence, for example, constitute an important category of cases brought before the Special Rapporteur. The main instrument taken into consideration in such cases is the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. These provide that law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duties, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means and shall use force only when it is unavoidable, for example for self-defence or the defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury. Such force must be proportional to these objectives as well as the seriousness of the crime and must minimize damage and injury. Force may only be used when less extreme means are insufficient. Also relevant is article 3 of the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, which provides that "law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty".

59. Of particular relevance in the context of demonstrations or other assemblies are principles 12 to 14 of the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials which prohibit the use of force against participants in lawful and peaceful assemblies. Force may only be used to the minimum extent necessary in the dispersal of unlawful assemblies.

60. The Special Rapporteur receives many allegations concerning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions during armed conflicts. In considering and acting on such cases, the Special Rapporteur takes into account the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto of 1977. Of particular relevance are common article 3 of the 1949 Conventions, which protects the right to life of members of the civilian population as well as combatants who are injured or have laid down their arms, and article 51 of Additional Protocol I and article 13 of Additional Protocol II concerning the protection of the civilian population against the dangers arising from military operations.

61. With regard to the situation of children and women in armed conflicts, the Special Rapporteur also takes into account articles 38, paragraphs 1 and 4, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, by which State Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the rules of international humanitarian law applicable to children in armed conflicts, and the Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 3318 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974. This resolution provides that States shall ensure that the suffering inflicted upon women and children in situations of armed conflict is restricted to the minimum and that their inalienable rights are ensured, in accordance with international law.

62. The Special Rapporteur has received some allegations concerning the imminent expulsion of refugees or asylum seekers to their country of origin, in circumstances where they would be in serious danger of execution upon their return. In responding to such allegations, the Special Rapporteur takes into account principle 5 of the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, which provides that "no one shall be involuntarily returned or extradited to a country where there are substantial grounds to believing that he or she may become a victim of extra-legal, arbitrary or summary execution in that country".

63. Where pertinent, the Special Rapporteur also takes into account article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes the right to asylum. If the persons concerned are refugees, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951 may also be relevant. Article 33 of that Convention prohibits the refoulement (or forcible return) of a refugee to a territory "where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion". The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees considers that the principle of non-refoulement forms part of customary international law.

64. On several occasions, the Special Rapporteur has received allegations that States have not taken any steps to investigate violations of the right to life and to identify and bring to justice those responsible. In such cases, the Special Rapporteur takes into consideration principles 9 to 19 of the Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions provide that a thorough, prompt and impartial investigation of all suspected cases of extrajudicial, arbitrary or summary executions must be carried out in order to determine the cause, manner and time of death and the person(s) responsible and that such findings shall be made public. Persons identified by the investigation as having participated in such executions in any territory under the State's jurisdiction shall be brought to justice. Investigative offices and procedures shall be maintained to undertake investigations, and complainants, witnesses, those conducting the investigation and their families shall be protected from violence or any other form of intimidation.

65. As regards deaths as a result of excessive use of force, the Special Rapporteur also takes into account the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. Principle 7 provides that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is to be punished as a criminal offence under national law.

66. In May 1991, the Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch of the United Nations Centre for Social Development and Humanitarian Affairs published a document of major importance for guaranteeing the right to life. Entitled Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (ST/CSDHA/12), it lays down procedures for conducting investigations into extra-legal executions or killings. The Special Rapporteur urges all Governments to incorporate these procedures into national legislation and practice, as well as in training programmes for law enforcement officials.

67. Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, approved by the General Assembly in its resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948 and in force since 12 January 1951, lists a number of acts of genocide, including killing members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group with intent to destroy this group, as a whole or in part. Genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide and complicity in genocide are punishable under article III of the Convention.

68. The Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, recommended for adoption by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders and adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 40/34 of 29 November 1985, is also relevant to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. In particular, principle 11 provides that "where public officials or other agents acting in an official or quasi-official capacity have violated national criminal laws, the victims should receive restitution from the State whose officials or agents were responsible for the harm inflicted". It should be noted that the term "victim" includes "the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim" (principle 2). Also relevant are principles 18 and 19, concerning abuse of power, and principle 6, concerning the participation of victims in legal proceedings to obtain redress for the injury suffered. Thus far, the number of cases in which the Special Rapporteur has received information concerning compensation for the families of victims of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions is very small.

69. Since assuming his functions, the Special Rapporteur has carried out a number of different activities, including those referred to below.

70. The Special Rapporteur visited Geneva from 16 to 20 June 1992, from 17 to 21 August 1992 and from 23 to 30 November 1992. During those periods, he held consultations with the Secretariat and with other special rapporteurs of the Commission on Human Rights. He also met with a number of government representatives and consulted with representatives of non-governmental organizations. During his visit in November 1992, he held meetings with representatives of regional groups represented in United Nations bodies.

71. In addition, from 2 to 6 November 1992, the Special Rapporteur participated in the Regional Meeting for Africa held in the context of the preparations for the World Conference on Human Rights.

72. 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, and some consisted of allegations of violations of the right to life in particular cases.

73. The Special Rapporteur has responded to the information that has come before him by sending urgent appeals to the Governments concerned 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. In each urgent appeal, the Special Rapporteur recalled to the Government concerned the norms and principles guaranteeing the right to life of every person, as provided for in international human rights instruments. The Special Rapporteur requested the competent authorities to carry out a full, independent and impartial investigation in order to determine the cause and circumstances of the case and to identify and bring to justice those responsible. The Special Rapporteur also asked to be provided with information on such proceedings, the decisions taken as a result thereof and any measures adopted, as a consequence, to ensure respect for, and effectively protect, the right to life in the future.

74. In so far as the urgent appeal concerned the imminent execution of death sentences, the Special Rapporteur also recalled to the Government concerned the internationally recognized restrictions on the application of capital punishment and urged the authorities to ensure that those facing the death penalty were able to benefit from all the guarantees provided for in the pertinent international standards, in particular with regard to fair trial procedures, the right to adequate defence and the right to appeal and to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence.

75. The Special Rapporteur also sent a number of urgent appeals in cases of alleged abuse of force by members of security forces against participants in demonstrations and manifestations. In these cases, the Special Rapporteur drew the attention of the Governments concerned to the restrictions on the use of force and firearms contained in the pertinent international instruments, requesting them to inform him about all steps and measures taken to ensure that these norms and principles would be respected so as to prevent the recurrence of such incidents in the future.

76. Where pertinent, the Special Rapporteur also referred to the international instruments prohibiting the use of torture and any other form of cruel or inhuman treatment and appealed to the authorities to ensure adequate conditions of detention, in particular with regard to medical attention, so as to protect the right to life and physical integrity of detainees.

77. The Special Rapporteur has sent 143 urgent appeals, concerning the alleged violation of the right to life of more than 1,500 persons, to the following countries: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Israel, Malawi, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, Togo, Turkey, Ukraine, United States of America, Venezuela, Yemen and Zaire. The present report reflects all the urgent appeals sent by the Special Rapporteur until 11 December 1992.

78. In addition, the Special Rapporteur transmitted information of a less urgent character, concerning the alleged extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution of more than 1,900 persons, to the following countries: Angola, Bangladesh, Brazil, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, China, Colombia, Cuba, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mexico, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, United States of America and Venezuela.

79. The Special Rapporteur requested cooperation by the Governments concerned in clarifying the substance of the allegations transmitted. Where applicable, Governments were asked to provide, in particular, the following information:

(b) Any other factual circumstances that should be taken into account in assessing the implications of the allegations;

(c) The cause of death as indicated in the death certificate, and the results of the autopsy, if any, together with the identity of the responsible person or agency;

(d) The court, agency or other competent body which had been, or was, responsible for investigation of the allegations and/or the prosecution of those responsible;

(e) The identity of the person or persons, group or unit responsible for the killing, if known, as well as the identity of any military, police, paramilitary, civil defence or similar body, or armed group not under government control, to which those responsible belonged;

(f) The decision on a complaint, the grounds for the decision and any disciplinary or criminal sanctions imposed, and information as to whether or not the measure(s) imposed were final;

(i) In the event that the investigation had not been completed, the responsible parties had not been identified, prosecuted or punished, or compensation had not been paid, the reasons why such was the case;

(j) Any other information or observations which the Government concerned deemed pertinent.

80. These cases were sent to the Governments concerned between 31 August and 18 September 1992. Allegations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions which were received by the Special Rapporteur at a later date and which did not warrant an urgent intervention will be considered in his report to the Commission on Human Rights at its fiftieth session. They will be transmitted to the Governments concerned early in 1993.

81. Pursuant to the request for follow-up made to the Special Rapporteur by the Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 1992/72, a series of letters were sent to Governments in October 1992 concerning cases which had been transmitted to them in 1991. These letters referred to cases in which no reply at all had been received from the Governments and to allegations for which the replies provided could not be considered as final. This applied, in particular, where Governments informed the Special Rapporteur that investigations had been initiated but were still under way. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the fact that efforts were made to carry out inquiries into the allegations transmitted and to identify and bring to justice those responsible for extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. However, without knowing the final decisions taken as the result of such proceedings, it is very difficult for him to evaluate these endeavours.

82. The following countries had not replied at all to the cases transmitted in 1991: Albania, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, Grenada, Israel, Jamaica, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Paraguay, South Africa, Suriname, Togo, United Republic of Tanzania, United States of America, Yemen and Zaire.

83. The following countries had provided replies to some of the cases: Argentina, El Salvador, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Jordan, Kuwait, Nicaragua and Philippines.

84. The following countries had provided replies to some or all of the cases, informing the Special Rapporteur that investigations were still under way: Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Morocco, Myanmar, Peru, Rwanda, Sudan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey and Venezuela.

85. The Governments of China, Cuba and Pakistan had supplied the Special Rapporteur with replies that dealt in some detail with the legislation and practice concerning capital punishment in those countries.

86. The Governments concerned were invited to provide the Special Rapporteur with updated information on the cases in question. Given the late date of the transmittal to the Governments of these letters, a full assessment of the replies received will be included in the Special Rapporteur's report to the Commission on Human Rights at its fiftieth session.

87. A more detailed account of the follow-up action taken by the Special Rapporteur is included in chapter IV, within the description of the specific country situations.

88. During the first six months of his mandate, the Special Rapporteur twice accompanied the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the former Yugoslavia on field missions to Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Yugoslavia, from 21 to 26 August 1992 and from 14 to 22 October 1992. An account of these visits is contained in chapter V.

89. The Special Rapporteur has received an invitation from the Government of Peru to visit that country. After consultations with representatives of the Peruvian Government, this visit has been scheduled for May/June 1993.

90. The Government of Turkey has, in principle, agreed to a visit by the Special Rapporteur, to be carried out in the future at a date yet to be fixed. The Government of Bangladesh, on the other hand, in response to an initiative by the Special Rapporteur to seek an invitation for an on-site visit to that country, has stated that this would not be considered appropriate (see below para. 116). The Special Rapporteur has also solicited invitations to carry out an on-site mission to China.

91. The Special Rapporteur will continue to seek cooperation with all Governments and hopes to be able to carry out field missions in the future.

92. 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. Where applicable, follow-up action taken by the Special Rapporteur is also mentioned.

93. 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 at the end of the respective paragraphs. The communications described as "other allegations" were sent between 31 August 1992 and 18 September 1992. 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 fiftieth session. Follow-up letters were sent to the Governments concerned in October 1992 (see above, para. 81).

94. All communications received from Governments before 11 December 1992 were taken into consideration in the preparation of the present report. Replies and other information that have reached the Special Rapporteur at a later date will be included in his report to the Commission on Human Rights at its fiftieth session.

95. The Special Rapporteur has received reports about public executions of death sentences in the Islamic State of Afghanistan following the change of Government in April 1992. Islamic courts were set up in May and all laws not in conformity with their interpretation of Islamic injunctions declared void. As a consequence, it was reported, the death penalty could now be imposed for crimes that were not sanctioned with capital punishment before. It was also alleged that those convicted and executed were not given the possibility to appeal to a higher court or to seek pardon.

96. The Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the Government of the Islamic State of Afghanistan, after he had received reports that Sayed Sakander, Mohammad Gul and Mohammad Rafit had been publicly hanged in Kabul on 7 September 1992. They had reportedly been convicted and sentenced to death for looting, robbery and murder by an Islamic court in Kabul. According to the source, they had been tried in camera, and they had had no right to appeal against their sentence to a higher court. On 7 June 1992, four members of the militia had also been hanged publicly after having been sentenced to death by an Islamic court. A government spokesman reportedly announced more executions to follow as similar cases were pending before Islamic courts (21 September 1992).

97. At the time of the preparation of the present report, no communications had been received from the Government of Afghanistan.

98. The Special Rapporteur sent a letter to the Government of Albania following up on allegations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions transmitted to that country in 1991, for which no replies had been received (see E/CN.4/1992/30, paras. 38-41).

99. The Special Rapporteur has received reports according to which human rights violations, including extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, continue to occur in Angola despite the cease-fire agreed in May 1991 between the Government of Angola and the Uniao Nacional para a Independ�ncia Total de Angola (UNITA). A recrudescence of violence in Angola was reported in October and November 1992.

100. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government of Angola the case of Francisco Dos Santos Queiros, who reportedly died on 28 May 1992 as a result of injuries suffered during interrogation at the 10th Squadron police station in Bairo Cazanga, Luanda, where he had allegedly been subjected to severe beating (18 September 1992). A copy of these allegations was sent to the United Nations Angola Verification Mission (UNAVEM) in Angola.

101. At the time of the preparation of the present report, no communications have been received from the Government of Angola.

102. The Special Rapporteur sent a letter to the Government of Argentina following up on allegations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions transmitted to that country in 1991 (see E/CN.4/1992/30, paras. 48-53). The Government of Argentina had replied on some of these cases. With regard to the remaining allegations, for which no replies had been received, the Special Rapporteur requested to be provided with information.

103. The Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the Government of Azerbaijan after receiving information according to which Grachik Petrosyan, Gagik Arutyunyan, Arno Mkrtchyan, Arvid Mangasaryan and Garnik Arustamyan had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death by the Supreme Court of Azerbaijan on 19 March 1992. Having been tried by the Supreme Court, they were allegedly deprived of the right to appeal (4 August 1992).

104. At the time of the preparation of the present report, no communications had been received from the Government of Azerbaijan.

105. The Special Rapporteur has received a number of reports concerning the occurrence of human rights violations, including extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, a remote area under military control in south-east Bangladesh, traditionally inhabited by tribal people known as Jumma.

106. Since the mid-1970s, the Shanti Bahini, the armed wing of the tribal political organization Jana Shanghati Samiti (People's Solidarity Association) aiming at regional autonomy, has been operating in the area. The Shanti Bahini are said to be responsible for a large number of killings. However, it has been reported to the Special Rapporteur that many deaths of civilians - mostly tribal people - occurred in the context of the counter-insurgency policy pursued by the Government of Bangladesh. Those allegedly responsible for extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, which are often said to take place in reprisal for attacks by the Shanti Bahini, are the armed forces, civil defence groups called "village defence guards" and paramilitary forces linked to the Government, such as the Bangladesh Rifles or the "Ansar" guards.

107. Sometimes killings are reportedly carried out by Bengali settlers who were brought to the Chittagong Hill Tracts under a settlement strategy that was described as a part of the Government's counter-insurgency policy. These settlers were said to operate with the complicity or acquiescence of the security forces.

108. It was further alleged that, in most cases, human rights abuses are not investigated. In part, this is said to be due to the lack of civil administration and the restriction of movement in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.

109. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur has received reports about deaths in police and military custody, allegedly caused by torture.

110. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government of Bangladesh allegations according to which at least 280 people had died as victims of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. In 77 cases, the victims were said to be minors. By sending two urgent appeals, the Special Rapporteur intervened on behalf of more than 203 people. The remaining 77 cases were transmitted in a separate letter. Three communications were received from the Government on the situation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, and, more specifically, the allegations transmitted in the second urgent appeal.

111. The Special Rapporteur intervened after receiving information according to which a group of 15 tribal people had been arrested by members of the armed forces on 14 January 1992 during the campaign for local elections in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. They were reportedly taken to Baraitali army camp, where 11 persons were said to have been released. Allegedly, one of those arrested, Abiran Chakma, died at Baraitali army camp after having been subjected to torture. Fears were expressed for the lives of the remaining three prisoners, Kanti Charan Chakma (19), Bandi Charan Chakma (17) and Tungo Chakma (24 June 1992).

112. The Special Rapporteur sent a second urgent appeal to the Government of Bangladesh after he had received reports that at least 200 unarmed civilians of the "Logang cluster village" had been killed on 10 April 1992 by a mob composed of Bengali settlers, members of the Village Defence Party and "Ansar" guards. The killings were reportedly motivated by revenge for the murder of a Bengali youth by the Shanti Bahini. The Bangladesh Rifles reportedly also arrived at the scene and surrounded the village to prevent people from escaping. Allegedly, police and security personnel hindered an independent investigation of the incident. A list with the names of 167 victims reported to the Special Rapporteur may be consulted in the files of the Secretariat (29 July 1992).

113. In connection with this incident, the Special Rapporteur communicated to the Government of Bangladesh his wish to conduct an on-site mission to that country with a view to obtaining a full view of the situation, reporting thereon to the Commission on Human Rights and providing recommendations to help find a solution to the problem affecting the Chittagong Hill Tracts and prevent such incidents for the future.

114. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government of Bangladesh allegations concerning the extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution of 77 persons in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (31 August 1992):

(a) Shagor Basha Chakma, Buddho Chakma, Shanti Chakma and Gyan Roton Chakma were reportedly killed on 30 March 1992 when military personnel started firing at random in the tribal village of Boshontopara, Bulukhali Union, Rangamati District;

(b) Anupam Chakma (22), Borohuls Chakma (50), Mosi-U-Marma (20), Aungmrachu Marma (40), Sashi Mohan Chakma (65), Nilmni Chakma (32) and Dhaleswari Chakma (55) were reportedly killed when the tribal village of Choto Dalu was attacked on 30 May 1992 by Bengali settlers and members of the village defence guards, allegedly instigated by the military. Law-enforcement personnel reportedly observed the incident without intervening;

(c) Thirty-one persons were reportedly killed on 2 February 1992 when a bomb exploded on a motor boat which was on its way to Rangamati town. Members of the armed forces were said to have been responsible for the explosion. Thirty more tribal people were allegedly killed by Bengali settlers when they tried to swim to the shore;

(d) Three persons were reportedly killed on 18 August 1992 in Chotodarogat when policemen shot at random into a crowd of people who had gathered around a shop in which a policeman accused of attempted robbery was held;

(e) Abiran Chakma was reportedly killed on 15 January 1992 while in military custody in Baraitali army camp (see above, para. 111), allegedly after having been subjected to torture. It was further alleged that no inquiry into the case had been opened;

(f) A man named Shukchand reportedly died on 20 March 1992 while in police custody in the village of Bheramara, Kushtia District. He was said to have been arrested after an incident in which members of the Range Reserve Police Force had allegedly opened fire on a crowd of people in Beshamara. Allegedly, no judicial or disciplinary measures have been taken in relation with his death.

115. The Government of Bangladesh provided the Special Rapporteur with general information on the situation in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. Efforts made by the Government to find a peaceful and constitutional solution to the problem of full integration of the tribal population in these areas, which accounts for 0.4 per cent of the total population of Bangladesh, were said to be continuously frustrated by a small group of tribal terrorists, the Shanti Bahini. It was stated that the Government had responded with a very restrained use of force to restore law and order in the area and to secure the life and property of the members of smaller tribes and the non-tribal population. Law enforcement agencies in the hill districts of Chittagong were operating under close supervision of the civil administration (6 July 1992).

116. In a more specific communication, in reply to the Special Rapporteur's urgent appeal concerning the massacre at Logang cluster village (see above para. 112), the Government of Bangladesh stated that the killing of some people in an attack by the Santi Bahini had led to a mob reprisal on 10 April 1992. Under the Commission of Enquiry Act 1956, a one-member judicial commission consisting of Justice Sultan Hussain Khan was instituted to investigate the incident and determine the responsibilities. The Logang incident being an act of civil violence, and given the fact that a judicial inquiry was in process, the Government expressed its view that a visit by the Special Rapporteur would not be appropriate (9 September 1992).

117. In November 1992, the Government of Bangladesh informed the Special Rapporteur that the Enquiry Commission had submitted its report, which had been made public by the Government. The Enquiry Commission had, inter alia, clearly established that "not a single case of extrajudicial execution ... or extralegal detention had been brought to the notice of the Commission". It also stated that the number of deaths of tribal people had been "inflated and magnified in a section of international press"; they did "not exceed more than 12 tribals and the number of huts burnt were admittedly about 500". The Commission also established responsibility for the incident and recommended that the case should be thoroughly investigated by competent police officers of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID). The Government declared itself fully satisfied with the findings and recommendations of the Commission and reiterated that no useful purpose would be served by any further investigation (24 November 1992).

118. Pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1992/42, the Government of Bangladesh supplied information about acts of violence, including killings of tribal people and bomb attacks against villages, committed by tribal terrorists in the hill districts of Bardarban, Khagrachari and Rangamati between 12 December 1991 and 26 February 1992. The Government of Bangladesh also provided details about a total of 785 incidents of Shanti Bahini violence in the Chittagong Hill Tracts from 1976 to 1991.

119. In reply to the allegations transmitted by the Special Rapporteur in 1991, the Government of Bhutan had requested more detailed information so as to be in a position to conduct investigations into the alleged extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution of 185 persons (see E/CN.4/1992/30, para. 58). The Special Rapporteur requested the source of these allegations to provide him with additional details. Since the source did not supply any information, the Special Rapporteur considered that, at that stage, it was not possible to arrive at any conclusion as to the merits of the case and therefore decided not to pursue the matter further.

120 The Special Rapporteur sent a letter to the Government of Bolivia following up on allegations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions transmitted to that country in 1991, for which no replies had been received (E/CN.4/1992/30, paras. 62-63).

121. The reports and allegations received by the Special Rapporteur indicate that violence arising out of land conflicts and violence against children and adolescents continue to be, as in former years, the main causes of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in Brazil.

122. Rural violence is said to be rooted in the concentration of land ownership and income in the hands of a small number of rich and powerful landowners. This impedes the access of a larger number of people to small property and hinders modernization of the rural economy. Peasants, trade unionists and their advisers, human rights workers and other activists for agrarian reform are the main targets of human rights violations, which include death threats, assaults, abductions and killings. Often these are perpetrated by pistoleiros, gunmen hired by landowners. In some cases the involvement of members of the police was alleged. In spite of a new "Programa da Terra" (Plan for Land) announced by the Brazilian Government in January 1992, several reports indicate that little progress has been made to curb rural violence and promote land reform. In many cases it was alleged that the pistoleiros and police involved in human rights violations enjoy a high degree of impunity, as the authorities reportedly fail to investigate most of these cases and to provide effective protection to potential victims.

123. Violence against children and adolescents was described as the second major cause of death threats and extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in Brazil. According to figures published by the Federal Police, there were 4,611 recorded killings of children and adolescents between 1988 and 1990. According to the Centro da Articula�ao de Popula�oes Marginalizadas (CEAP), 442 children were killed in 1991. According to the reports received by the Special Rapporteur, street children are threatened, beaten, tortured - sometimes to death - and killed, either by police, death squads or private security agents virtually every day. Various sources report that only in very few cases are violators of the human rights of children brought to justice. The climate of impunity in which they act is said to be fostered by the absence of protection for witnesses and human rights workers, the collusion of some members of the police and the judiciary with members of death squads and long delays in judicial proceedings.

124. The Special Rapporteur communicated to the Government of Brazil allegations concerning violations of the right to life of at least 149 persons, four of them minors. Nine cases allegedly constituted violations of the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association. By sending 14 urgent appeals, the Special Rapporteur intervened on behalf of at least 144 persons. The remaining five cases were transmitted in a separate letter. The Government replied to almost all allegations, providing information concerning 137 persons (dates of communications in brackets).

125. The persons listed below had reportedly received death threats or suffered attempts against their lives by pistoleiros:

(a) Atanangildo de Deus ("Gatao"), leader of the Federation of Agricultural Workers (FETAGRI), and Expedito Pinheiro, peasant, after pressing for a thorough inquiry into the circumstances of the disappearance of two peasants, Domingos Mendes Cardoso and Joao, on 4 January 1992, in the region of Pimanteira, near Marab�, state of Par� (24 June 1992);

(b) Josefa Batista de Oliveira, her brother (first name unknown), Dimas S. Souza Neves and Leila S. Jacob Bisinoto, all four human rights workers at the Dom Maximo Biennes Diocesan Human Rights Centre in the city of C�ceres, State of Mato Grosso, on 10 and 27 April 1992 (25 June 1992);

(c) Mariano Domingos Freire, one of the leaders of the Associa�ao dos Pequenos Agricultores de Matagipe (Association of Smallholders of Matagipe), after demanding compensation for peasants who had lost their land owing to the construction of a hydroelectric dam in the region of Matagipe, on 10 April 1992 (25 June 1992);

(d) Jos� Alves de Souza, Antonio Fernandes Pereira and Isaias Mendo�a Araujo, members of the Sindicato de Trabalhadores Rurais (Rural Workers Union) of Sitio Novo in the region known as Bico do Papagaio, Tocantins. Following death threats and two attempts against the life of Mr. Alves de Souza in 1985 and 1991, they were reportedly placed under police protection, which was withdrawn later in 1991 although they had been informed by police that they should beware because they were on a death list. A third attempt on Mr. Alves de Souza's life reportedly took place on 10 April 1992 (25 June 1992);

(e) Rafael Jos� Dos Santos, Cicero da Concei�ao Dos Santos, Damiao da Concei�ao Dos Santos and Jos� Cosme da Concei�ao Dos Santos (14), all four sugar cane workers at the Usina Grande Vale, in the municipality of Neopolis, state of Sergipe, after they refused to leave their factory-owned homes before they were paid outstanding wages, on several occasions since March 1992 (17 July 1992);

(f) Jos� Galindo and Andr� Luis Costa de Pula, President and legal advisor of the association Moradores do Barrio dos Metas, on repeated occasions in July 1992, after they had initiated proceedings aiming at the prosecution of two police officers allegedly involved in an attempt against the life of Claudio Dos Santos, former president of the association (27 July 1992);

(g) Nivaldo Vieira do Nascimento, a member of the Comissao Pastoral da Terra (CPT) and the Rural Workers Union of Concei�ao do Araduaia, State of Par�, on 13 August 1992 (16 November 1992);

(h) Luiz Francisco Fartas Moura, "Didi", an activist of the Rural Workers Union of Buriti, Bico do Papagaio, Tocantins, in September 1992 (25 September 1992).

126. The following persons had reportedly received death threats in connection with violence against children and adolescents:

(a) Marilene Lima de Souza, Vera L�cia Flores, Edm�ia da Silva Eusebio, Denise Vasconcelos, Euzilar Joana da Silva Oliveira, Edn�ia Santos Cruz and Teresa Souza Costa, the mothers of some of the 11 children who had "disappeared" on 26 July 1992 from a farm in Mag�, State of Rio de Janeiro, having being abducted by a group of armed men, after denouncing the kidnapping and actively campaigning for an investigation (4 March 1992);

(b) Carlos Alberto Ivanir Dos Santos, Executive Secretary of CEAP, and human rights workers at the CEAP headquarters in Rio de Janeiro, on several occasions throughout 1992. On 13 June 1992, they were reportedly threatened with death if they did not refrain from denouncing acts of violence against street children. On 24 August 1992, Mr. Dos Santos was allegedly shot at by an officer of the Military Police who accused him of being a drug trafficker. The bullet reportedly missed him (17 July 1992);

(c) Various collaborators of non-governmental organizations working with "street children" also reportedly received anonymous death threats in September 1992. One street educator, Jorge Antonio de Oliveira Filho of the Brazilian Institute for Social Health Innovations (IBISS), died on 5 November 1992 in circumstances that suggest the implication of police. After his death further death threats against collaborators of the institute and "street children" were received daily at IBISS offices (4 December 1992).

127. The Special Rapporteur also sent an urgent appeal on behalf of Caco Barcellos, a journalist who had allegedly received death threats after publishing, on 31 August 1992, a book in which he denounced the implication of some police officers in extrajudicial executions in Sao Paulo (25 September 1992).

128. The Special Rapporteur furthermore intervened after it had been reported to him that four men had been detained in Itapevi by the Sao Paulo State Military Police on 22 April 1991. One of them, Luiz Alexandre da Silva, allegedly died as a consequence of torture by civil police at Itapevi police station. Fears had been expressed to the Special Rapporteur that the life and physical integrity of the remaining three, Reginaldo Silva, Ironaldo Batista and a minor known as "Marquinhos", were in danger (24 June 1992).

129. The Special Rapporteur also requested the Brazilian authorities to take all the necessary steps to ensure the safety of Carlos Cabral Pereira, Roberto Neto da Silva and Orlando Canuto, all three trade-union leaders, and of Sebastiao Vieira, a local councillor, after reports had been received that the police protection that had been extended to these four men after repeated death threats and attempts against their lives would be withdrawn as of 15 October 1992 (20 October 1992).

130. The Special Rapporteur sent another urgent appeal to the Government of Brazil concerning the alleged extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution by members of the Military Police of at least 111 prisoners at Pavillion 9 of the Casa da Deten�ao prison in Sao Paulo on 5 October 1992 (27 October 1992).

131. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government of Brazil information he had received about the killing of three minors (31 August 1992):

Jos� Erivan da Silva (14) and Jos� Fernandez de Almeida (15) were allegedly killed by two Military Police agents in cooperation with a landowner in Largato, State of Sergipe, on 5 May 1992. It was reported that their corpses presented marks of torture. No investigation into the case was said to have been conducted.

Flavio Silva Dias, a minor, was reportedly killed on 28 October 1991 in Sergipe after having testified in criminal proceedings against a police official in connection with the murder of four street children in November 1990. Involvement of the security forces was alleged.

The killing of Severo da Silva on 19 May 1992 in Santa Luzia, State of Maranhao, allegedly perpetrated by pistoleiros hired by the owner of the fazenda (estate) where he had worked. Allegedly, no investigation into the case was conducted.

The killing of Fausto Ribeiro da Silva Filho on 13 August 1991 in Sao Miguel Paulista, Sao Paulo. It was alleged that two men charged with the crime had been released and that no one had been brought to justice.

133. The Government of Brazil provided the Special Rapporteur with the following information.

134. Concerning the measures adopted to protect the lives of the seven mothers of the children who had disappeared from Mag� in June 1990 (see above, para. 126 (a)), police investigations had led to the accusation of five civil and military policemen, three of whom were under arrest by 1 May 1992. The case was then transmitted to the Judicial branch. The State Secretary of Rio de Janeiro's Civil Police had taken the necessary steps to ensure police protection for Mrs. Edneia Santos Cruz and Sonia Cristina Louren�o (whose name had not been reported to the Special Rapporteur), who had identified the military policemen charged with the abduction of the children. Police protection had also been extended to the other six women, although they were not expected to be witnesses in the ongoing investigation (30 March, 1 May, 2 June and 6 July 1992).

135. Caco Barcellos, Josefa Batista de Oliveira et al. Carlos Alberto Ivanir Dos Santos and Mariano Domingos Freire were also granted police protection and investigations were opened to look into the allegations of intimidation and death threats against them. In the case of Carlos Alberto Ivanir Dos Santos, the investigations were carried out by the military justice, while his protection was ensured by civil police (10 and 13 November 1992). Police protection was continued for Carlos Cabral Pereira, Roberto Neto da Silva, Orlando Canuto and Sebastiano Vieira.

136. With regard to the following cases, the Ministry of Justice had requested the Secretariats of Public Security of the states concerned to carry out investigations: Rafael Jos� dos Santos et al. and Luiz Francisco Fartas Moura (10 and 13 November 1992) and Severo da Silva (25 November 1992).

137. In the case of Jos� Alvez de Souza, the investigation into the attempts on his life had led to the inculpation of one person. A special police officer was nominated to investigate acts of violence against rural workers, clergymen and the vicar of S�tio Novo, Tocantins State. The case was transmitted to the Judicial branch on 6 May 1992. After a further attempt on the life of Jos� Alvez de Souza on 9 April 1992, a new police inquiry was opened. Aware of the close connection of violence in that region to land disputes and the agrarian structure, the National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) expropriated the San Jos� farm at S�tio Novo, where 62 peasant families will be settled, and subsidized several food, housing credit and agricultural assistance projects (13 November 1992).

138. Police investigations had led to the indictment of several persons charged with the murder of Erivan Jos� da Silva and Jos� Fernando Almeida, Flavio Silva Dias and Fausto Ribeiro da Silva Filho. All cases have been brought before the judicial branch (25 November 1992).

139. With regard to the events in Sao Paulo's Casa da Deten�ao on 2 October 1992 (see above, para. 130), the authorities, appalled by the tragic consequences of the incident and aware of their responsibility for the lives of detainees under police custody, were carrying out the required investigations. Action already taken included an extraordinary session of the Council for the Defence of Human Rights (CDDPH), which decided to establish a federal commission of inquiry, a visit to the prison by the Minister of Justice together with members of the aforementioned commission, the establishment of a State Secretariat for Penitentiary Affairs in Sao Paulo, the dismissal of several commanders, and an invitation by the State Governor to all non-governmental organizations active in the field of human rights to follow the investigations. Furthermore, the State Prosecutor publicly acknowledged the right of families of the inmates to a fair reparation, the National Council for Criminal and Penitentiary Police made sure that the detainees would testify freely in the current legal procedures and the Sao Paulo State Assembly established on 16 October 1992 a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CPI) to define responsibilities for the incident within 30 working days (11 November 1992).

140. The Special Rapporteur recognizes the effort made by the Government of Brazil to provide information in reply to a large number of the allegations transmitted. In particular, he appreciates that police protection has been granted to persons under death threats. The steps and measures taken in response to the events at Sao Paulo's Casa da Deten�ao, as well as the opening of investigations into a number of other cases, seem to indicate the Government's willingness to ensure respect for the right to live. The Special Rapporteur hopes to be provided with the results of these measures as well as information concerning the remaining cases transmitted to the Government of Brazil.

141. The Special Rapporteur sent a letter to the Government of Brazil following up on the allegations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions that had been transmitted to that country in 1991.

142. The Government of Brazil had provided replies to those allegations. In a number of cases, it had been stated that investigations were still under way. The Special Rapporteur asked the Government of Brazil to provide him with updated information, in particular about any decisions taken as a result of such proceedings and measures adopted as a consequence thereof (see E/CN.4/1992/30, paras. 64-81). In reply, the Government of Brazil stated that in the case of the alleged death threats against Antonio Rodrigues de Amorim (see E/CN.4/1992/30, para. 68) the police inquiry had been concluded and the judicial process filed after it was established that the threats had been made by a drunken man in the middle of a discussion. Another purported victim of death threats, Father Ricardo Rezende (see E/CN.4/1992/30, para 69), had declared to the press that the police protection extended to him since September 1991 had preserved his life and well-being. Decisions on the remaining cases were still pending in the courts (3 December 1992).

143. The Special Rapporteur sent a letter to the Government of Burkina Faso following up on allegations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions transmitted to that country in 1991, for which no replies had been received.

144. The Special Rapporteur has received reports concerning human rights violations, including extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, in Burundi.

145. Most human rights abuses are said to occur in the context of a violent conflict between the Hutu, who constitute the majority of the population, and the Tutsi. Although since Major Pierre Buyoya became President, in 1987, efforts towards a reconciliation of the two groups were said to have led to an improvement in the human rights situation in the country and to the institution of a Government composed of 50 per cent Tutsi and 50 per cent Hutu, the security forces, in particular the army, are still said to be dominated by the Tutsi. Allegedly, they are responsible for a large number of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions of members of the Hutu.

146. According to the information that has come before the Special Rapporteur, in many instances human rights abuses by the security forces take place in reprisal for violent attacks by the illegal Hutu People's Liberation Party (PALIPEHUTU), which was set up by Hutu exiles in the early 1980s to campaign against Tutsi domination. The Special Rapporteur also received information about the execution of the death penalty against PALIPEHUTU supporters, allegedly after trials which did not conform to the internationally recognized fair trial standards.

147. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government of Burundi allegations according to which at least 55 persons had suffered violations of their right to life. One case allegedly constituted a violation of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

148. The Special Rapporteur sent an urgent appeal to the Government of Burundi after he had received information according to which the following five people were sentenced to death in Bujumbara in two trials on 5 and 6 July 1992, in connection with the activities of PALIPEHUTU: B�noit Ndikumana, Athanase Ndereyimana, Thomas Barwihigire, Ernest Nshirmirimana and Antoine Ntirabampa, Vice-President of PALIPEHUTU. According to the source, none of those tried had legal representation or were given an adequate opportunity to defend themselves. It was alleged that statements extracted from the defendants under torture may have been used as evidence to convict them (22 July 1992).

149. The Special Rapporteur transmitted to the Government of Burundi allegations he had received according to which more than 50 persons may have lost their lives as victims of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (31 August 1992):

(a) R�novant Ndikumana, a journalist for the Burundi News Agency, was reportedly arrested by the military together with 13 other members of the Hutu ethnic group in late November 1991. He was said to have been shot dead at a military camp in Bujumbara. Reportedly, those responsible have not been brought to justice;

(b) At least 30 people were said to have been killed when soldiers opened fire, apparently without provocation, on a group of people in Citiboke on 27 November 1991. The incident was said to have been a reprisal for violent attacks by PALIPEHUTU in November 1991 which reportedly led to the death of several Tutsi;

(c) Antoine Muhitira and 13 other people reportedly "disappeared" after being arrested and taken in military custody in late November and early December 1991 in Bujumbara. Antoine Muhitira was reportedly held at Gatumba barracks. Different sources had expressed concerns that he and the other detainees may have been extrajudicially executed.