Princess Ashraf PAHLAVI

-131-
EjCN.4jSR.1C82
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE ONE THOUSAND AND EIGHTY-SECOND MEE.TING
Held on Monday, 23 March 1970, at 3.30 p.m.
Chairman:
Princess Ashraf PAHLAVI
Iran
.,
/ ...
E/ CN . J.~/SR.I082
-132-
Qm:STION OF HUMAN BIGHTS IN THE TERRITORIES OCClJPIED AS A liT~S'JLT OF HOSTILITIES
n:r THE MIDDLE FAST, INCLUDnm THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL WOPJGNG GROUP OF EXPERTS
(COMMISSION RJ~SOLUTION 6 (xxv)) (agenda item 5) (E/CN.Lf/1016 and Add.1-5;
~/CN. 4/L .1l~2) (concluded)
Mr.
BEJASA (Philippines) expressed the c;oncern of his Government for the
civilian population which had been caught up in tde hostilities in the Middle
East.
Although he realized that the issue had c8mplex political implications, he
was disappointed that the delegations had emphasized the political aspects.
He
helped trot wisdom would prevail and an equitable settlement would be reached on
the basis of Security Council resellution 242
(1967).
The report of the Special Working Group of Experts (E/CN.4/10l6 and Add.1-5)
contained several judicious and constructive reconwendations,
The Group was to
be commended for having fuJ£illed its mission under such difficult circumstances.
It was important, in considering its report, to remember that its mandate was
limited to the investigation of allegations concerning Israel's violations of the
Geneva Convention of August 1949 reJative to the Protection of Civilian Person8
in Time of War.
Furthermore, the Group had explicitly stated that the evidence
it had uncovered was one ··sided and that it "Has not in a position to verify
juridically the allegations which it had received.
His delegation felt that it was not possible to dra"l-} any firm conclusions
01'
fact ::m the basis of the allegations he:Cl rd by the Special Horking· Group and shared
its reluctance to express an unequivocal judgement.
Pending a political
settlement of the problem, the very constructive recommendations made by the
Special "Harking Group offered the only reaJ. hape for relief of the civilian
population in the occupied territories.
Mr.~"}illAlAF (United A.rab Hepublic) said that it
that many of the delegatIons, even
th~)se
"I'I1;1,S
reassuring to note
which had expressed reservations, had
felt compassj.on for the plight of the civilian population in the Middle East.
Some delegations had said that it was necessary to separate the political aspect
from. the human rights aspect of the problem.
He hoped that would be the philosophy
of the Commission vlith regard to all the items on its agenda,
The representative of the Philippines had said that the Special Worldng Group
CQulc1 not prove the allegations it had heard because the evidence it had received
had been one ··sidecl.
He wished to stress the fact tbat neither the Commission n:lr
/. , .
-133-
(111r.
Kbala:f.---- United Arab ReQ!bJ.ic)
--'
.
-the Special Working Group was to blame for that situation.
allow the Group to visit the occupied territories.
Israel h8d refused to
It was up to Israel to enable
the Working Group to hear the other side of the story.
The representative of Israel had not been able to l"ef'ute any of the testimony
recorded by the Special
Wo!~ing
Group.
The Group had not only heard witnesses
but had seen the evidence which they had adduced and had been able to reach
definite conclusions on certain matters, such as the allegations concerning the
destruction of entire villages and the deportation of thousands of people.
!i'urthermore, the report of the Special Worldng Group "Was not the only source
of in1 ormation regarding the violation of' hUll.,JD rights in the occupied
territories.
There were other reports and testimony, inclUding the reports of
UNRWA, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Amnesty International,
the :i.mpartiality of which was beyond question.
There were also the statements of
the Israeli leaders themselves, such as General rayan and Yigal Allan, regarding
the new settlements that ","ere being established and the deportation of
300,000 refugees from the Gaza Strip.
The CHAIRIVfAN informed the Commission that Mr. Barton, Observer for the
World Federation of Trade Unions, had requested permission to address the
COl:1l11ission.
If she heard n'.J objections) she vlould grant his request.
It was so agreed.
At the Chairman! s
invitati~ lz
Mr. Barton, Obsel'ver for the World Federation
of Trade Unions, tool\: a 121ace at_ the Commission table.
Mr. BARTON (v!orld Ii'ederation of' 'rrade Unions) said that in view of the
implication which some members might r':_nd in the statement made at the previous
meeting by the observer of a non-governmental organization, he felt compelled to
emphasize that the point of viE:.w expressed did not represent the position of all
non-governmental organizations.
1'he VTorld Federation of Trade Unions had condemned the violation
of the
human rights of the population in the territories occupied by Israel.
At the
I· ..
E/CN .4/SR .1082
-134-
(Mr. Barton, WFTU)
Seventh World Trade Union Congress held in Budapest in Octoberl969 a resolution
had been adopted stating, inter alia, that in expressing the will of a very broad
section of the working class and the workers
~f
the warld, the Congress resolutelY
condemned the aggressive policy of Israel, backed by the forces of imperialism and
world Zionism, demanded that
th~
Israeli army should be immediately halted, that
the consequences of the aggression should be eliminated, and that all the troops
of occupation should be completedly and unconditionally withdrawn from the occupie
Arab territories.
The WFTU Executive Bureau, meeting in Khartoum in February, had adopted a
resolution affirming the solidarity of WFTU with the Arab peoples.
At a meeting
held on l March 1970 between delegations of WFTU and the International
Confederation of Arab Trade Unions, the two organizations had agreed to create
an international trade union committee of solidarity with the Palestinian workers
and people and to publish jointly a Wpite Book containing the reports of a
Commission of Inquiry concerning the fate of the Arab population and workers and
of the Palestinian refugees.
WFTU considered that the violations of human rights and of the Geneva
Convention by the Israeli Government in the occupied territories arose from the
nature of the aggression committed by Israel and the illegal methods used in its
attempt
to force the
populati~n
to collaborate with the occupying Power.
The report of the Special Working Group of Experts provided considerable
evidence of the violation of human rights and of the Geneva Convention in the
territories occupied by Israel and
\~TU
hoped that the Commission would adopt
the resolution submitted to it on the basis of the report.
For its part, WFTU,
was resolved to strengthen its efforts to uphold the rights of the Palestinian
and other Arab workers and peoples.
Mr. SCHREIBER (Director, Division of Human Rights) said it was difficul1
at the
present~age,
to estimate the financial implications of the draft resolutic
contained in document EjCN.4/L.ll42.
missing.
A certain number of elements were still
The Secretariat had contacted the members of the Special Working Group
with regard to its plans for carrying out its functions in the Middle East, in
addition to its functions in South Africa, but the Working Group had not yet been
j . ..
-135-
E/CN.4/sR .1002
(Mr.
Schreiber; Director;
Division of Human Rights)
able to meet and discuss appropriate arrangements.
Furthermore; certain
information which had to be obtained from Geneva had not yet reached the
Secretariat.
The Under-Secretar,y-General for Conference Services had informed him
that the Secretariat would
n~t
be in a position to provide the necessary services
for the transcription, translation and reproduction of testimony during the
session of the General Assembly.
For the time being) he could only provide a rough estimate of the costs which
would be involved if the Special Working Group should decide to carry out its
investigations in the Middle East in conjunction with its trip to southern Africa.
The cost of the trip to the Middle East would be on the order of $108,570 for 1970
and $27;580 for 1971.
for the previous year.
Those figures were based on the corresponding expenditures
The Secretariat hoped that after the members of the
Working Group had the opportunity of considering their programme of work under the
two resolutions - the one relating to African territories and the one relating to
occupied territories - it might be possible to present more specific estimates to
the Economic and Social Council when it examined the report of the Commission.
Mrs. OULD DADDAH (Mauritania) thanked the representative of the SecretaryGeneral for the information regarding the financial implications of the draft
resolution.
The sponsors wished to make it clear that operative paragraph 9
should be interpreted as expressing a decision of the Commission that the Working
Group should conduct its investigations in the occupied territories themselves.
That seemed to be the wish of most delegations.
The Working Group should hear
witnesses from both sides and report to the Commission on the situation inside
the occupied territories.
The Commission would then be in a better position to
assess the objections which had been raised by certain delegations regarding the
one-sidedness of the testimonies.
Mr. BENHIMA (Morocco) thanked the representative of the SecretarY-General
for the information he had provided.
However; it was his understanding that the
two mandates of the Working Group, regarding South
should not be confused.
Af~ica
and the Middle East)
He would prefer to have the financial implications
regarding the mission to the Middle East presented separately from those of any
other missions the members of the Working Group might undertake.
-136-
E/CN .4/SR .lo82
(M•• Benhima, Morocco)
With regard to the difficulties the Secretariat would have in providing for
the transcription, translation, and reproduction
~f
testimony, he pointed out
that if such limitations did exist, he hoped that they applied to all other
commissions and committees, and not only to the Commission on Human Rights.
Mr. SCHREIBER (Director, Division of HQman Rights) said the figures he
had given did not include the financial implications of the Working Group's
mission to South Africa.
They referred only to its mission in the Middle East.
With regard to the problem
of technical services in the Secretariat, he wished
to make i t clear that the difficulty arose during the period of the General
Assembly session.
He had mentioned it in order that the Working GroQp might plan
to have the testimony reach the Secretariat before the latter part of August.
Mr. TARASSOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) asked the
representative of the Secretary-General whether the figures he had given
represented the actual expenditures of the Working GrJup in the Middle East during
the previous year.
In any event, he woulD like to know whether the estimated
financial implicatbns of draft resolution E/CN.4/L.ll Lf2 exceeded the previous
year's figures or were at the same level.
Mr. SCHREIBER (Director, Division of Human Rights) said it vIas his
understanding that the proposed figures did not exceed the expenditure for the
prev ious year.
The
CHAI~1AN
invited the Commission to
v~te
on the draft resolution
contained in document E/CN.4/L.1l42.
[~t
the request of the Iraqi
represent~tive,
the vote was taken by roll-calL
Ghana, having been drawn by lGt by the Chairman, was called Qpon to vote first.
In favour:
India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, MaQritania, Morocco, Poland,
Turkey, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Republic,
Yug:Jslavia.
Against:
None.
/ ...
-1.37-
Abstaining:
E/CN.4/SR.I082
Ghana, Guatemala, Jamaica, Madagascar, Netherlands,
New Zealand, Philippines, United Kingdom, United States
of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Austria, Chile, Democratic.
Republic of the Congo, Finland, France-
Draft resolution E!CN.4/L,1142, as amended, was adopted by 12 votes to none,
with 16 abstentions.
Mr. DUCeI (Chile), explaining his vote, said that Chile had always
co-operated in efforts to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms throughout the world and condemned v:i.olations of human rights vTherever
they were committed.
In keeping with its position of neutrality, his delegation
had not taken part in the debate, vThich had involved political aspects of the
question.
The charges in the Working Groupls report were not conducive to the
establishment of a just peace.
He wished to see an end to the hostilities in the
Middle East.
!i0GUILAR (Venezuela) said that his abstention, which was in keeping
with his delegation's neutrality in the matter, should not be construed as an
expression of indifference
territories.
-(;0
the SUffering of the people in the occupied
Violations of mnuan rights in the region - indeed, wherever they
occurred - were inadmissIble.
He hoped that a just peace would be established in
the region.
Mr. LEGNANI (Uruguay) said that he had abstained in the vote.
Violations of human rights in the occupied territories constituted an intrinsic
element of the war and the security of the States involved was at stal\.8.
All
States must endeavour to put an end to the war.
ttr. ROFlmGA (Democratic Republic of the Conr,a) said that he had
abstained in the vote on draft resolution EjCN.4jL.ll42, just as his delegation
had abstained in the vote
011
Council resolution 6 (XXV)., because it had
considered that, in the prevailing circumstances, the Harking Group!s
investigation would not yield positive results.
His delegation agreed that it
1<1aS essential to ensure the protection of human rights in the occupied territories
and the applit....,tion of the fourth Geneva Convention to the inhabitants of the
terri+'ories, and that a definitive solution shDuld be founCi to the Middle East
situation.
I .. ·
E/cN. 4/sR ,1082
-138-
Mr. WALDRON-RAMSEY (United Republic of Tanzania) said that his
delegation had been instructed by his Government not to participate in the
debate on item 5 or in the vote on draft resolution E/CN.4/L.1142 for the same
reasons which had determined the position taken by the representative of
Senegal at the l076th meeting.
Mr. BONNICK (Jamaica), noting that his delegation had abstained in the
vote, expressed regret that emotion and politics had played such an important
role in the preparation of the draft resolution, which did not reflect the careful
wording of the Working Group's report.
Nevertheless, he agreed that the rights
of the inhabitants of the occupied territories should be protected.
Mrs. OULD DADDAH (Mauritania) expressed surprise concerning the
observations of the Tanzanian representative in view of the fact that he had
sponsored a draft resolution on apartheid in an identical situation.
She found
it difficult to accept his endorsement of the neutrality invoked by the
representative of Senegal.
However, she respected his explanation.
Mi'. M'BENGUE (Senegal) pointed out that Ambassador Boye had carefully
explained the reasons for his delegation's position at the l076th meeting.
Mr. KHALAF (United Arab Republic) said that, like the representative
of Mauritania, he had been surprised to hear the statement made in explanation of'
vote by the Tanzanian representative since it appeared that his delegation had
taken a different position in two identical situations.
~k. WALDRON-RAMSEY (United Republic of Tanzania) repeated that his
delegation had had firm instructions not to participate either in the debate on
the item under consideration or in the vote on the draft resolution.
Ol~
of
deference to his colleagues, however, he had hazarded a guess that the reasoning
vrhich had motivated the instructions given to his delegation by his Government
might be similar to that which had motivated the representative of Senegal.
The CHAIRMAN informed the Commission that Mr. Branimir Jankovic, a
member of the Working Groups of Experts established under Commission
resolutions 2 (XXIII) and 6
(XXV),
had resigned.
I· ..
-139-
E/CN.4/SR.I082
Mr. NEDBAILO (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) felt that
Mr. Jankovic's SUcceSsor should also represent a socialist State.
He hoped thai
the Commission would defer its decision on the appointment pending the outcome
of consultations among the socialist States.
Mr. KHALAF (United Arab Republic) paid tribute to Mr. Jankovic, who
had been a valuable member of the Spec ial WQrldng Group of Experts.
He agreed
that, in accordance with the usual practice, his successor should be appointed
on the basis of eQuitable geographical distribution and suggested that the
Commission should decide on that appointment before the end of the current
session.
QUESTION OF THE VIOLATION OF HUMAl'T RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, INCLUDJNG
POLICIES OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ANTI SEGREGATION AND OF APARTHEID, IN ALL
COUNTRIES, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO COLONIAL AND OTBER DEPENDENT COUNTRIES
AND TERRITORIES (agenda item 10)* (concluded)
The CHAIRMAN read out a letter from the representative of Israel on the
Ct."mmission requesting that certain documents should be circulated as documents of
the Csmmission in connexion with item 10.
She recalled the Israeli
representative's request to that effect at the l072nc1 meeting and the Sviet
representative's comments on the request at the l073rd meeting.
She invited
members l views on the question.
Mr. LESHEM (Israel) said that the docwnents in question were not
petitions, but doct®ents from a State Member of the United Nations.
Mr. TARASSOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that his
delegation was resolutely opposed to the distribution as Commission documents of
propaganda material submitted by
the delegation of Israel containing
communications from individuals.
The procedure for dealing with communications
from individuals was set forth in Economic and Social Council resolution
728 F (XXVIII) and he drew attention to operative paragraphs 2 (a) and (b).
Even Commission resolution 17 (XXV), which his delegation had opposed, aid noi
provide for the circulation of complaints from individuals as official
Commission documents.
~-
Ref:?umed from the l079th meeting.
I· ..
E/cN.4/SR.1082
-140-
(~/l:C. Tdrassov, USSR)
Israel ~ra8 pressing its request purely for political motives in an effort
to force the Commission to participate in its campaign to slander States Members
of the United Nations, to alter existing procedures and to compel the Commission
to encroach upon the competence of other bodies.
Approval of the Israeli
request would have dire consequences for the Commission's work and would set
a very dangerous precedent by inviting attempts to undermine the sovereignty of
states, contrary to Article 2 (7) of the Charter.
Any State would feel
justified in claiming to speak on behalf' of citizens of other States whose
na tioflal origin could be traced to its own territory.
The Soviet Government had
received letters Prom Soviet citizens of Jewish origin alleging violations of
human rights in Israel, but was not requesting that they should be circulated
because it respected the principles of the United Nations.
Individuals were
not subjects of international law.
Mr. IYIABMASSANI (Lebanon) said he was s... .lYprised by the request made by
the Israeli representative.
Any permanent mission to the United Nations could
arrange to have information circulated simply by sending a request to the
Secretary-General.
The General Assembly had made many appeals to the Commission
and to other United Nations organs to reduce expenditure, and circulation of
material such as that submitted by the Permanent Mission of Israel would have
financial implications.
Furthermore, if the Commission agreed to its
circulation, similar requests would be made by other permanent missions.
In the
circumstances, the request of the Permanent Mission of Israel should not be
granted.
Mr. KHALAF (United Arab Republic) agreed with the views expressed by
tte representatives of the USSR and Lebanon.
~~.
LES8EM (Israel) said that with one exception all the documents
submitted related to Israeli citizens.
He drew the Commission! s attention to
the fact that a resolution which had been adopted by the Seventh W9rld Trade
Union Congress had been circulated as an official document of the Commission at
the request of the Permanent Representative of a delegation represented in the
Commission.
The Permanent Mission of Israel was merely asking that the docuillents
it had subnutted should be treated in the same way.
j ...
E/cN. 4/SR. 1082
-141-
Mr. JUVIGlJY (Fran~e) suggested that) before the Commission took a
decision on the request by the Permanent Mission of Israel) the Secretariat should
make available to members the text of the letter read out by the Chairman.
Members should be allowed time for reflection.
Some delegations considered that
the Israeli request raised the issue of the receivability of communications
from individuals in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 75 (v)
and the procedure for dealing with such communications established under
Economic and Social Council resolution 728 F (XXVIII)) while others considered
it to be a C].uestion of the circulation of a letter from a delega.tion represented
in the Commission.
Perhaps the Secretariat could also inform the Commission
whether it knew of any precedents either in the Commission itself or in any
other- body opera.ting under the same rules of procedure.
Mr. MAHMASSANI (Lebanon) fully supported the suggestion made by the
representative of France and asked the representative of the Secretary-General
to inform the Commission of the financial implications of the circulation of
the documents in questj.on.
Mr. TARASSOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) said that before
the Commission took any decision concerning the circulation of the documents)
it would be useful to know the Secretariat l s opinion as to the legality of
circulating private complaints as official documents of the Commission in
contravention of Economic and Social Council resolution 728 F (XXVIII))
especially in view of the fact that the Commission had concluded its consideration
of the agenda item in question.
Mr. SCRREIBER (Director) Dj.vision of Human Rights) said that it was
not easy for the Secretariat to give its interpretation or rulings on such
complex matters as the circulation of various types of communications received
from Member Sta.tes for reproduction as official documents of United Nations
bodies.
He would prefer to ask a. representative of the Office of Legal Affairs
to give an opinion at a subsequent meeting.
Sir Keith UNWIN (United Kingdom) pointed out that the Commission
did not want ar interpretation; it simply wanted to know what procedure had
I· ..
ElcN .4/sR.I082
-142-
(Sir Keith Unwin, United Kingdom)
been followed in the past and what was permitted under the rules of procedure
of the Co®nission and other United Nations bodies. If any similar reQuests had
been granted by the Commission or other bodies, it would be useful to know what
type of documents had been circulated.
Mr. WALDRON-RAMSEY (United Republic of Tanzania) fully agreed with
the representative of the United Kingdom.
Earlier in the session, in connexion
with the same item, his own delegation had reQuested the circulation of the
text of a resolution adopted by the Seventh World Trade Union Congress which
had been brought to its notice by the representative of the World Federation
of Trade Unions; the text of that resolution had been circulated in document
E/CN.4/l034.
His delegation had reQuested its circulation because it made a
well-substantiated attack on the system operating in southern Africa.
Re did
not think there was any prohibition regarding the circulation of documents of
that kind.
The CHAIRMAN announced that Mr. Baroody, representative of Saudi Arabia,
had reQuested permission to address the Commission.
If there was no objection,
she would grant that reQuest.
It was so agreed.
At the Chairman's invitation, Mr. Baroody (SaUdi Arabia) took a place at
the Commission table.
Mr. BAROODY (SaUdi Arabia.) said that, in his opinion, the Office of
Legal Affairs should not be asked to become involved in the Question under
discussion.
The documents submitted by the Permanent Mission of Israel should
be dealt with in the orthodox manner; in other words, the delegation of the USSR
would receive copies of the communications and would be free to rebut them or
to disregard them if it ,chose.
No machinery had yet been established for
implementing the International Covenants of Ruman Rights and anyone in the world
was free to submit a complaint concerning violations of human rights to the
United Nations.
Re believed, however, that the Permanent Mission of Israel
wished to have circulated as official documents of the Commission communications
from Israeli citizens who were related to Russians of the Jewish faith living
I .. ·
E/CN.4/SR.1082
(Mr. BaroodYJ Saudi ArabiB)
in the Soviet Union and that those communications alleged that their relatives t
human rights "VTere being violated because they were not allowed to go to Israel.
The Commission would be establishing a dangerous precedent if it decided to
circulate such communications as official documents.
Human rights transcended
national interests and the Commission should be careful not to allow itself to
be diverted into consideration of such communications, which might not always
be bona fide.
Mr. SCHREIBER (Director, Division of Human Rights) said that the
members of the Secretariat, including a representative of the Office of Legal
Affairs, would be available to members of the
Co~nission
to answer any
~uestions
which they might wish to ask and which they might be in a position to answer.
The Secretariat felt, however, that it was not up to it to decide the
~uestion
as it was considered by the Commission in the present circumstances.
The meeting rose at 6 p.m.
/ ...