Summary Records - CERD - Bosnia and Herzegovina

Distr.

GENERAL

CERD/C/SR.1001
17 August 1993

Summary record of the 1001st meeting : Bosnia and Herzegovina. 17/08/93.

CERD/C/SR.1001. (Summary Record)

Convention Abbreviation: CERD

COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Forty-third session

PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 1001st MEETING

Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Thursday, 12 August 1993, at 10 a.m.

Chairman: Mr. VALENCIA RODRIGUEZ

CONTENTS

Consideration of reports, comments and information submitted by States parties under article 9 of the Convention (continued)

Information requested under article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention

Bosnia and Herzegovina

The meeting was called to order at 10.10 a.m.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS, COMMENTS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE CONVENTION (agenda item 4) (continued)

Information requested under article 9, paragraph 1, of the Convention

Bosnia and Herzegovina

1. The CHAIRMAN drew attention to the report submitted by the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had so far been circulated in English, French and Russian. Its very late submission had prevented it from being issued as an official document, but he assured the Committee that it would subsequently be published as an official United Nations and Committee document, together with the Spanish translation. The delegation from Bosnia and Herzegovina would be unable to be present on account of its commitments in connection with the current peace talks on the former Yugoslavia. He conveyed the representative's regrets.

2. Mr. RECHETOV expressed regret at the absence of a country representative, which would mean that many of the Committee's questions would remain unanswered.

3. Mrs. SADIQ ALI, Country Rapporteur, said that the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia had taken place since the Committee had considered that country's report in 1990. She outlined events in Bosnia and Herzegovina, particularly since the recognition of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the European Community and the United States of America and by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) and the United Nations in April and May 1992, and the ensuing rise in ethnic tension and degeneration into civil war. In the course of 1992, the area of the Republic over which the Government had effective control had declined considerably. By December 1992 Serbian forces had occupied 70 per cent of its territory, although Serbs had comprised only 31 per cent of the population before the war. In July of that year, it had been estimated that half of its Muslim population, one fifth of the Croatian population and somewhat less than one tenth of its Serbian population had been displaced. The number of refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina was said to be 1,270,000 and the number of persons displaced 1,006,000.

4. On the subject of ethnic cleansing, she said that, although all parties to the conflict had been responsible for abuses, most of the victims had been Muslims and the main perpetrators Serbian armed forces. In an effort to create the so-called "ethnically clean" Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Serbs had systematically carried out a policy of genocide. The 1992 report of the United States Department of State described the widespread, egregious ethnic abuses, the worst witnessed in 50 years. The objective of ethnic cleansing had been highlighted in the document submitted by the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Human Rights Committee in October 1992 (CCPR/C/89); statistical material submitted by the Government to the Human Rights Committee at its 1200th meeting in April 1993 further attested to crimes against humanity and international law. Violations included massacres, detention of civilians, torture and killing of prisoners under the most brutal, degrading and inhuman conditions, forced movements of populations, the use of paramilitary groups, including criminals, disappearances and sexual abuses. She described the continuing siege of Sarajevo, its dire consequences for the civilian population, the resulting increase in ethnic tension, with reported attacks against Serbs, and the now worsening humanitarian crisis in the city.

5. She referred to Security Council resolutions S/RES/757 (1992) and S/RES/771 (1992) and the Council's establishment of a commission of experts in October 1992 to investigate charges of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. The commission's interim report, based on a vast amount of documentary and video information on allegations of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and international law, had been received by the Security Council. Preliminary conclusions included evidence of a mass execution near Vukovar in the United Nations protected section of Croatia. In February 1993, the Security Council had decided to set up an international court to try persons accused of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia.

6. After referring to the dispatch to the area and subsequent role of the United Nations Protection Forces (UNPROFOR) and to the relevant Security Council resolutions, she described the Vance-Owen peace plan to divide Bosnia and Herzegovina into 10 largely autonomous cantons, with a mixed population, bound in a loose confederation, and the collapse of the plan owing to the failure of the United States of America and the European Community to agree on whether or not to take active measures to implement it, and referred to the shift by the Croats from their former alliance with the Muslims to one with the Serbs. A new partition plan, dividing the country into three ethnic groups under a loose federation, drawn up by President Slobodan Milosevic, was now being used by international mediators as a basis for negotiations. Under the plan, the Serbs would receive 60 per cent of the land, the Croats 15 per cent and the Muslims 35 per cent. The Serbs and Croats already had self-proclaimed republics within Bosnia and Herzegovina and had threatened to declare independence if the Muslims could not agree. She then went on to describe events on the ground and in the political arena, including the military alignment between Serbian and Croatian forces, United States policy and divergences with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the pledge by the European Community of troops and money for the protection of Muslim "safe areas", leading up to the current round of talks in Geneva brokered by the international mediators, Lord Owen and Thorvald Stoltenberg. She also drew attention to the thwarting of United Nations attempts to provide humanitarian assistance and to the disengagement of donors.

7. Two international fact-finding missions had been sent to Bosnia and Herzegovina, one by the CSCE and the other by the Commission on Human Rights. The Human Rights Committee had requested the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina to report on the situation. The CSCE's Thompson Report, invoking the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, had recommended that an immediate controlled release of all civilian prisoners should be sought, provided their subsequent safety was assured, that ethnic cleansing should be denounced and that forcible sales or donations of property should be declared null and void; it further recommended that a commission consisting of representatives of the warring factions should be established to supervise the release of prisoners and investigate allegations of abuses, and that the shelling of Sarajevo should cease at once. The first report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/1994/3) dealt with the situation in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina. She drew attention, in particular, to the conclusions of the Special Rapporteur in paragraphs 90 to 93 of the report regarding the deep humanitarian crisis in that region, and on the need to establish "safe areas", to guarantee the right to flight and the right to seek asylum, to reject any idea of "linkage" where human rights and humanitarian law obligations were concerned, and to condemn the forcible recruitment into military forces and the punishment of the families of those who resisted. Among its recommendations, she stressed the need for human rights concerns to be given priority in the peace process, for all detainees to be immediately released into conditions of safety, for blockades of cities and enclaves to be ended immediately and humanitarian relief corridors opened, for the "safe areas" concept to be expanded and applied to other areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina, for the right to flight and the right to seek asylum to be guaranteed, for the mandate and resources of UNPROFOR to be expanded, and for the international community to respond to appeals for finance by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Food Programme.

8. The second report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/1994/4) dealt with central Bosnia and Herzegovina, where tension between the Government and Croatian forces had erupted into open hostilities involving massive and systematic violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. The report's concluding remarks referred, inter alia, to a deliberate and systematic policy of ethnic cleansing conducted by Croatian forces in the region, the systematic violation of repeated commitments by all parties to respect human rights and international humanitarian law, the use of the peace plan to create ethnically homogeneous areas, and the creation of the precedent of impunity as a result of the lack of an effective international response to counter the policy of ethnic cleansing.

9. In its comments (CCPR/C/79/Add.4) on the report submitted by the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CCPR/C/89), the Human Rights Committee had welcomed the affirmation that the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina considered itself legally responsible for what had taken place not only in the part of its territory over which it had effective control but also in other parts of its territory. It had taken note of the measures taken to combat and prevent violations of human rights, in particular measures to ensure that the arrest and detention of persons were carried out only by the legal authorities and not by uncontrolled individuals; the demarcation of legal responsibility between the military and civilian police authorities; the replacement of commanders who had been responsible for violations; and the disbanding of groups and units which had been responsible for violations. The Committee had also taken note of the measures to protect the person and property of Serbs.

10. The Human Rights Committee had recommended that the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina should formalize its succession to the Covenant. It should also intensify its measures to prevent ethnic cleansing, to ensure that prisoners were not taken for the purpose of an eventual exchange, and that places of detention were officially notified and open to visit by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and families of detained persons. Arrangements should be made to enable persons to trace family members who had disappeared, and prompt investigations should be undertaken to bring all those responsible for violations to trial. Under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the International Court of Justice had issued in April 1993 its Order of Provisional Measures calling upon Yugoslavia immediately to take all measures within its power to prevent commission of the crime of genocide.

11. The World Conference on Human Rights had adopted a declaration, proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, containing a 12-point plan under which the Security Council could take effective peace-keeping measures in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including prevention and punishment of genocide, implementing the Vance-Owen peace plan, rolling back the invasion, lifting the arms embargo against Bosnia so that it could defend itself, and precluding any enjoyment of the fruits of the aggression. The practice of ethnic cleansing and extermination of the Muslim population of Bosnia was condemned.

12. Apparently because Bosnia and Herzegovina had no geo-strategic value, the major Powers had tended to ignore it. The only broad principles of policy shared by the European Community and the United States of America seemed to be that Bosnia and Herzegovina should remain a single State, and that the division of power between the three communities should be through mutual agreement.

13. The Committee had been slower than other treaty bodies in asserting its role in relation to the events in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, it was quite clear that there had been widespread contraventions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which were of concern to the Committee. The Committee should therefore invite Bosnia and Herzegovina to ratify the Convention and then request it to present a report.

14. The new Constitution should incorporate the relevant articles of the Convention, particularly the definition of racial discrimination as contained in article 1, since gross violations had clearly occurred. The Government might be requested to give the demographic composition of the population before and after the conflict. Attention should be drawn to all aspects of articles 2 and 3, stressing that parties should eradicate all practices of racial segregation in territories under their jurisdiction. Replies should be given in relation to articles 5 and 7, all of whose provisions had been violated. In the context of ethnic cleansing, the Penal Code must incorporate article 4 and the Civil Code should cover article 6, particularly with regard to war crimes and compensation for victims of ethnic cleansing.

15. Not only was it important to keep up pressure on the world's conscience concerning the conflict, but in view of the worsening of racism and racial discrimination in the world, the Committee should reserve time at each session to consider potentially dangerous situations, for example, Kosovo and Macedonia, under a separate agenda item. That would enable it to play an important early warning and urgent action role.

16. Mr. ABOUL-NASR regretted that a representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina was not present, but fully understood that there were other pressing commitments. The introduction by the Country Rapporteur had reminded the Committee of the essential facts and the historical background. The events in Bosnia and Herzegovina unquestionably involved issues within the competence of the Committee and relevant to the Convention. He therefore could not accept that the Committee should remain silent.

17. He wished to put forward a number of points for inclusion in the decision to be taken by the Committee and said he hoped a drafting group would be established to prepare a text covering those points and points suggested by other members of the Committee.

18. In its decision, the Committee should issue a clear call for the decisions of the international community to be respected, particularly those of the United Nations and the Security Council, since few of the more than 40 resolutions and decisions adopted by the Security Council had been respected by Serbia and Montenegro; it should strongly condemn aggression against a Member State by neighbouring States; it should insist on an end to the policy of ethnic cleansing, which was contrary to international law and a crime against humanity; it should press for the implementation of effective measures, including a cease-fire, to end the bombardment of civilians and ensure the security of the "safe areas" designated by the Security Council; it should call for measures to expedite implementation of the Security Council decision on the establishment of a war crimes tribunal to try crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia and to keep records of such crimes, reports of which were now being received by the United Nations; it should urge acceptance of the principle that acquisition of territory by force should not be recognized; it should call for the immediate return of refugees to their homes, the provision of food, medical and other assistance to victims of aggression and the immediate release of all detainees, who, in the meantime, should be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, with ICRC having access to camps; it should press for the lifting of the Security Council embargo, which affected only Bosnia and Herzegovina, the other two countries mainly concerned having continued to receive oil and other economic necessities; it should endorse the philosophy underlying the creation of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a State where all ethnic groups could live together without a division into areas based on ethnic or religious differences; it should, lastly, express its opinion that administrative divisions based on ethnic or religious differences were contrary to the Convention.

19. He hoped that some or all of those points would be included in the Committee's decision. However, he suggested that that decision should not be taken until representatives of the other two States Members directly involved had been heard.

20. Mr. GARVALOV said he had been impressed by the Country Rapporteur's analysis. The Committee had been right to request information from the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina for consideration at the current session. The case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in his view, raised the question of the effectiveness of endeavours to achieve respect for basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. As it acknowledged in its report, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a successor to the former Yugoslavia, was bound by international treaties, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

21. For the first time, the Committee faced a unique situation, where a newly established independent State, recognized by the United Nations, had become involved in a cruel civil war. There had been massive violations of human rights, with civilians killed, injured, maimed, displaced, physically and mentally abused, and where women had been raped and children exposed to the horrors of war. The political solution now being negotiated would not obliterate the scars. It was not yet known whether the solution adopted would lead to a just and lasting peace or simply accommodate vested political interests.

22. A great many questions could be asked, but there was only one answer. Discrimination on ethical or religious grounds had been rampant in Bosnia and Herzegovina for many years and had never been checked. He could not agree with the statement in the report that "in the largest part of the country and in the majority of municipalities, towns and settlements, the population was mixed and the relations between different national groups and among neighbours were on friendly terms". If that had really been true, how could the conflict have developed so quickly? How could people have been induced to kill so savagely and persistently? However, he did agree with the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina in blaming extremist nationalist Powers for causing massive human suffering and oppressing basic human rights and freedoms.

23. The international community, the United Nations and European regional organizations had reacted too late and too slowly, sometimes inefficiently and reluctantly, to stop the bloodshed. Certain States had been too quick to exploit the situation, and that had proved counter-productive. Whatever the ultimate solution, Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a State which had achieved independence by the sovereign vote of its own people and had joined the United Nations, would never be the same again.

24. The Committee should draw the lesson that if racial discrimination and ethnic conflict were not identified as such at an early stage, they could easily get out of control, leading to armed conflict and a change in human attitudes which ran counter to human rights instruments and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. A further lesson was that when ethnic hatred was compounded by religious hatred, political considerations became involved.

25. He realized that the Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina were at a disadvantage, bearing the brunt of the war. As he understood it, the Muslims were not ethnically different from the Serbs, so that the ethnic cleansing of Muslims was in reality "religious cleansing", although that did not minimize the problem. There had been many international reports on Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the United Nations had condemned Serbia for its role in the war there. The Committee should, however, recognize the fact that the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina was not in a position to implement the Convention, since it did not have control over its territory.

26. He would find it difficult to accept the partitioning of Bosnia and Herzegovina on an ethnic basis, if that was not the wish of the people themselves. He feared that such a solution, if adopted in Bosnia and Herzegovina, might be perceived to apply to other States which had difficulty in dealing with ethnic conflicts.

27. The Committee should keep the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the agenda of its next session. It must express its views clearly on that situation on the basis of all the available information, in the light of the position of the United Nations and having regard to its own early warning procedures. The Committee and other United Nations treaty bodies should use Bosnia and Herzegovina as a mirror when considering the periodic reports of States parties.

28. Mr. WOLFRUM said that the Committee must keep the subject of Bosnia and Herzegovina on its agenda, as well as that of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) as part of an in-depth study of the former Yugoslavia. The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina had a clear ethnic basis and involved many violations of the Convention. The Committee could therefore not remain silent, but must express its views and take all the action to which it was entitled. It was regrettable that the international community had not done enough to prevent the killing, but had resorted to a policy of appeasement, which, as history had shown, was not likely to contribute to international peace.

29. He endorsed the points proposed by Mr. Aboul-Nasr for inclusion in the Committee's decision. The points he himself wished to propose, although grouped differently, were similar in content. Firstly, the Committee should affirm that it deeply deplored the lack of effective measures to end violations of human rights. It should declare its rejection of the policy of the Bosnian Serbs in forcing the evacuation of the civilian population in areas of the country as part of an overall ethnic cleansing. It should also declare its opposition to acts that were crimes against humanity and reaffirm that those responsible for such acts would be held individually responsible in accordance with Security Council resolution S/RES/819(1993).

30. Acquisition of territory by the threat or use of force was both unlawful and unacceptable. The international community should be urged not to recognize any such acquisition. The Committee should emphasize the need for the civilian population to be allowed to return home. The international community should pledge help in restructuring the devastated areas and ensuring the end of ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, like Mr. Aboul-Nasr, he would like the Committee to give strong support to Bosnia and Herzegovina as a multi-ethnic State practising religious tolerance. The Committee could not accept the idea that each State should be ethnically pure, since that had echoes of Nazi ideology.

31. Before drafting a decision, the Committee should also hear the other Member States involved, Croatia and Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). A working group could then draft a text, that would enable a decision to be taken by consensus.

32. Mr. LAMPTEY said there was no doubt that the Convention was relevant to the events now taking place in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and those events should accordingly be of great concern to the Committee. However, the analysis by the Country Rapporteur had been for the most part highly political, as had been the suggestions by members of the Committee as to what action the Committee should take. He stressed that the Committee was not competent to deal with political matters: it was concerned only with violations of the rights of the people of Bosnia on the basis of race or ethnicity.

33. The train of events that had led eventually to the break up of the former Yugoslavia had been widely reported and was known to the whole world. It should have been for other bodies to help Yugoslavia find a peaceful solution to its ethnic problems, bodies such as the CSCE, the Council of Europe and the United Nations Security Council. It was not the Committee's role to make proposals about the internal ordering of Bosnia and Herzegovina: that was a political issue, which was now being discussed in another forum.

34. On the proposal for the setting up of an international tribunal to try crimes against humanity committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, he believed it was for that State itself, assisted by the international community, to set up tribunals to try persons responsible for such crimes, in so far as such persons could be identified. To attempt to set up an international tribunal would create unnecessary problems for international public order.

35. Mr. de GOUTTES said Mrs. Sadiq Ali had clearly outlined the sequence of events in Bosnia and Herzegovina which had culminated in the terrible descent to the abyss which the rest of the world had been powerless to prevent. It was true that the political aspects of the tragedy were not within the terms of reference of the Committee. However, what did indisputably come within its terms of reference were acts of racial and ethnic discrimination, ethnic cleansing, massive human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Those crimes had been detailed in numerous reports and declarations, most of which, as had been pointed out by Mr. Aboul-Nasr, had been without effect. The Council of Europe had recently proposed the setting up of an interim body for the protection of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, one half consisting of judges of the European Court of Human Rights, and the other of judges from the country itself, but because of the negotiations currently taking place the project had been postponed.

36. Mr. Aboul-Nasr's suggestion that the Committee should press for implementation of the Security Council decision on setting up an international court to try crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia since 1991 was of great significance. It would be a landmark in terms of international law, since it would be the first time that a court had been set up under chapter 7 of the Charter of the United Nations. More important, it would be a landmark in terms of equity, since it would give victims hope of seeing the perpetrators of atrocities accused and brought to trial. Many of the names of those accused of atrocities in Bosnia and Herzegovina were already known, as Mr. Lamptey was no doubt aware. Delay in acting on the Security Council decision had been due to certain problems of a formal nature, such as the designation of judges. The plan had one weakness, in that it made no provision for proceedings to be brought in absentia. That meant, first, that those to be tried would have first to be arrested, which would be very difficult in the circumstances now prevailing. Secondly, it meant that the court could not be set up and begin to function immediately, and thus victims and witnesses were deprived of the opportunity to speak out. An international court at which victims could be tried in absentia would have had the immense advantage of enabling the perpetrators of crimes to be identified and stigmatized before the eyes of the world, which would have had a powerful exemplary effect on the international community. He therefore greatly regretted that that procedure had not been adopted.

37. Until the international court could begin to function, victims were deprived of any remedy. If they appealed to a third country, as some had done, they had little chance of gaining satisfaction, since existing conventions such as the Geneva Convention and the Convention against Torture made no provision for a third State to judge crimes committed abroad by foreigners, unless the foreigner concerned was present on that State's territory.

38. He therefore believed that, despite its imperfections, the plan for an international court would provide the only possible solution for victims. The Committee, in its concluding observations, should lay special stress on the urgent need to make such a court operational as soon as possible.

39. Mr. RECHETOV said he felt that the Country Rapporteur might perhaps, in her very thoroughly researched report, have strayed somewhat from the focus on humanitarian matters proper to the Committee into issues that were the province of other United Nations bodies.

40. When, at its previous session, the Committee had considered asking for reports from the States emerging from the former Yugoslavia, he, unlike other members, had argued that the invitation should apply to all without exception and that representatives of the three States concerned should appear before the Committee together, which would provide a unique opportunity to examine all facets of the issue.

41. In the context of the report, he considered it curious that no representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina could be present to address the Committee and respond to its questions on what was a critical situation. The Committee was not meeting in an inaccessible place and there were many Bosnians to be found throughout Europe. Some members of the Committee might perhaps feel that sufficient evidence existed in the documents emanating from various United Nations bodies to ascertain the facts. He, however, considered that the Committee should determine its views itself; any decision it took should be its own and not a reflection of politicized resolutions.

42. Throughout the report, and particularly in its last paragraph, emphasis was laid on the fact that the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina had long lived together in amity without inter-ethnic conflict in the belief that that was the only possible solution. He would have liked to ask a representative of the State, having regard to demographic relations there, for an opinion on a recent report in a reputable European newspaper that the United States administration intended to ensure Bosnia and Herzegovina remained a Muslim State. Further, the picture painted in the report was at variance with the recent report by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Economic and Social Council (E/1993/50). In describing the steps leading to the formation of the former Yugoslavia, that report made plain that it was an assembly of heterogeneous States of various affiliations poised on the geographical divide between Orthodox Christianity, Roman Catholicism and Islam that had been combined into a single entity after the First World War in order to avoid the problem of establishing borders between the various ethnic groups inhabiting the same territory. After the Second World War, that new State had become a federation of six republics and two autonomous regions in an attempt to allay fears of any one group dominating the others. However, following the death of Tito and the discrediting of the single party system, the mortar holding the State together had crumbled and ethnic divergences had been exploited by politicians for their own ends, thus making the attempt to reach a compromise and ensure a peaceful dismemberment extremely difficult.

43. He too deplored the horrific events detailed in the report from Bosnia and Herzegovina, but the question before the Committee was to determine the facts and consider what contribution it could make to preventing further deterioration of the situation and ending the conflict. An as yet unpublished report by Professor Eide, Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, referring to a decision of the World Conference on Human Rights held at Vienna in June 1993, stressed that there should be no question of infringing the territorial integrity and independence of States whose Governments represented the whole people belonging to the territory concerned without distinction of any kind. He recalled that the current situation had arisen largely because, when the present State of Bosnia and Herzegovina had been set up, no account had been taken of the fact that the Serbs in its territory clearly did not support that action. In considering the current situation, it would be wise to take into account all the factors that had led to its development. Wisdom and caution were especially necessary since, as another speaker had said, the present conflict represented the most serious crisis since the Second World War and because any decisions by the international community might well have to take account of possible extensions of the conflict elsewhere, for example, to Kosovo or Montenegro. No decision should be taken by the Committee that would in any way prejudice the efforts being made to establish peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He endorsed those aspects of Mr. Aboul-Nasr's plan of action that were humanitarian and unpoliticized.

44. He agreed with Mr. de Gouttes that the Committee should endorse the establishment of an international tribunal and applauded the preparatory work by three Swedish jurists that had paved the way for the United Nations decision on the subject. However, care should be taken to ensure that no country felt excluded, since that would militate against the effectiveness of the institution. It was important that those responsible for offences against humanity should be brought to justice.

45. Although he agreed with Mr. Lamptey that those trying to build the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina should not be forced into a political straitjacket, it was surely appropriate for the Committee to indicate that, under the terms of the Convention, such a State should be secular, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural and that there should be no inbuilt predominance of any group that might incite other inhabitants to resort to the violent methods responsible for the present deplorable situation.

46. Mr. DIACONU said he shared the view that the Committee should limit itself to its area of competence, namely, to issues relating to implementation of the Convention, and not concern itself with political issues. It was true that many aspects of the present regrettable situation were political; it was the power struggle between various groups that had led to the unprecedented violations of human rights that had taken place. It was unfortunate that the leaders of the various republics had not found a way to achieve a peaceful dissolution of the former Yugoslavia. What the Committee had to press for was the prompt return of peace in such a way as to ensure respect for the provisions of the Convention by all competent authorities.

47. He agreed that the Committee should demand that those guilty of acts violating the Convention should be brought to justice. Members of all parties to the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina were guilty of such acts to some degree and the Committee should call on all parties to ensure such acts were punished.

48. The Committee should also ask that those displaced by the conflict should have their rights restored and should be allowed, as far as possible, to return to their former homes and occupations. The Committee should require that any new Constitution to be drawn up for Bosnia and Herzegovina as a result of negotiations should provide for adherence to the provisions of the Convention at all levels of whatever structure was adopted. That structure was not a matter on which the Committee was competent to pass judgement, provided that it led to peace and was accepted by the population.

49. Bosnia and Herzegovina should be placed on the agenda of the next session in order that the Committee might take stock of what had happened in the interval. However, he agreed with other speakers that its discussion should not include matters, such as the arms embargo, that were outside its sphere of competence.

50. He endorsed the view that the Committee should raise the matter of an international tribunal. Any statement made, however, should confine itself to the points of interest to the Committee, namely, that the acts of racial discrimination that had been so widespread in Bosnia and Herzegovina should be regarded as crimes by such a tribunal and judged accordingly.

51. He shared the view of other speakers that the Committee should not draft its concluding observations until the other two reports had been considered.

52. Mr. van BOVEN said that the usual practice was for the Committee to enter into dialogue with States parties to the Convention but since it was understandably not possible for a representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina to be present, the Committee was obliged to reach its own conclusions. The question was what the Committee's role was, what constructive contribution it could make to the tragic situation to which so many speakers had referred with an emotion which he shared. Many United Nations bodies, from the General Assembly downwards, were seized of the matter and had adopted many resolutions on the subject. The Committee, as a treaty monitoring body, had a separate role from those bodies and should take that fact into account. In practical terms, he thought that any statement or declaration by the Committee might most usefully be directed to Kosovo, which was being largely ignored but where the situation was potentially explosive, rather than to an area on which so many other bodies were concentrated. It was a matter of maintaining the Committee's credibility; he would willingly associate himself with any meaningful action that could be taken in that sense.

53. Three countries that were successor States to the former Yugoslavia were to be considered in turn by the Committee. Although they were legally three separate countries, the events in each were related to some degree, as the report of Mr. Mazowiecki, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, demonstrated. As Country Rapporteur for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), he would in his report be referring to such common aspects and would not repeat them at present. He agreed with other speakers, however, that the Committee should not make its recommendations until it had considered the situation in all three States. In making those recommendations, it should remain within the framework of the measures agreed in the working paper on prevention of racial discrimination it had had before it at the previous session, including early warning and urgent procedures.

54. He fully subscribed to the views of Mr. de Gouttes and Mr. Rechetov with regard to the tribunal to be established on the basis of the Security Council resolution relating to violations of humanitarian law in former Yugoslavia.

55. Mr. FERRERO COSTA said that he endorsed the broad general framework of action proposed by Mr. Aboul-Nasr and Mr. Wolfrum. He agreed that the Committee should confine its attention to matters that were not political. However, racial discrimination was at the root of the tragic situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina; the provisions of articles 3 and 5 of the Convention were, in particular, being flouted there. Since the Committee had the task of monitoring the implementation of the Convention, it had a duty to make a clear statement of principle deploring the violation of rights enshrined in the Convention. Such a statement was particularly necessary lest such violations occur elsewhere, for example, in Kosovo. In the last paragraph of its report, the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina had stated its opposition to ethnic cleansing and the partitioning of the country on ethnic lines; a statement by the Committee in that sense would thus accord with the views of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina itself.

The meeting rose at 1.10 p.m.

�1996-2001
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Geneva, Switzerland