6/2 Human rights and unilateral coercive measures - Report of the Secretary-General

GE.07-13628 (E) 160807

UNITED NATIONS

A

General Assembly Distr. GENERAL

A/HRC/6/2 13 August 2007

Original: ENGLISH

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL Sixth session Item 2 of the provisional agenda

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND REPORTS OF THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Human rights and unilateral coercive measures

Report of the Secretary-General

Summary

The present report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council decision 4/103 of 30 March 2007, in which the Council decided to request the Secretary-General of the United Nations to seek the views of all States on the implications and negative effects of unilateral coercive measures on their populations. The report summarizes replies received in response to a request for information sent to Member States. Responses were received from the Governments of Colombia, Costa Rica, Lebanon, Georgia, Romania and the Syrian Arab Republic.

Introduction

1. The present report is submitted in response to Human Rights Council decision 4/103 of 30 March 2007, requesting the Secretary-General of the United Nations to seek the views and information of Member States “on the implications and negative effects of unilateral coercive measures on their populations” and to report thereon to the Council at its sixth session.

2. On 4 May 2007, the Secretary-General sent a note verbale to Member States seeking their views and information as requested in the above-mentioned decision. As at 30 July 2007, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had received responses, summarized below, from the Governments of Colombia, Costa Rica, Lebanon, Georgia, Romania and the Syrian Arab Republic. The full text of the submissions is available from the Secretariat.

Responses from Governments

Colombia

[Original: Spanish] [20 June 2007]

1. In its response, the Government reported that Colombia bases its political relations with other States on the principles of international law, notably the principles of sovereign equality of States, non-intervention in the internal affairs of other States, peaceful solution of conflicts and abstention from threats or use of force.

2. The Government indicated that the adoption of unilateral coercive measures runs contrary to the foreign policy of Colombia and that it favours cooperation as a means to promote the full realization of human rights.

Costa Rica

[Original: Spanish] [1 June 2007]

1. In its response, the Government stated that as a member State of the World Trade Organization, Costa Rica respects and complies with the principles of that organization, including the rejection of economic coercive measures imposed unilaterally on any State.

2. The Government indicated that it favours freedom of international trade and that it would only support a limitation of that freedom if it was in conformity with international law, either within the framework of the United Nations or the World Trade Organization.

Lebanon

[Original: Arabic] [22 June 2007]

1. In its response, the Government indicated that Lebanon as a Member of the United Nations is bound by all its instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

2. On the subject of human rights and unilateral coercive measures, the Government indicated that 311 persons had been subject to enforced disappearance and were being held in prison in Israel and Syria. It noted that a committee had been established to examine the files of the persons subjected to enforced disappearance and to address the issue with the Syrian authorities.

Georgia

[Original: English] [9 May 2007]

1. In its response, the Government indicated that it denounces the use of any coercive unilateral measures that contradicts fundamental principles of international law and expressed concerns with respect to a number of coercive measures which, according to the Government, have been taken against Georgia by the Russian Federation since December 2005.

2. According to the Government, these measures included: (a) the prohibition of imports of vegetative products from Georgia without any valid explanation; (b) the prohibition of trade of Georgian wine and mineral water products on the territory of the Russian Federation; (c) the closure of the only legal border check point (“Kazbegi - Zemo Larsi”) between Georgia and the Russian Federation, in violation of the Agreement of 8 October 1993 between the two countries; (d) the initiation of a complete economic blockade, including the abolition of air, automobile, naval, railway and postal communications, and a failure on the part of authorities of the Russian Federation to protect Georgian diplomatic missions against aggressive actions; (e) military manoeuvres by the Russian Federation in Georgia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the vicinity of Georgian territorial waters, in violation of the right of Georgia as a coastal State to exercise its sovereign interests and jurisdiction in its EEZ; (f) suspension of issuance of visas without any explanation; (g) collective expulsion of more than 6,000 Georgian citizens from the Russian Federation since October 2006, with the persons subject to deportation often having their procedural rights ignored or violated and being subject to inhuman and degrading treatment in detention cells.

3. The Government indicated that the Russian Federation has implemented a discriminative policy towards ethnic Georgians and Georgian nationals residing within its territory, including requiring secondary schools to report to the police the list of students who had Georgian surnames and, in some instances, requesting teachers to submit information regarding the moral behaviour of the Georgian students towards other students and teachers.

4. The Government noted that it has tried to resolve the crisis and to prevent the continuation of coercive measures by peaceful means, including by informing relevant international organizations about the acts carried out by the Russian Federation and lodging an inter-State application to the European Court of Human Rights.

Romania

[Original: English] [10 May 2007]

1. In its response, the Government indicated that Romania had not been confronted with any situation regarding the implementation of unilateral punitive measures.

Syrian Arab Republic

[Original: Arabic] [12 June 2007]

1. In its response, the Government reaffirmed the position of the Syrian Arab Republic rejecting unilateral coercive measures, particularly the Act known as the Syria Accountability Act which the Congress of the United States of America passed against Syria. The Government noted that this Act is in violation of international law and adversely affects the exercise of the human right to development.

2. The Government noted that support for the position of the Syrian Arab Republic had been voiced by the Non-Aligned Movement and the Islamic Conference, expressing deep concern at the imposition of unilateral sanctions on Syria by the United States of America and describing the so-called Syria Accountability Act as a violation of the principles of international law and of the United Nations and as a dangerous precedent in dealings with independent States.

-----