Reporting on Human Rights Violations
| Published date | 01 September 1994 |
| Date | 01 September 1994 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/016934419401200305 |
| Subject Matter | Part A: Article |
Reporting on
Human
Rights Violations"
On 25 March 1994 Professor Peter Baehr, Director
of
the NetherlandsInstitute
of
Human
Rights (SIM), organised a discussion meeting at the Utrecht University on the occasion
of
the honourary doctorate
of
Mr Max van der Stoel. The discussion was presided over
by Mr Pieter van Dijk, Member
of
the Council
of
State and former Professor
of
International Organisations at the Utrecht University. Introductions were held by Mr Theo
van Boven,
Mr
Peter Leuprecht and Mr Nigel Rodley.
IIntroduction by Theo
van
Boven
Registrar
of
the International Tribunal on Yugoslavia;
Professor
of
Law,
Limburg University
The
central issue in
Mr
Van
Boven's introduction was the relationship between political
and legal factors
with
which rapporteurs on
human
rights have to deal, with particular
reference to
Max
van
der
Stoel's work as a Rapporteur. As to this,
Max
van
der
Stoel
has a
lot
of
experience, stretching out over aperiod of more than 25 years. He was
appointed
Rapporteur
by the Council
of
Europe in the case of Greece following the coup
d'etat in the late 1960s.
At
present, he is United Nations Special Rapporteur for Iraq.
In
both
cases, which constitute challenges to the international organizations and to the
system
of
protecting
human
rights,
Mr
Van
der
Stoel received amandate
from
apolitical
organ.
In
the
Greek
case,
Mr
Van der Stoel was appointed Rapporteur by the Consultative
Assembly
of
the
Council
of
Europe. At that time, the President
of
the European
Commission
of
Human
Rights argued that the Committee of Ministers, acting
upon
a
recommendation
of
the Assembly to suspend Greece from membership
of
the Council
of
Europe,
should
have
awaited the outcome of the legal procedure following the inter-state
complaint lodged
under
Article 24
of
the European Convention
of
Human
Rights. 'Simply
to manoeuvre
from
case
to case under the influence
of
political opportunism is
not
sufficient', he said.
Max
van
der Stoel thereupon argued that in the case
of
Greece there
was
strong
reason
to
push
for an early decision on the question
of
the suspension
of
Greek
membership.
In
his eyes, it was abundantly clear that the colonels
had
no intention
to restore democracy
and
the full enjoyment
of
human rights. 'By postponing adecision
on the question
of
suspension, the Council
of
Europe
would have lost its credibility as an
organization
of
democratic states', he said in 1987. Summarizing both views, he later
stated:
'If
control mechanisms are to be just, the legal ones should be allowed to do their
job.
But
if
they
are
to be effective, the political ones are better.
There
is abasic dilemma
in the choice
between
justice and efficiency.'
In
the Iraqi case,
when
Max
van
der
Stoel was appointed Special Rapporteur by the
UN
Commission on
Human
Rights, legal and political procedures
and
mechanisms co-
existed again.
The
question here is: what is, at a certain moment, the
most
appropriate
way to handle these matters? What was at stake in the case
of
Greece and Iraq?
In
both cases there was a consistent pattern
of
gross violations
of
human
rights. As
some observers
have
argued, treaty-based procedures usually are
very
time-consuming
while supervising
organs
have to operate within the limited parameters
of
the treaty itself
and
have no fact-finding powers. Moreover, defendant states may effectively delay the
This report was written by Peter Baehr, Hilde Hey, Claire van Ravels en Jacob Struycker Boudier.
307
To continue reading
Request your trial