PRESS RELEASED

PCHR Expresses its Deep Concern About the Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories

 

Ref: 27/99

Date: 7^th March 1999

On 20^th January 1999, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs) submitted his annual report about the human rights situation on the OPTs to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which will convene its annual meeting at the end of this month in Geneva. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), which received a copy of the report, expresses its severe outrage about the Rapporteur’s mixing of politics and human rights. Furthermore, he selectively manipulates the facts about the Israeli violations of human rights for the sake of goals that do not serve the respect of human rights in the Palestinian Occupied Territories. In early January of this year, the Special Rapporteur visited PCHR, which criticized his report of last year to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights as well as its reservations regarding the core of the report. PCHR expressed its deep concern to him personally about his attempts to widen his mandate to include the Palestinian Authority. PCHR completely opposes such attempts. Moreover, the delegation from PCHR that participated in the meetings of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva last year, met with the Special Rapporteur and once again expressed its refusal to accept his attempts to expand his mandate. In spite of this, the Special Rapporteur still insists that his mandate should be expanded. PCHR believes that it is imperative to clarify a number of facts regarding the Special Rapporteur’s report as well as to refute his claims.

1. In its forty-ninth session, the Commission on Human Rights adopted Resolution 1993/2a of 19^th February 1993, in which it decided to appoint a Special Rapporteur with the following mandate:

“(a) To investigate Israel’s violations of the principles and bases of international law, international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian Territories occupied by Israel since 1967;

1. To receive communications, to hear witnesses, and to use such modalities of procedure as he may deem necessary for his mandate;

(c) To report, with his conclusions and recommendations, to the Commission on Human Rights at its future sessions, until the end of the Israeli occupation of those territories.”

In spite of this clear definition of the Rapporteur’s mandate, the current Rapporteur oversteps its limits, which is to investigate the Israeli violations to include violations by the PA. This is a very dangerous matter, simply because the appointment of a Special Rapporteur to the OPTs is an international decision, as a result of the Israeli occupation force’s perpetration of crimes and its violations of the rules of international law in the OPTs. Therefore, his mandate was restricted to solely investigating this area. The Rapporteur’s overstepping of this mandate to include the PA’s violation of human rights parallel to the Israeli violations is a serious issue that should not be tolerated. Although we agree that many human rights violations are perpetrated by the PA, the Israeli occupation was and still is the main violator of Palestinian human rights. There are a number of violations that might be perpetrated by the PA and take place as a result of Israeli and American pressure. Therefore, Israel as an occupation, cannot be compared with the other parties involved. Since the Special Rapporteur’s appointment, he has on a yearly basis in his reports asked for the expansion of his mandate to include the PA. This request has been refused year after year by the UN Commission on Human Rights. The essence of the Resolution of the UN Commission on Human Rights, the purpose and the period of the mandate authorized to him has been defined until the end of the occupation. This ensures that the Rapporteur’s role should only be to investigate the Israeli violations of human rights and his endeavor to divert the attention to other issues is unacceptable, even if these issues are violations by the Palestinian Authority. It is very clear that the Special Rapporteur did not wait for the approval of the Commission before changing his mandate. Rather, he did so by himself when he investigated the human rights situation in the PA (for example, paragraphs 32, 38, 50 and 51).

The Special Rapporteur took a step that can only be interpreted as a desperate attempt to justify his demand and implies his acceptance of the Israeli argument by including an entire letter sent to him by Israel’s representative to the UN in Geneva. This letter, which takes up two and a half pages of the seventeen page long report, merely criticizes the mandate and does not include any information relevant to the report. This came in spite of the fact that Israel did not respect him or his role by refusing to meet him or allow him to visit Israel in his formal capacity.

2. The report of the Special Rapporteur contained weak criticisms on many occasions, which does not reflect in any way the escalation of human rights violations in 1998. For example, the Rapporteur found space in his report to mention the death of a pregnant Palestinian woman at an Israeli checkpoint while in the same paragraph he added that he was informed that the Israeli military had admitted that this was against its policy and that the soldiers concerned had reportedly been brought before the military court (Paragraph 46). The formulation of this paragraph implies that he accepts the argument that the Israeli army is not responsible and that violations which take place are usually individual abuses for which the perpetrators are brought to justice. Another example is paragraph 45, in which the Special Rapporteur mentioned that five Palestinians had been killed, one of them by a rubber bullet. Once again, he shows the matter as an individual violation of the regulations of the Israeli army, in a way that gives the Israeli army no responsibility. The report does not show the outstanding facts regarding the excessive use of force by the Israeli occupation forces against Palestinian civilians in circumstances where the lives of soldiers were not in danger. Instead of his reference to the decrease in the number of civilian Palestinian deaths in comparison with the intifada, he should point out the increase in the number of killings from the previous year (23 persons were killed during 1998, among whom was a nurse in uniform, in comparison with 3 killings in 1997).

The Special Rapporteur, who is seeking so-called balance and not to politicize human rights, is himself politicizing human rights in a very clear way by asking to change his mandate, in an attempt to enjoy the satisfaction of the Israeli government and to have the honour of meeting an Israeli official at best. The Special Rapporteur is himself mixing politics with human rights, when he turns a blind eye in his report to clear facts regarding the Israeli violations of human rights. Instead of pointing out that progress has been made in the human rights record of the Israeli occupation forces, namely the discontinuation of the most flagrant torture methods, he should point out that under international law, torture is a war crime whether it is flagrant or not. Therefore, he should ask the international community to bring the Israeli war criminals to trial. Torture cannot be subject to qualitative and quantitative calculations, since however and whenever it took place as a crime and its practice, especially in a state that officially legalizes it, ought to be condemned firmly in the strongest terms.

The Special Rapporteur did not point out the very serious fact that the Israeli High Court provides the legal cover of torture (paragraph 37) when he stated that the court has not pronounced itself regarding the legality of its interrogation methods. It is the same court that sanctioned the use of torture against tens of detainees through their appeals that they submitted to stop the torture by the Israeli interrogators.

3. The Special Rapporteur interpreted his mandate in an intentionally false way. In paragraph 3 of his report, he defines his mandate as not being accusatory, but as establishing a meaningful and constructive dialogue with all the parties concerned in order to prevent violations. As we stated earlier, his mandate was solely to investigate the Israeli violations of human rights, which means that he should do his best to obtain the facts whatever they may be and to present them without any interpretation. Nobody is claiming that the Rapporteur is an accusatory body. However, this does not mean that he can present facts without full investigation and he should hold Israel responsible for its violations of human rights without hesitation.

4. Once again, in his attempt to be sensitive to the feelings of the Israeli government, his report does not include proven facts, even about the settlements. All the facts included in the report were formulated in ways such as “I was informed…/ I was told…”etc. Such a way implies to anyone reading the report that any information mentioned may not be first hand information. His role is to investigate human rights violations, regardless of whether his findings will upset the Israelis. This includes the core of the facts regarding the Israeli violations of human rights in the OPTs. For example, in paragraph 26, he says, “The Special Rapporteur was informed that the issue of residency rights and identity cards has had serious repercussions on the health of Arab Jerusalemites, particularly infants.” In paragraph 37, he says, “The Special Rapporteur was informed about the process of legitimizing torture in Israel through legislation.” Paragraph 43 reads, “He was informed that the economic and social situation also affected the health of children.”

The report of the Special Rapporteur can only be defined as negative. In the light of its contents, which undermine the aforementioned resolution of the UN Commission on Human Rights as well as politicizing human rights for personal motivation, PCHR would like to make the following recommendations:

 

1. The Special Rapporteur should be replaced by the UN Commission on Human Rights immediately in its next meeting because he intentionally violated its Resolution and the authorized mandate. Moreover, the Commission should be seriously concerned about his attempts to politicize his work.
2. The Special Rapporteur’s report does not reflect the seriousness of the Israeli violations of human rights in the OPTs. Rather, the report raises doubts about the Israeli violations and does not reflect the real facts on the ground, despite the deterioration of the human rights violations, such as the expansion of settlements, the legalization of torture against Palestinian detainees, house demolitions and the collective punishment against civilians. PCHR calls upon the Commission to disregard this report as a UN document and to postpone discussion of Israeli violations until a new report has been prepared by a new rapporteur.