UNITED
NATIONSE


Economic and SocialDistr.
CouncilGENERAL
E/CN.4/1995/31/Add.2

18 November 1994
ENGLISH
Original: ENGLISH/FRENCH/SPANISH

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Fifty-first session
Item 10 of the provisional agenda

QUESTION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS SUBJECTED TO ANY FORM OF DETENTION OR IMPRISONMENT

Decisions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

The present document contains several decisions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its tenth session, held in September 1994. All statistical data concerning these decisions are included in the Working Group's report to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-first session (E/CN.4/1995/31, Annex III).

Decision No. 10/1994 (Tunisia)

Communication addressed to the Government of Tunisia on 22 April 1994.

Concerning: Abderrahmane El Hani, on the one hand, and the Republic of Tunisia, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it, and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with appreciation the information forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the case in question within 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group.

3. With a view to taking a decision the Working Group considers if the cases in question fall into one or more of the following three categories:

I.Cases in which the deprivation of freedom is arbitrary, as it manifestly cannot be linked to any legal basis (such as continued detention beyond the execution of the sentence or despite an amnesty act, etc.); or

II.Cases of deprivation of freedom when the facts giving rise to the prosecution or conviction concern the exercise of the rights and freedoms protected by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; or

III.Cases in which non-observance of all or part of the international provisions relating to the right to a fair trial is such that it confers on the deprivation of freedom, of whatever kind, an arbitrary character.

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group welcomes the cooperation of the Government of Tunisia. The Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the context of the allegations made, the Government's reply and the comments made by the source.

5. According to the source, Abderrahmane El Hani, a lawyer, was arrested on 15 February 1994, although he had declared himself a candidate for the presidency of the Republic, and charged with maintaining an illicit association and disseminating false news, and then kept in custody pending trial.

6. In its reply, the Government confirms the nature of the proceedings, explaining that the first offence relates to the maintenance of a non-recognized party (Act of 3 May 1982, arts. 8 and 26) and that the second involves violation of articles 50 and 51 of the Press Code, which forbid the "dissemination of false news liable to disturb public order". It adds that the charges against Abderrahmane El Hani have nothing to do with "the allegations that he had declared himself a candidate for the presidency of the Republic". Finally, it states, which the source does not deny, that he was released on 23 April 1994 pending trial (after being in custody for 72 days).

7. The Working Group, having considered the available information, is of the opinion that in the case in question no special circumstances would warrant its considering the nature of the detention of the person released.

8. The Working Group, without prejudging the nature of the detention, decides to file the case of Mr. Abderrahmane El Hani under the terms of paragraph 14 (a) of its methods of work.

Adopted on 27 September 1994.

Decision No. 11/1994 (Tunisia)

Communication addressed to the Government of Tunisia on 22 April 1994.

Concerning: Moncef Marzouk, on the one hand, and the Republic of Tunisia, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it, and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with appreciation the information forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the case in question within 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group welcomes the cooperation of the Government of Tunisia. The Working Group forwarded the Tunisian Government's reply to the source of the information, which submitted its comments on 4 August 1994. The Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the context of the allegations made, the Government's reply and the comments made by the source.

5. According to the source, Moncef Marzouk, former President of the Tunisian Human Rights League, was arrested on 24 March 1994 and charged with "dissemination of false news liable to disturb public order and defamation of the judicial order" under articles 50 and 51 of the Press Code. In support of these charges, the Prosecutor produced an interview published in a Spanish newspaper. The accused contested the facts.

6. In its reply, the Government points out that, the facts having been established through the judicial procedure, Moncef Marzouk was released on 30 July 1994, i.e. after 110 days in custody, and discharged in the following circumstances:

7. In the light of the above, the Working Group decides as follows:

The Working Group notes the release of Moncef Marzouk with satisfaction. Nevertheless, in accordance with its methods of work, the Group decides that the detention of Moncef Marzouk for 110 days was arbitrary, being in contravention of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and falling within category II of the principles applicable in the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.

8. In consequence of the decision of the Working Group declaring the detention of Moncef Marzouk to be arbitrary, and taking into account the fact that he has been released, the Working Group requests the Government of Tunisia to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in order to bring it into conformity with the provisions and principles contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Adopted on 28 September 1994.

Decision No. 12/1994 (Tunisia)

Communication addressed to the Government of Tunisia on 22 April 1994.

Concerning: Ahmed Khalaoui, on the one hand, and the Republic of Tunisia, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it, and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with appreciation the information forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the case in question within 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group welcomes the cooperation of the Government of Tunisia. The Working Group forwarded the Tunisian Government's reply to the source of the information, which sent its comments on 4 August 1994. The Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the context of the allegations made, the Government's reply and the comments made by the source.

5. According to the source, Ahmed Khalaoui, aged 50, teacher and trade unionist, was arrested on 4 March 1994 and accused of illicit distribution of leaflets (condemning the Hebron massacre), whereas he was peacefully exercising his right to freedom of opinion and expression. His application for release was rejected, and he is said to have been held in Tunis prison since 8 April 1994.

6. The Government, which confirms the date and circumstances of the arrest, gives the following explanations:

The leaflets, which the author produced at home, called for confrontation with all Jews, both in Tunisia and in other Arab countries, and a boycott of all conferences and scientific meetings attended by them.

He also advocated that there should be no economic or political dealings with Jews, stressing particularly the need for the Tunisian people to harass the Jewish community in Djerba.

It was in these circumstances that he appeared before the Tunis Correctional Court on 8 March 1994 for incitement of hatred between races, religions and peoples and for publication of leaflets liable to disturb public order.

After a series of postponements to 24 March, 31 March and 14 April, he was finally tried on 27 June 1994 and sentenced to two years' imprisonment and a fine of 1,000 dinars for incitement to racial hatred (Criminal Code, art. 52 bis) and to eight months' imprisonment for publication of leaflets and a fine of 100 dinars for violation of the provisions concerning statutory deposit (Press Code, arts. 12, 44 and 62).

7. In its comments on the Government's reply, received by the Working Group on 4 August 1994, the source expresses the view that "Ahmed Khalaoui is a political prisoner" and requests that he should be given a quick and fair trial "in accordance with the rules of international law".

8. In view of the foregoing, the Working Group considers, on the basis of the position adopted by the Human Rights Committee on 6 April 1983 (request 10/1981, JRT and WG. Party C. Canada), that the restrictions placed by Tunisian law on freedom of opinion in order to combat the dissemination of racist ideas or remarks - violently anti-semitic in the case in question - are compatible with the rules of international law, and in particular with articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, according to which:

Article 19, paragraph 3: "The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

9. In the light of the above, the Working Group decides as follows:

The detention of Ahmed Khalaoui does not fall into any of the three categories of the principles applicable in the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group, and in particular category II, inasmuch as incitement to racial hatred is an offence and not the expression of an opinion. The detention of Ahmed Khalaoui is accordingly declared not to be arbitrary.

Adopted on 28 September 1994.

Decision No. 13/1994 (Myanmar)

Communication addressed to the Government of Myanmar on 22 April 1994.

Concerning: Dr. Ma Thida, Dr. Aung Khint Sint, Moe Tin and Kyaing Ohn, on the one hand, and the Union of Myanmar, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with appreciation the information forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the cases in question within 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made the Working Group welcomes the cooperation of the Government of Myanmar. The Working Group transmitted the reply provided by the Government to the source and the latter has provided the Working Group with its comments. The Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the cases, in the context of the allegations made and the response of the Government thereto, as well as the comments by the source.

5. In rendering its decision, the Working Group, in a spirit of cooperation and coordination, has also taken into account the report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Mr. Yokota, pursuant to Commission resolution 1992/58.

6. According to the communication, a summary of which has been transmitted to the Government:

According to the source, the detainee was accused of being linked with the National League for Democracy. It was reported that he was sentenced to seven years hard labour on 17 October 1990.

7. In its reply, the Government of Myanmar, while citing a different sentence for Ohn Kyaing from that provided by the source, holds that none of the persons in question has been arbitrarily detained. They were all convicted, following perfectly legal actions and a proper trial, under section 5 (j) of the Emergency Provisions Act for having broken the law, in particular, either by reproducing or distributing seditious books and pamphlets published by terrorist groups with the aim of creating unease and bringing the Government and the armed forces into discredit (in the case of Ma Thida and Ohn Kyaing), or (in the case of Tin Moe) by printing literature directed against the Government and the army in the magazine Pay Hpoo Hlwar, of which he was the editor. However, it will be noted that according to the Government of Myanmar, in addition to the term of 7 years' imprisonment, Ohn Kyaing was also sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment at a later trial for involvement in the drafting, by the National League for Democracy (the opposition), of a leaflet entitled "The three paths to power". In the case of Dr. Aung Khint Sint, the Government merely states that he was prosecuted and tried by a civil court, which found him guilty without giving further details, and that it consequently considers that a judgement made by a court legally constituted in a State Member of the United Nations should not be called into question on the pretext of investigating arbitrary detention.

8. As can be seen, and as regards the substance of the matter, the Government of Myanmar does not deny that the detention of the above-mentioned persons is connected solely with their activities in opposing the current regime in that country, and there is nothing to indicate that in taking those actions they resorted to or incited violence. What they are ultimately accused of is having freely and peacefully exercised their right to freedom of opinion and expression guaranteed under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is no accident that the Working Group has already had occasion to note in its earlier decisions (59/1992 Nay Min, 38/1993 Win Tin and seven others) that it was emergency legislative provisions, and particularly section 5 (j), which were cited against them, as occurs each time that proceedings are instituted against members of Parliament, political leaders, writers, journalists and so on.

9. In the light of the above the Working Group decides:

The detention of the above-mentioned persons, is declared to be arbitrary being in contravention of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and falling within category II of the principles applicable in the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.

10. Consequent upon the decision of the Working Group declaring the detention of Dr. Ma Thida, Dr. Aung Khint Sint, Moe Tin et Kyaing Ohn to be arbitrary, the Working Group requests the Government of Myanmar to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in order to bring it into conformity with the provisions and principles incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Adopted on 28 September 1994

Decision No. 14/1994 (Mali)

Communication addressed to the Government of Mali on22 April 1994.

Concerning: Major Lamine Diabira, Lieutenant Fadio Sinayogo, Warrant Officer Class 1 Kaka Koureissy, Sergeant Bo Dabo, Lieutenant Amadou Diallo, Lieutenant Mamadou Zoumana Konaté, Staff Sergeant Baba Traoré and Sergeant N'Golo Diarra, on the one hand, and the Republic of Mali, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it, and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with concern that to date no information has been forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the cases in question. With the expiration of more than 90 days since the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group, it is left with no option but to proceed to render its decision in respect of the cases of alleged arbitrary detention brought to its knowledge.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group would have welcomed the cooperation of the Government of Mali. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the case, especially since the facts and allegations contained in the communication have not been challenged by the Government.

5. According to the communication from the source, a summary of which was transmitted to the Government, Major Lamine Diabira, a former Minister of Territorial Administration in the Transitional Government of Lieutenant Colonel Amadou Toumani Touré, was arrested on the night of 14-15 July 1991 and accused of plotting a coup d'état. The other soldiers mentioned above were arrested at the same time, or shortly afterwards, on the grounds that they were implicated in the same failed coup. After being arrested, some of them were taken to Djikoroni paratroop base near Bamako, while others were taken to Ségon military base, where they were kept incommunicado and without being charged for nearly six months (although under Malian law they ought to have been brought before the judicial authorities within 48 hours of their arrest). In June 1993, Major Lamine Diabira and the other soldiers were charged under articles 41 and 42 of the Malian Criminal Code, with conspiracy and attempting to overthrow the Government.

6. From the facts reported above, it can be said that the persons in question were held without charge, and for six months incommunicado, from their arrest in July 1991 until June 1993, when they were officially notified of a charge of conspiracy and attempt to overthrow the Government. Their detention is thus evidently arbitrary, since it violated article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 14.3 (a), (b) and (c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Republic of Mali is a party, and Principles 11 and 18 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.

7. In the light of the above, the Working Group decides as follows:

The detention of the above-mentioned persons from their arrest to the date on which they were charged in June 1993 is declared to be arbitrary, being in contravention of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 14.3 (a), (b) and (c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Republic of Mali is a party, and accordingly falling within category III of the principles applicable in the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group. With regard to their detention beyond that period, the Working Group has not had enough information from the Government or the source to be able to take a decision as to whether it is arbitrary or not.

8. Having declared the detention of the persons in question to be arbitrary, the Working Group requests the Government of Mali to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in order to bring it into conformity with the rules and principles contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Adopted on 28 September 1994.

Decision No. 15/1994 (South Africa)

Communication addressed to the Government of South Africa on 22 April 1994.

Concerning: Nathaniel Ngakantsi and Johannes Setlae, on the one hand, and the Republic of South Africa, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with concern that to date no information has been forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the cases in question. With the expiration of more than ninety (90) days from the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group, it is left with no option but to proceed to render its decision in respect of the cases of alleged arbitrary detention brought to its knowledge.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group would have welcomed the cooperation of the Government of South Africa. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the cases, especially since the facts and allegations contained in the communication have not been challenged by the Government.

5. According to the communication, a summary of which has been transmitted to the Government:

6. The facts set out above show that the detention of Nathaniel Ngakantsi and Johannes Setlae is based solely on that fact that as non-violent political activists and members of ANC, they had become involved in voter education work leading up to the first non-racial elections in South Africa in April 1994, whereas these actions constituted no more than the free and peaceful exercise of their right to freedom of opinion, expression and assembly. To this is added the fact that no charges have been brought against them since their arrest, apparently under section 25 of the Bophuthatswana Internal Security Act, authorizing the police to deny lawyers and all other persons access to those under arrest. Lastly, it will be noted that, according to the source, pressure has been brought to bear on Nathaniel Ngakantsi to prompt him to confess, and that the state of health of Johannes Setlae, who was ill-treated by the police at the time of his arrest, offers grounds for serious concern, the more so since, having been held incommunicado, he has never been able to receive appropriate care.

7. In the light of the above the Working Group decides:

The detention of Nathaniel Ngakantsi and Johannes Setlae is declared to be arbitrary being in contravention of articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and articles 14-3 (a), (b) and (c), 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and falling within categories II and III of the principles applicable in the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.

8. Consequent upon the decision of the Working Group declaring the detention of Nathaniel Ngakantsi and Johannes Setlae to be arbitrary, the Working Group requests the popular Government now in place since April 1994, to take note of this decision, in the light of the fact that the detentions occurred prior to the formation of the popular Government, and take such appropriate steps as it considers necessary to remedy the situation in order to bring it into conformity with the provisions and principles incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Adopted on 28 September 1994.

Decision No. 16/1994 (Israel)

Communication addressed to the Government of Israel on 18 July 1994.

Concerning: Sha'ban Rateb Jabarin, on the one hand, and the State of Israel, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with appreciation the information forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the case in question within 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. The Working Group welcomes the cooperation of the Government of Israel which forwarded its response to the allegations made concerning

Sha'ban Rateb Jabarin. The Working Group transmitted the response of the Government to the source. The latter provided the Working Group with its comments. The Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the context of the allegations made and the response of the Government thereto.

5. Certain pertinent facts may be stated. As far back as 7 July 1992 the Chairman of the Working Group had sent an urgent appeal to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel following which Mr. Jabarin was released

on 10 July 1992. Later, he was again arrested and detained without charge. On 4 May 1994 a letter was addressed by the Chairman of the Working Group to the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations office at Geneva. The office of the Permanent Representative later informed the Working Group that Mr. Jabarin was released from administrative detention on 5 May 1994. Since he was again allegedly detained on 21 June 1994 yet another communication was addressed by the Chairman of the Working Group to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for information concerning his situation and the legal basis of his detention. In the said communication an appeal was also made to the Government of Israel, in a purely humanitarian spirit, to consider Mr. Jabarin's release from prison and for the Government to do its utmost to guarantee Jabarin's right to liberty and security.

6. The source describes Sha'ban Rateb Jabarin as a Palestinian para-legal and human rights activist. He was allegedly arrested without a warrant on 10 March 1994 by the IDF or the GSS. The arresting authorities allegedly searched the detainees' house for 40 minutes prior to his arrest, without informing him of the reasons for his arrest. Apparently pursuant to Military Order 378, six months' administrative detention was imposed on Mr. Jabarin. Date of the issuance of the order remains undisclosed. Without being charged with any offence Mr. Jabarin was initially, allegedly, detained at the Hebron Central Prison whereafter he was transferred to the Juneid Central prison in Nablus. The source alleges that the reason for his detention was his alleged involvement in the writing of a publication dated December 1993 on violence by Jewish settlers in the Hebron area. The source also alleged that no judicial or other procedures exist to challenge the legality of the arrest or detention as military courts refuse to hear judicial proceedings in the nature of habeas corpus or amparo. Regarding a detainee making an appeal against the order to an Appeal's Committee, it was alleged that relevant rules of evidence and Procedure, and the restrictions on the powers of the Appeal's Committee it was difficult to effectively challenge the order. It was alleged that such orders were rarely set aside in appeal. The source maintained that Mr. Jabarin was detained for his non-violent activities in the exercise of his right to freedom of expression and opinion.

7. In response to the communication of the Working Group dated 4 May 1994, the Government on 26 May 1994 informed the Working Group that Mr. Jabarin stood already released. Apparently he had been released on 8 May 1994. As he was again detained on 21 June 1994, the Working Group sent its communication of 18 July 1994 to which the Government sent its response on 3 August 1994. In this response the Working Group was informed that Mr. Jabarin was held in administrative detention from 10 March 1994 until 8 May 1994. The Government strongly denied that Mr. Jabarin was an innocent man, devoting his efforts to al-Haq, an organization which is engaged in the field of human rights. The Government stated that Mr. Jabarin had never been detained for his work with al-Haq. According to the Government Mr. Jabarin has been for many years a senior member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a terrorist organisation committed to using violence in order to bring about the destruction of the State of Israel. The Government also maintained that since the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles was signed in September 1993, PFLP's declared objective has been to derail the peace process by acts of terror. The Government is allegedly in possession of substantial evidence to the effect that, in his capacity as a senior operative of the PFLP Mr. Jabarin has been and continues to be connected with the violent activities of the PFLP.

8. Yet Mr. Jabarin has never been brought to trial. It is alleged that since 1979. Mr. Jabarin has been detained seven times for his alleged terrorist activities. Failure to bring him to trial on six of the seven occasions, the Government explains, is its concern for the lives and welfare of several of the material witnesses. For this reason Mr. Jabarin has been periodically and for a limited period of time been under administrative detention. In doing so, the Government seeks to exercise its legal rights under article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and article 87 of the Security Provisions Order 1970. Once, however, in 1985, Mr. Jabarin was brought to trial without endangering witnesses. He was apparently convicted for recruiting new members for the PFLP and for arranging guerilla training outside of Israel. He was apparently sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment, 9 months of which were served and 15 months suspended.

9. The Government contended that Mr. Jabarin has not discontinued his terrorist involvement and maintains his position in the leadership of the PFLP. The Government admits that he was arrested on 21 June 1994 and was placed in administrative detention for six months. He cannot be brought to trial as that would, the Government maintains, endanger the safety of material witnesses were they to give evidence.

10. The source was given an opportunity to respond to the Government's letter, which it did on 11 August 1994. The source took the position that Israel had chosen to criminalize membership of the PFLP, a Palestinian political party; that for charging Mr. Jabarin for criminal activities the Government is obliged to bring him to trial. The source also questions the applicability of Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as a means to justify Mr. Jabarin's administrative detention. Article 87 of the Security Provisions Order is also inapplicable according to the source, as it can be used only as a preventive measure and not for acts which constitute breaches of law.

11. From the above it clearly emerges that the Israeli Government has chosen to detain Mr. Jabarin only because it considers it inadvisable to bring him to trial for fear that the lives of material witnesses will in the process of giving evidence, be endangered. Individual liberty cannot be sacrificed for the Government's inability either to collect evidence or to present it in an appropriate form. On its own showing the Government had in the past as also on 21 June 1994, in placing Mr. Jabarin under administrative detention, did not do it as a preventive measure. Such exercise of power is colourable: not for the purpose intended.

12. The issue becomes all the more significant as the source has not traversed the allegation of the Government that the PFLP is a terrorist organisation, committed to using violence in order to bring about the destruction of the State of Israel. If that be so and if the Government is in possession of substantial evidence of Mr. Jabarin's involvement in terrorist activities, the Government is obliged to charge and bring Mr. Jabarin to trial in the event it chooses to arrest him. The Government cannot be allowed to use the power of administrative detention to achieve the purposes that it wishes to achieve, without a formal trial. In this fashion the exercise of the power of administrative detention is not preventive but punitive. Reliance by the Government on article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and article 87 of the Security Provisions Order is also unjustified. The latter can only be used as a preventive measure, not for committing an offence for which a person can be charged and tried. As far as the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention are concerned, article 6 provides that in case of Occupied Territories, the applicability of many provisions of the Convention, including article 78, ceases one year after the general close of military operations. Thus article 78 cannot provide a justification for Mr. Jabarin's administrative detention.

13. In the light of the above the Working Group decides:

The detention of Mr. Sha'ban Rateb Jabarin on all previous occasions when he was not brought to trial and since 21 June 1994 is declared to be arbitrary being in contravention of articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and falling within category III of the principles applicable in the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.

14. Consequent upon the decision of the Working Group declaring the detention of Mr. Jabarin to be arbitrary, the Working Group requests the Government of Israel take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in order to bring it into conformity with the provisions and principles incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Adopted on 28 September 1994.

Decision No. 17/1994 (Peru)

Communication addressed to the Government of Peru on 20 September 1993.

Concerning: Ricardo Domingo Briceño Arias, on the one hand, and the Republic of Peru, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with appreciation the information forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the case in question within 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group.

3. The Working Group also notes that the Government concerned has informed the Group that the above-mentioned person is no longer in detention.

4. The source was requested for further information or confirmation of what was stated by the Government, but no reply has been received.

5. In the context of the information received, the Working Group, having considered the available information, is of the opinion that no special circumstances warrant consideration by the Group of the nature of the detention of the person released.

6. The Working Group, without prejudging the nature of the detention, decides to file the case of Ricardo Domingo Briceño Arias in accordance with the terms of paragraph 14 (a) of its methods of work.

Adopted on 28 September 1994.

Decision No. 18/1994 (Peru)

Communication addressed to the Government of Peru on 20 September 1993.

Concerning: Enriqueta Laguna Villafranco, on the one hand, and the Republic of Peru, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with appreciation the information forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the case in question within 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group.

3. The Working Group also notes that the Government concerned has informed the Group that the above-mentioned person is no longer in detention.

4. In the context of the information received, the Working Group, having considered the available information and taking into account the fact that the charge of arbitrariness made in connection with the deprivation of liberty refers to the absence of proof and not to some of the forms of arbitrary detention covered by its methods of work, is of the opinion that no special circumstances warrant consideration by the Group of the nature of the detention of the person released.

6. The Working Group, without prejudging the nature of the detention, decides to file the case of Enriqueta Laguna Villafranco in accordance with the terms of paragraph 14 (a) of its methods of work.

Adopted on 28 September 1994.

Decision No. 19/1994 (Brazil)

Communication addressed to the Government of Brazil on 22 April 1994.

Concerning: Francisco de Asís Pinto de Nascimento, Salvador Murao de Souza, Estevao Alberto Rocha da Silva, Manoel Privado, Francisco Souza Lacerdo, Alciro José Ferreira, Raimundo Francisco do Nascimento, Raimundo Pereira da Silva, Lindomar Gomez, Fransisco Dos Reis Dos Santos Chaves, and three unidentified minors, on the one hand, and The Federative Republic of Brazil, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with concern that to date no information has been forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the cases in question. With the expiration of more than 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group, it is left with no option but to proceed to render its decision in respect of the cases of alleged arbitrary detention brought to its knowledge.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group would have welcomed the cooperation of the Government of Brazil. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the cases, especially since the facts and allegations contained in the communication have not been challenged by the Government.

5. The Working Group considers that:

6. In the light of the above the Working Group decides:

The case remains pending for further information.

Adopted on 28 September 1994.

Decision No. 20/1994 (Mexico)

Communication addressed to the Government of Mexico on 22 April 1994.

Concerning: José Francisco Gallardo Rodríguez, on the one hand, and Mexico, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred in the country in question.

2. The Working Group notes with concern that to date no information has been forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the case in question. With the expiration of more than 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group, it is left with no option but to proceed to render its decision in respect of the case of alleged arbitrary detention brought to its knowledge.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group would have welcomed the cooperation of the Government of Mexico. In the absence of any cooperation of that Government, the Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the case, especially since the facts and allegations contained in the communication have not been challenged by the Government.

5. The Working Group considers that:

6. In view of the above, the Working Group decides:

The case remains pending for further information.

Adopted on 28 September 1994.

Decision No. 21/1994 (Peru)

Communication addressed to the Government of Peru on 20 September 1993.

Concerning: Julio Rondinel Cano, on the one hand, and the Republic of Peru, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with concern that to date no information has been forwarded by the Government of Peru in respect of the case in question. With the expiration of more than 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group, it is left with no option but to proceed to render its decision in respect of the case of alleged arbitrary detention brought to its knowledge.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group would have welcomed the cooperation of the Government of Peru. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the case, especially since the facts and allegations contained in the communication have not been challenged by the Government.

5. Before taking a decision, the Working Group decided to request supplementary information from the Government concerning certain important legal aspects. Although more than four months have elapsed since its request, the Government has not provided such information.

6. Additional information was also requested of the source, which informed it that Mr. Rondinel, after being unjustly deprived of his liberty for 34 months, was released on 7 April 1994.

7. The Working Group considers that:

8. In the light of the above, the Working Group notes with satisfaction that Mr. Rondinel Cano has been released. However, and in accordance with its methods of work, the Working Group decides:

The detention of Julio Rondinel Cano between 19 June 1991 and 7 April 1994 is declared to be arbitrary, being in contravention of articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Peru is a party, and falling within category III of the principles applicable in the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.

9. Consequent upon the decision of the Working Group declaring the detention of the person concerned to be arbitrary, and bearing in mind that he has been released, the Working Group requests the Government of Peru to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in order to bring it into conformity with the norms and principles incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Adopted on 29 September 1994.

Decision No. 22/1994 (Peru)

Communication addressed to the Government of Peru on 20 September 1993.

Concerning: Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides, on the one hand, and the Republic of Peru, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with concern that to date no information has been forwarded by the Government of Peru in respect of the case in question. With the expiration of more than 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group, it is left with no option but to proceed to render its decision in respect of the case of alleged arbitrary detention brought to its knowledge.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group would have welcomed the cooperation of the Government of Peru. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the case, especially since the facts and allegations contained in the communication have not been challenged by the Government.

5. The Working Group considers that:

6. In the light of the above, the Working Group decides:

7. Consequent upon the decision declaring the detention of the person concerned to be arbitrary, the Working Group requests the Government of Peru to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in order to bring it into conformity with the norms and principles incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Adopted on 29 September 1994.

Decision No. 23/1994 (Peru)

Communication addressed to the Government of Peru on 20 September 1993.

Concerning Ciriaco Gutiérrez Quispe, Justino Curro Gutiérrez, Justo Chipana Maldonado and Rafael Curro Gutiérrez, on the one hand, and the Republic of Peru, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it, and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with concern that to date no information has been forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the cases in question. With the expiration of more than 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group, it is left with no option but to proceed to render its decision in respect of each of the cases of alleged arbitrary detention brought to its knowledge.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group would have welcomed the cooperation of the Government. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the cases, especially since the facts and allegations contained in the communication have not been challenged by the Government.

5. The Working Group considers that:

6. In the light of the above the Working Group decides:

The detention of Ciriaco Gutiérrez Quispe, Justino Curro Gutiérrez, Justo Chipana Maldonado and Rafael Curro Gutiérrez is declared to be arbitrary being in contravention of articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Peru is a party, and falling within category III of the principles applicable in the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.

7. Consequent upon the decision of the Working Group declaring the detention of the above-mentioned persons to be arbitrary, the Working Group requests the Government of Peru to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in order to bring it into conformity with the norms and principles incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Adopted on 29 September 1994.

Decision No. 24/1994 (Peru)

Communication addressed to the Government of Peru on 20 September 1993.

Concerning Carlos Florentino Molero Coca, on the one hand, and the Republic of Peru, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it, and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with concern that to date no information has been forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the case in question. With the expiration of more than 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group, it is left with no option but to proceed to render its decision in respect of the case of alleged arbitrary detention brought to its knowledge.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group would have welcomed the cooperation of the Government of Peru. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the case, especially since the facts and allegations contained in the communication have not been challenged by the Government.

5. The Working Group considers that:

6. In the light of the above, the Working Group decides to keep the case pending while awaiting further information under paragraph 14 (c) of its methods of work.

Adopted on 29 September 1994.

Decision No. 25/1994 (Peru)

Communication addressed to the Government of Peru on 20 September 1993.

Concerning: Luis Enrique Quinto Facho, on the one hand, and the Republic of Peru, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it, and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with concern that to date no information has been forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the case in question. With the expiration of more than 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group, it is left with no option but to proceed to render its decision in respect of the case of alleged arbitrary detention brought to its knowledge.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group would have welcomed the cooperation of the Government of Peru. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the case, especially since the facts and allegations contained in the communication have not been challenged by the Government.

5. The Working Group considers that:

6. In the light of the above the Working Group decides:

Adopted on 29 September 1994.

Decision No. 26/1994 (Colombia)

Communication addressed to the Government of Colombia on 12 November 1993.

Concerning: Fidel Ernesto Santana Mejía, Guillermo Antonio Brea Zapata, Francisco Elías Ramos Ramos and Manuel Terrero Pérez, on the one hand, and the Republic of Colombia, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it, and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with appreciation the information forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the cases in question within 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made the Working Group welcomes the cooperation of the Government of Colombia. The Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the cases, in the context of the allegations made and the response of the Government thereto.

5. The Working Group considers that:

6. In the light of the above the Working Group decides:

The detention of Fidel Ernesto Santana Mejía, Guillermo Antonio Brea Zapata, Francisco Elías Ramos Ramos and Manuel Terrero Pérez is declared to be arbitrary being in contravention of articles 9 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Republic of Colombia is a party, and falling within category III of the principles applicable in the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.

7. Consequent upon the decision of the Working Group declaring the detention of the above-mentioned persons to be arbitrary, the Working Group requests the Government of Colombia to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in order to bring it into conformity with the norms and principles incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Adopted on 29 September 1994.

Decision No. 27/1994 (Tajikistan)

Communication addressed to the Government of Tajikistan on 22 April 1994.

Concerning: Mir Baba Mir Rahim, Ahmad Shah Kamil and Khayriddin Kasymov, on the one hand, and the Republic of Tajikistan, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with concern that to date no information has been forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the cases in question. With the expiration of more than 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group, it is left with no option but to proceed to render its decision in respect of the cases of alleged arbitrary detention brought to its knowledge.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group would have welcomed the cooperation of the Government of Tajikistan. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the cases, especially since the facts and allegations contained in the communication have not been challenged by the Government.

5. The communication, a summary of which has been transmitted to the Government, concerned Mir Baba Mir Rahim (or Mirrakhimov) former Director-General of the Tajik Radio-Television, Ahmad Shah Kamil (or Kamilov), former Director of the Tajik national Television and Khayriddin Kasymov, a television journalist. Mir Rahim was arrested in Ashkhabad, in Turkmenistan; Kamil and Kasymov were arrested in Osh in the south of Kyrgyzstan. All three, as well as other television journalists, were reportedly arrested on 10 December 1992, date of the entry of government troops into Dushanbe, by local authorities and then handed over to the Tajik authorities. They were said to be held, without trial, in Prison No. 1 in Dushanbe (known as Sledizator SIZO). It was not known whether the three journalists had been officially charged, but according to the source they were accused of "conspiring against the Government in view of overthrowing it with the help of the media". Kasymov and Kamil were also accused of intending to pass "stolen" information to the West. The source reported that, when they were arrested, these journalists had in their possession video cassettes of incidents indicating the implication of the new Tajik authorities in cases of killings and torture. According to the source, their detention without trial for over one year may be related to that fact. It was further alleged that the detained journalists have been denied access to a lawyer. According to the source, a variety of reports state that Khayriddin Kasymov was beaten while being interrogated. His nose and many teeth were broken. He was given no legal or medical assistance. The source states that a variety of information concurs in indicating that the three journalists were beaten during interrogation.

6. It is apparent from the above that Mir Baba Mir Rahim, Ahmad Shah Kamil and Khayriddin Kasymov have been kept in detention since 10 December 1992 solely for having peacefully exercised their right to freedom of opinion and expression, a right guaranteed by article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and specifically their right to enjoy the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of their choice. There is nothing to prove that their activities fall within the framework of the permissible restrictions which must be provided by law and must be necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others or the protection of national security or of public order or of public health or morals.

7. In the light of the above the Working Group decides:

The detention of Mir Baba Mir Rahim, Ahmad Shah Kamil and Khayriddin Kasymov, is declared to be arbitrary being in contravention of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Republic of Tajikistan is a Party as a former Republic of the USSR, and falling within category II of the principles applicable in the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.

8. Consequent upon the decision of the Working Group declaring the detention of the above-mentioned persons to be arbitrary, the Working Group requests the Government of Tajikistan to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in order to bring it into conformity with the provisions and principles incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Adopted on 29 September 1994.

Decision No. 28/1994 (Islamic Republic of Iran)

Communication addressed to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran on 22 April 1994.

Concerning: Manouchehr Karimzadeh, on the one hand, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with concern that to date no information has been forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the case in question. With the expiration of more than 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group, it is left with no option but to proceed to render its decision in respect of the case of alleged arbitrary detention brought to its knowledge.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group would have welcomed the cooperation of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the case, especially since the facts and allegations contained in the communication have not been challenged by the Government.

5. According to the communication, a summary of which has been transmitted to the Government, Manouchehr Karimzadeh, a cartoonist for the scientific revue "Farad", was allegedly arrested on 11 April 1992 for having illustrated an article criticizing the state of sport in Iran. He was being detained in Evin Prison. According to the source, Manouchehr Karimzadeh was accused of "blasphemy" and insulting the memory of the founder of the Islamic Republic, Imam Khomeini. It was reported that he was sentenced to one year in prison and fined 500,000 Rials (US$ 350) on 16 September 1992, a judgement which was repealed on 14 May 1993 by the Supreme Court. However, in mid-October 1993 he was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

6. It appears from the facts as described above that Manouchehr Karimzadeh is being kept in detention since 11 April 1992 solely for having exercised pacifically his right to freedom of opinion and expression, a right guaranteed by article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

7. In the light of the above the Working Group decides:

The detention of Manouchehr Karimzadeh is declared to be arbitrary being in contravention of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Islamic Republic of Iran is a Party and falling within category II of the principles applicable in the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.

8. Consequent upon the decision of the Working Group declaring the detention of the above-mentioned person to be arbitrary, the Working Group requests the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in order to bring it into conformity with the provisions and principles incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Adopted on 29 September 1994.

Decision No. 29/1994 (Republic of Korea)

Communication addressed to the Government of the Republic of Korea on 22 April 1994.

Concerning: Lee Kun-hee and Choi Chin-sup, on the one hand, and the Republic of Korea, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with concern that to date no information has been forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the cases in question. With the expiration of more than 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group, it is left with no option but to proceed to render its decision in respect of the cases of alleged arbitrary detention brought to its knowledge.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group would have welcomed the cooperation of the Government of the Republic of Korea. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the case, especially since the facts and allegations contained in the communication have not been challenged by the Government.

5. The communication, a summary of which has been transmitted to the Government, concerned the following persons:

On 6 October 1992, the ANSP reported that it had uncovered the largest spying organization in South Korea since the 1950s. A large exhibition was set up by the ANSP at the Seoul Railway Station, with posters of some defendants, including Lee Kun-hee and Choi Chin-sup, who were labelled as "spies". However, the defendants had neither been charged nor tried at this time.

Both men were allegedly severely ill-treated: Lee Kun-hee was allegedly deprived of sleep and beaten during his interrogation. Choi Chin-sup was allegedly beaten, stripped naked and forced to stand in the same position for long periods of time during his interrogation. Both were also denied access to their families and lawyers.

6. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantee the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The question remains whether the restrictions placed on this freedom by national legislation correspond to article 19, paragraph 3 (b) of the Covenant. In the absence of information supplied by the Government, the Working Group considers that Mr. Lee and Mr. Choi did not employ, propagate or prepare for violence; nor, according to the same source, did they transmit to others secret information or information that could represent a threat to national security, since the Government has not specified the secret material in question or the reason for which it was considered to constitute a State secret.

7. In the light of the above the Working Group decides:

The detention of Lee Kun-hee and Choi Chin-sup is declared to be arbitrary being in contravention of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Republic of Korea is a Party and falling within category II of the principles applicable in the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.

8. Consequent upon the decision of the Working Group declaring the detention of the above-mentioned persons to be arbitrary, the Working Group requests the Government of the Republic of Korea to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in order to bring it into conformity with the provisions and principles incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Adopted on 29 September 1994.

Decision No. 30/1994 (Republic of Korea)

Communication addressed to the Government of the Republic of Korea on 3 August 1993.

Concerning: Hwang Suk-Yong, on the one hand, and the Republic of Korea, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with appreciation the information forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the case in question within 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made the Working Group welcomes the cooperation of the Government of the Republic of Korea. The Working Group transmitted the reply provided by the Government to the source that had submitted the information and the latter has provided the Working Group with its comments. In order to obtain additional information, on 25 May 1994 the Working Group requested the Government of the Republic of Korea to communicate to it the text of the court judgement concerning Hwang Suk-Yong. The Working Group noted with concern that to date the Government has not supplied this document. It notes with regret that the spirit of cooperation displayed in the Government's first reply (20 October 1993) has been called into question by the lack of subsequent reactions.

5. The Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the context of the allegations made and the response of the Government thereto, as well as the comments provided by the source.

6. According to the communication, a summary of which has been transmitted to the Government, Hwang Suk-Yong, aged 50, a writer, was reportedly arrested on 27 April 1993 at Seoul Airport by officials of the Agency for National Security Planning (ANSP) and remained in detention ever since. It was reported that Hwang Suk- Yong travelled to North Korea in 1989 and subsequently went into self-imposed exile to avoid arrest in the Republic of Korea, and that he was arrested upon his return to Seoul from the United States of America. According to the source, Hwang Suk-Yong has been detained solely due to his non-violent exercise of his rights to freedom of expression and association.

7. In its reply of 20 October 1993, five days before Hwang Suk-Yong was convicted, the Government of the Republic of Korea confirmed that he had been arrested on 11 June 1993 under the National Security Act, on the following charges:

The Government maintains that State terrorism is an instrument of North Korean foreign policy; but it does not indicate in what respect Hwang Suk-Yong's activities can be described as terrorism. Nothing in the text of the Government's reply testifies to violence perpetrated, premeditated, advocated or upheld by Hwang Suk-Yong. The Government's explanations concerning the scope of the National Security Law, protecting society against "illegal acts such as a violent attempt to overthrow the Government", do not as they stand appear to apply to the case of Hwang Suk-Yong, since the Government does not accuse him of such a violent attempt. The Government also considers that the proceedings against the accused are moving forward properly, without any violation of national legislation guaranteeing the right to a fair trial. The Government concludes by emphasizing that other institutions should not interfere in this matter.

8. The source states in its comments of 17 January 1994 that on 25 October 1993 Hwang Suk-Yong was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment by the court of first instance. It indicates (without specifying the figure of $250,000) that the money represented copyright fees for the film which was made of his book Jankilsan. The source adds that Hwang Suk-Yong, who was interrogated for the first 17 days of his detention by ANSP, complained of having been deprived of sleep, interrogated for long periods and threatened.

9. The Working Group considers that the grounds for the detention and conviction of Hwang Suk-Yong lie in the personal contacts he has had with individuals originating from North Korea with the aim of publicly advocating dialogue with North Koreans.

10. The Working Group recalls that article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantee the right to freedom of opinion and expression, with the proviso that restrictions of this freedom set out in national legislation must correspond to article 19, paragraph 3 (b) of the Covenant. The Government of the Republic of Korea has not proved that Hwang Suk-Yong used, advocated or premeditated violence; it does not even accuse him of having transmitted secret information or information likely to threaten national security. The Working Group does not regard the mere affirmation that Hwang Suk-Yong had contacts with the North Korean intelligence services as sufficient in itself to establish that Hwang Suk-Yong violated the law setting out restrictions necessary for the protection of national security.

11. In keeping with international standards relating to human rights, the international community has a duty to ensure the application of human rights in national legislation in conformity with international standards, their practical application and their evolution on the national and international levels. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention is but one of many examples of machinery working in the cause of human rights.

12. It is apparent from the above that Hwang Suk-Yong was sentenced solely for having exercised his right to freedom of opinion and expression, which is guaranteed by article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is also apparent that there is nothing to indicate that in doing so he had recourse to violence, incited violence or caused any threat to national security, public order or public health or morals and thereby violated a national law stipulating permissible restrictions aimed at the protection of those values.

13. In the light of the above the Working Group decides:

The detention of Hwang Suk-Yong is declared to be arbitrary being in contravention of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the Republic of Korea is a Party, and falling within category II of the principles applicable in the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.

14. Consequent upon the decision of the Working Group declaring the detention of the above-mentioned person to be arbitrary, the Working Group requests the Government of the Republic of Korea to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in order to bring it into conformity with the provisions and principles incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Adopted on 29 September 1994.

Decision No. 31/1994 (Indonesia)

Communication addressed to the Government of Indonesia on 22 April 1994.

Concerning: Nuka Soleiman, on the one hand, and the Republic of Indonesia, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with concern that till date no information has been forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the case in question. With the expiration of more than 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group, it is left with no option but to proceed to render its decision in respect of alleged arbitrary detention brought to its knowledge.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group would have welcomed the cooperation of the Government of Indonesia. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the case, especially since the facts and allegations contained in the communication have not been challenged by the Government.

5. Nuka Soleiman is a university student and Chairman of the human rights organisation Yayasan Pijar. He was sentenced to four years in prison by the District Court of Central Jakarta on 24 February 1994 for criticizing President Soeharto and for calling on him to accept responsibility for human rights violations committed under his rule. He was charged under article 134 of the Indonesian Criminal Code, under which insulting the head of State is an offence punishable by up to six years in prison. According to the source, the trial failed to meet international standards of fairness. In particular, the source alleges that the trial was marked by an atmosphere of intimidation due to the presence of military and political security and to the fact that access was strictly controlled. The source also questions the independence of the Court given the fact that the Court agreed to hear testimony of only 1 of 17 witnesses requested for by the defence.

6. Nuka Soleiman in criticizing the Head of State was merely exercising his right to freedom of expression and opinion guaranteed under article 19 of the Universal Declaration and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The charge and prosecution under article 134 of the Indonesian Criminal Code and the consequent imposition of the sentence was therefore unwarranted. The trial of Nuka Soleiman also seems to have been conducted in an atmosphere not conducive to a fair trial. The presence of military and political security coupled with the fact that access to the Court was strictly controlled makes the entire proceedings suspect. The decision of the Court to allow only 1 of the 17 witnesses requested for by the defence suggests the pre-determined nature of the proceedings.

7. In the light of the above the Working Group decides:

The detention of Nuka Soleiman, is declared to be arbitrary being in contravention of articles 9, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and articles 9, 14 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and falling within categories II and III of the principles applicable in the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.

8. Consequent upon the decision of the Working Group declaring the detention of Nuka Soleiman to be arbitrary, the Working Group requests the Government of Indonesia to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in order to bring it into conformity with the provisions and principles incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Adopted on 29 September 1994.

Decision No. 32/1994 (Indonesia)

Communication addressed to the Government of Indonesia on 22 April 1994.

Concerning: Cheppy Sudrajat, on the one hand, and the Republic of Indonesia, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with concern that till date no information has been forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the case in question. With the expiration of more than 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group, it is left with no option but to proceed to render its decision in respect of alleged arbitrary detention brought to its knowledge.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made, the Working Group would have welcomed the cooperation of the Government of Indonesia. In the absence of any information from the Government, the Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the case, especially since the facts and allegations contained in the communication have not been challenged by the Government.

5. Cheppy Sudrajat, a farmer from Rancamaya village in the Bogor of West Java, organized a peaceful protest against a real estate and golf course development in the Ciawi district of Bogor regency. For this, on 11 October 1993, he was sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment.

6. In organizing a peaceful protest Cheppy Sudrajat was doing no more than exercising his right to freedom of expression and opinion guaranteed under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He could neither have been prosecuted nor punished for this. Any punishment to the exercise of a guaranteed right, in such circumstances, would be arbitrary.

7. In the light of the above the Working Group decides:

The detention of Cheppy Sudrajat, is declared to be arbitrary being in contravention of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and falling within category II of the principles applicable in the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.

8. Consequent upon the decision of the Working Group declaring the detention of Cheppy Sudrajat to be arbitrary, the Working Group requests the Government of Indonesia to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in order to bring it into conformity with the provisions and principles incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Adopted on 29 September 1994.

Decision No. 33/1994 (Tunisia)

Communication addressed to the Government of Tunisia on 12 November 1993.

Concerning: Tawfik Rajhi, on the one hand, and the Republic of Tunisia, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it, and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with appreciation the information forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the case in question within 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made the Working Group welcomes the cooperation of the Government of Tunisia. The Working Group has forwarded the reply of the Government of Tunisia to the source of the information, which has so far not responded. The Working Group believes that it is in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the context of the allegations made and the response of the Government thereto.

5. According to the source, Tawfik Rajhi, a 32 year-old academic, was arrested on 26 July 1993 and held incommunicado for 23 days, during which time his family received no information concerning his place of detention (the maximum legal duration of custody is 10 days).

6. Tawfik Rajhi was allegedly sentenced on 31 August 1993 to two years' non-suspended imprisonment and two years' administrative supervision for belonging to an unauthorized organization (the Islamist Al-Nahda movement).

7. According to the source, no evidence was produced in court concerning Mr. Rajhi's membership of that movement and he was not charged with violence or incitement to violence. Rajhi is said to have told the court that, during his incommunicado detention, he had been ill-treated and compelled to sign a statement while ignorant of its content. It is reported that no investigation into his allegations was ordered by the court.

8. In its reply, the Government confirmed Mr. Rajhi's arrest, which it says took place on 11 August 1993 (and not, as the source claims, on 26 July 1993). Mr. Rajhi was brought before the Government Procurator's office in Tunis on 18 August, charged and committed the same day under article 30 of the Associations Act, which provides that "anyone participating in the direct or indirect maintenance or re-establishment of associations recognized as not existing or dissolved shall be punished by a term of one to five years' imprisonment and/or a fine of 100 to 1,000 dinars".

9. According to the Government, Tawfik Rajhi joined the unrecognized Al-Nahda movement in 1982, participated in the Congress of that movement in 1986 and in 1990 was the instigator of the policy of nationwide violence practised by that movement.

10. For these acts, he was finally sentenced on 31 August 1993 to two years' non-suspended imprisonment and two years' administrative supervision. On 8 October 1993 this sentence was upheld by a decision of the Tunis Court of Appeal, which did, however, reduce the two-year prison term to one of eight months.

11. The Government emphasizes that Mr. Tawfik Rajhi was assisted by lawyers of his choosing, both at the first instance and the appeal stages, that the hearings, including those before the court of appeal, were always held in public and that foreign lawyers were admitted to the hearings as observers.

12. By letters of 1 June and 20 July 1994, the Government indicated that Tawfik Rajhi had been released on 11 April 1994, the date of completion of the sentence, and that he had left Tunisia for France, where he is now living.

13. After examining all the information available to it, the Working Group is of the opinion that there are no special circumstances in the case which warrant consideration by the Group of the nature of the detention of the person released.

14. The Working Group, without prejudging the arbitrariness or otherwise of the detention, decides to file the case of Mr. Tawfik Rajhi under paragraph 14 (a) of its methods of work.

Adopted on 30 September 1994.

Interim decision No. 34/1994 (Indonesia)

Communication addressed to the Government of Indonesia on 6 December 1993.

Concerning: Xanana Gusmao, on the one hand, and the Republic of Indonesia, on the other.

1. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in accordance with the methods of work adopted by it and in order to carry out its task with discretion, objectivity and independence, forwarded to the Government concerned the above-mentioned communication received by it and found to be admissible, in respect of allegations of arbitrary detention reported to have occurred.

2. The Working Group notes with appreciation the information forwarded by the Government concerned in respect of the case in question within 90 days of the transmittal of the letter by the Working Group.

3. (Same text as para. 3 of Decision No. 10/1994.)

4. In the light of the allegations made the Working Group welcomes the cooperation of the Government of Indonesia. The Working Group transmitted the reply provided by the Government to the source, which has forwarded its comments in response. The Working Group believes that though it is not in a position to take a decision on the facts and circumstances of the case, in the context of the allegations made and the response of the Government thereto the special features of this case require the Working Group to take an interim decision as indicated hereinafter.

5. Certain relevant facts may be stated. Xanana Gusmao was allegedly arrested on 20 November 1992. He was charged with leading an armed rebellion against the Indonesian Government, disrupting national stability and with illegal possession of fire arms in alleged violation of article 1 (1) of Law No. 12 of 1951. After being tried in Dili, East Timor from 1 February to 21 May 1993 Xanana Gusmao was sentenced by the Dili District Court to imprisonment for life. He was found guilty of attempted putsch (art. 106 of the Indonesian Penal Code (IPC)), of armed rebellion (art. 108 IPC) and conspiracy to commit a crime as stated in articles 104, 107 and 108 of the IPC.

6. It is alleged that Xanana Gusmao was held in secret military custody for 17 days before the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) representatives were permitted to see him. During Gusmao's interrogation no lawyer was allegedly allowed access to him. This is apparently in violation of article 54 of the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further alleged that through the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (LBH) obtained on 22 December 1992, a power of attorney from Gusmao's family sources, the authorities prohibited the LBH access to him. In his defence statement, Xanana Gusmao reportedly stated that his defence advocate, Mr. Sudjono, had been appointed by the Strategic Military Intelligence Agency (BAIS); that he himself wished to be represented by the LBH; that his letter appointing the LBH was intercepted by the military authorities and that he was forced to withdraw it and to give a letter appointing Mr. Sudjono as his defence advocate.

7. As regards the trial itself it was alleged that at the concluding stages of the trial, the Court interrupted Gusmao soon after he started reading out his defence statement in Portuguese, despite the presence of interpreters in the Court. He was allegedly prevented from speaking in his own defence. It is further alleged that several witnesses for the prosecution were persons under detention, either awaiting trial or convicted for their role in the November 1991 demonstrations in Dili which led to suspicions that they may have been testifying under pressure, intimidation in fear of reprisal against their relatives or themselves, making their testimonies less reliable. Those awaiting trial were said to be in a particularly delicate position, since their statements in Gusmao's trial could be used against them in their own trial.

8. The Government in its response of 26 January 1994 maintained that the allegations submitted to the Working Group were untenable. According to the Government, while awaiting trial, Xanana Gusmao was treated with consideration in a manner consistent with international standards. The Government's position is that when two legal aid organizations offered their services to Mr. Gusmao he turned them down, accepting instead the services of Mr. Sudjono of the Indonesian Advocates Association. Mr. Sudjono who acted as Mr. Gusmao's defence counsel was apparently assisted by two other lawyers and a legal adviser who is a specialist in criminal law. It is also stated that during the trial Mr. Sudjono had been given full access to meet Mr. Gusmao.

9. The Government maintains that at the trial Mr. Gusmao was allowed to read his own defence before the Court. The interruption in the reading of the statement was because the Court viewed it as not being relevant to the legal argument. The position of the Government is that what may be stated before the court as part of the defence of the accused is what is termed as a "legal defence" and not any statement which may be called a defence statement. Such a statement must satisfy all the elements of a defence statement before being allowed to be read as a defence statement. The Court, however, is said to have considered Mr. Gusmao's defence statement before giving its verdict. The allegation that several witnesses for the prosecution had testified under pressure was also denied by the Government. During cross-examination of these witnesses Mr. Gusmao is alleged to have admitted responsibility for various crimes, including murder and robbery committed by him and his men, as well as for illegal possession of arms.

10. The Government concludes that Xanana Gusmao's trial was carried out in full conformity under the Indonesian applicable laws. That it was fair and in accordance with the existing criminal procedure. There is, according to the Government, no legal basis for questioning the verdict of the Indonesian tribunal. Though Mr. Gusmao had a right of appeal to a high court, he chose not to avail of the right and instead appealed to the President for clemency which the Government informs was granted by reducing his prison sentence from life imprisonment to 20 years in accordance with article 14 of the Indonesian Constitution of 1945 and Law No. 3/1950.

11. The source whose comments were sought in the Government's response reiterated its earlier position. In support thereof it is alleged that Xanana Gusmao was not permitted to be represented by a lawyer of his choice, the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation. The LBH lawyers were apparently not permitted to visit him, despite having been given a power of attorney by his relatives. In a letter he wrote to the LBH on 30 November 1993 he is said to have stated "I was prohibited from accepting your offer of assistance". He is said to have accepted LBH's offer, which is said to have been retained by the authorities. Mr. Sudjono who ultimately defended Mr. Gusmao is said to have been appointed six days before the trial. Inadequate translation services apparently handicapped his defence. Not being fully conversant with either the Indonesian language or English, he could only understand in a general way the defence mounted by Mr. Sudjono. Even the clemency was apparently not sought by Mr. Gusmao, but by Mr. Sudjono without his instructions. The conduct of Mr. Sudjono, his defence lawyer, has also been questioned by Mr. Gusmao, alleging that he and the prosecution were hand- in-glove.

12. Considering the nature of the allegations made and the response of the Government, it is difficult for the Working Group to find a certain set of facts which can be said to be undisputed. The Working Group cannot be persuaded to proceed to arrive at a decision merely on the basis of suspicion. There is no mechanism available within the Working Group to ascertain the veracity of the allegations made or for that matter to doubt the truthfulness of the Government's response. In this situation, any decision by the Working Group would have to be based on assumptions, conjectures and surmises. The communications of Xanana Gusmao subsequent to his trial and conviction if their contents represent the correct state of affairs, give rise to misgivings which can only be resolved pursuant to a detailed investigation. Individual liberty is too precious to be jeopardized by obfuscating issues by allegations and denials. It is therefore imperative that the true facts be investigated. For that the cooperation of the Government of Indonesia is essential. We are sure that it will on its part have no hesitation to permit the Working Group to ascertain the true and correct facts.

13. It may be recalled that the Commission on Human Rights, by its resolution 1993/97, urged, inter alia, the Government of Indonesia to invite the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to visit East Timor and to facilitate the discharge of their mandates, and that, of the four above-mentioned mechanisms, only the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions has so far been invited by the Government of Indonesia to visit East Timor.

14. It is therefore desired that the Government of Indonesia be requested to permit a visit by the Working Group to Indonesia and East Timor to enable it to ascertain the facts, in cooperation with the Government of Indonesia for the purpose of arriving at a decision in the case of Xanana Gusmao. This will be a step in the direction of enabling the Working Group to fulfil its mandate and report to the Commission about the nature of Xanana Gusmao's detention.

Adopted on 30 September 1994.