Dr Bertrand Ramcharan, Ph.D. (LSE), Barrister-at-Law, is a former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Chancellor of the University of Guyana, Commissioner of the International Commission of Jurists and Professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. He was closely involved in UN peace processes in Africa, Asia, the Balkans, the Caucasus, and elsewhere. He is one of the founders of the newly-established Guyana Institute of Public Policy, of which he is a Director. The Institute aims to generate thinking on issues that can help in the future cohesion and development of Guyana.
By Dr Bertrand G. Ramcharan
On 11 and 14 May, 2010, Guyana appeared before the UN Human Rights Council’s working group of the whole on the Universal Periodic Review. Guyana’s national report, and two related reports prepared by the UN Secretariat were reviewed in an earlier article. Some of the questions submitted in writing by representatives on the Council have been the subject of comment in the national media. The Guyana Human Rights Association trenchantly criticised the lack of any specific consultation with civil society on the preparation of Guyana’s national report.
During the discussions on Guyana’s national report, 32 delegations put questions to Guyana’s representatives, led by its Foreign Minister, and comprising a Presidential Adviser on Governance and its Ambassador to Brussels. In addition to introducing the report, the delegation also answered questions in two segments. The report of the UPR working group of the Council, adopted on 14 May, consists of 21 pages. It contains detailed summaries of the delegation’s initial presentation, the questions asked, the delegation’s replies to questions, recommendations accepted by the delegation, recommendations that the delegation said were in the process of implementation, and recommendations that it promised to answer when Guyana’s report is taken up in the plenary of the Human Rights Council at its session in September, 2010. The report of the working group will be available on the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (reference: A/HRC/WG.6/8/L.13).
It would be fair to say that the delegation accredited itself well in presenting and explaining the Government’s version of the human rights situation in Guyana, and that it was received with courtesy and consideration by representatives in the Human Rights Council.
There were some factual statements of the delegation that might be the subject of comment by informed Guyanese. It was contended, for example, that the Low Carbon Development Strategy had been subjected to an ‘extensive consultative process’ that had included more than 130 Amerindian communities. It was also contended that Prison Visiting Committees had been established, comprising representatives of civil society ‘who ensured justice for inmates and the protection of their rights’. It was contended that the Medical doctor involved in the Twyon Thomas case ‘had been censored by the Guyana Medical Council’. It was contended that efforts were underway to reduce the backlog of court cases. It was asserted that facilities were being completed to separate juvenile prisoners from adults.
It is worth noting that the delegation accepted a recommendation to ‘undertake a participatory and inclusive process with civil society organizations, including indigenous peoples in the implementation of universal periodic review recommendations’. Whatever view one might take about whether consultations occurred in the preparation of Guyana’s report, this commitment would call for a specific process of consultation on the implementation of the 99 specific recommendations itemised in the report – many of which repeat suggestions made by different delegations. There should be public accountability about this. Having led the delegation, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has a clear responsibility on this. So does the Presidential Adviser on Governance.
From the point of view of Guyanese public policy, some of the statements and recommendations are noteworthy. On constitutional issues, the delegation supported a recommendation to increase efforts to ensure the participation of women in political processes in the country. It noted that six Ministers were women, three of them Amerindian. It also supported a recommendation to enhance freedom of expression through radio by enacting legislation that ensures the mechanism for impartial issuing of broadcasting licenses. The delegation provided the assurance that, as a result of an agreement with the opposition party to place a hold on the issuance of new licences until broadcast legislation had been adopted, a new Broadcast Bill, coupled with a new Telecommunications Act and Commission, ‘was expected to be considered this year in the National Assembly.’
On legislative issues, the delegation said that it would consider a recommendation to adopt national legislation on refugees and asylum seekers.
It would also consider a recommendation to adopt a law curtailing corporal punishment of children. The delegation also accepted a recommendation to bring into line Guyana’s domestic legal framework with international human rights norms to which Guyana is a party.
On the administration of justice, the delegation undertook to consider a recommendation to take all necessary measures to guarantee that the mandatory limits for pre-trial detention are respected in practice, and to seek international assistance to address the issue of corporal punishment.
On the protection of rights, the delegation stated that active consideration was underway regarding the ratification of a number of international human rights treaties that are specifically mentioned in the outcome document. One of these treaties provides for a system of regular national or international visits to prisons and places of detention (the Optional Protocol to the Convention against torture). It would serve the country well for Guyana to ratify and implement this treaty speedily.
The delegation did accept a recommendation to ensure that all conditions of detention are in conformity with minimum international standards as well as to undertake all necessary measures to prevent the torture and mistreatment of inmates. Ratification of the Optional Protocol to the convention against torture would be a good step towards these ends.
The delegation supported a recommendation to develop a national strategy for human rights education in the school system in accordance with the Plan of Action of the UN World Programme on Human Rights Education. It considered that this recommendation is already implemented or in the process of being implemented. It would be interesting to learn details of what is already being done, or planned, in Guyana.
The delegation promised consideration of a recommendation to establish an independent commission, supported by international experts as necessary, to investigate the allegations of grave human rights abuses, including murders and extrajudicial killings, allegedly committed by members of the armed forces and the ‘Phantom Squad’ in the period 2002 – 2006.
On the five constitutional commissions, the Guyanese delegation informed Council members that ‘The Ethnic Relations Commission was functioning, and members of the Women and Gender Equality and Rights of the Child commissions had recently elected their chairpersons and were expected to be fully operational by mid-July 2010. The Indigenous Peoples Commission should be fully operational by the end of the year’. They described the method of appointing members of the Human Rights Commission, ‘reiterated’ their ‘conviction’ ‘that the rights commissions provided opportunities to receive and address complaints of violations of human rights’.
It would be interesting to see what procedures the five commissions establish to ‘receive and address complaints’. Representatives on the Council urged that the Human Rights Commission and its associated commissions ‘become operational as soon as possible.’ They also emphasised that these commissions must be truly independent in accordance with United Nations principles (The Paris Principles).
As a concluding comment, one might note that the value of the UPR reporting process lies not in mere diplomatic engagement such as that which Guyana has gone through, or how ‘clever’ a county’s representatives can be at the UN. Presenting a glossy picture to the outside world does nothing for the people inside the country and misses an opportunity.
Rather, the value of the reporting process lies in engagement, in good faith, with all parts of the society so that their insights and views can help make the country better. The reporting process should also serve an educational function in the reporting country. Implicitly, the Government’s report acknowledges that there were no specific consultations with civil society before Guyana’s report was written. One might compare this with what the USA is doing as it prepares its report, to be considered later in 2010. The US State Department is engaged in a process of detailed consultations with civil society groups and others in different parts of the country prior to drafting the report and will, in all likelihood, have civil society representatives on its delegation when the report is discussed at the UN. Other countries, like Brazil and Indonesia engaged in broad-based, specific consultations. These countries have sought to learn from the UPR process for the good of their people.
There is still time for the Government of Guyana to turn the UPR process to advantage for Guyanese. Whatever its merits, the Guyanese report has been written and presented, and the two UN Secretariat documents accompanying it are on record. The deliberations of the UPR working group are also now on record. Guyana will come before the plenary of the Human Rights Council in September to give its views on those recommendations that it has undertaken to study, and on the process of implementation of those recommendations that its delegation has accepted.
Thanks to the Guyanese media, the reporting process is now in the public domain. It would be a fitting next step for the Government to call in all interested sectors of Guyanese society to participate in a Committee to deliberate and advise on Guyana’s follow-up actions. The Minister of Foreign Affairs should make a statement in Parliament before Guyana’s appearance before the plenary Human Rights Council next September.
It would also be fitting that all five constitutional human rights commissions be up and running by next September. Let the business of protecting rights in Guyana begin in earnest.
