The Guyana government’s record on human rights and public security collided with the reality of its international obligations and the vigilance of the developed democracies a fortnight ago in Geneva.
Attending the UN Human Rights Council’s Work-ing Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Minister of Foreign Affairs Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett – accompanied by Presidential Adviser on Governance Gail Teixeira and Guyana’s Ambassa-dor to Belgium Patrick Gomes – seemed to have been caught off-balance by the up-to-date information and incisive interrogation of the council’s thirty-two member states.
It was in relation to public security during the interactive dialogue that several states’ representatives – one after the other – expressed their concerns about Guyana’s spotty record. Australia referred to allegations of police brutality and the incarceration and torture of minors. Brazil voiced concern about reports of ill treatment by the police force. Canada was concerned about reports of the excessive use of force by security forces and the recent torture of 15-year-old Twyon Thomas by police officers. It called on Guyana to conduct thorough and independent investigations of all allegations of extrajudicial killings, taking into account the findings of the Report of the United Nations Independent Expert on Minority Issues on the ‘phantom death squad.’
France expressed concern about reported excessive use of force by the police and inquired about how Guyana intended to stop that practice and ensure that complaints would lead to impartial investigations and prosecutions of alleged offenders. The Netherlands was concerned about reports of the excessive use of force by the army and police forces. Sweden was concerned about allegations of excessive force and “numerous instances of torture by security and police forces.” The United Kingdom urged that an “immediate” commitment be made to reforming the security agencies and the United States was concerned with reports of extrajudicial killings and the use of excessive force by the police.
Faced with a flood of 112 factual complaints, Ms Rodrigues-Birkett admitted that the Guyana delegation did not reject any recommendations. It accepted 57 and agreed that the remaining 55 will be considered. The administration will be required to report on all of them to the plenary of the Human Rights Council in September this year.
Guyana’s delegation, happily, did commit itself to consider recommendations to ensure that “impartial” investigations are held into all allegations of killing, torture and physical abuse by the police and army; that complaints will be subject to “immediate, accurate and independent investigating” and that perpetrators will be prosecuted and effective remedies will be provided to the victims.
Neither the Guyana government nor its delegation to the Geneva meeting seemed to have grasped just how grave and germane to modern inter-state relations human rights and human security issues have become. The Human Rights Council has done well to expose many of the monstrosities in national governance to international examination.
The administration’s monotonous bellyaching in its official reports about the state of indebtedness and poverty in 1992 has lost its appeal after nearly eighteen years in office. International relations have moved forward. Secretary to the Cabinet Dr Roger Luncheon’s misunderstood notions of ‘sovereign rights’ suggest that he is still to learn that emerging international law has extended its protection to citizens when their own governments do not. Ms Teixeira’s resort to the bizarre logic of excusing the delegation’s performance by pointing out that Guyana was the only country where a female was the head of the delegation, that she was an “indigenous” person and that the delegation consisted of only three persons was astonishingly unenlightened.
Is this sort of thinking necessary in 2010?
