|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manipur Update
- Published by Irengbam Arun
- on behalf of the Human Rights Alert
-
- Editor :
- Babloo Loitongbam
|
|
Hard
Copy printed at concessionary rates by M/S
Lamyanba Printers, Konung Lampak, Imphal 795001
|
| |
- Manipur Update
- December Issue
- Volume I Issue I, December
1999
DOCUMENT 3
|
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS OF THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE 1991
INDIA
UN Ref: CCPR/C/37/Add.13
(Relevant paragraphs only)
2. The CHAIRMAN invited members of the Committee to
make their closing comments on the second periodic report of India (CCPR/C/37/Add.
13)
8. (Ms CHANET said) The Government did not consider that it
was derogating in the case of article 6, and maintained that deprivations of the
right to life under the special powers granted to the police and the armed
forces could not be construed as arbitrary. She agreed with the views expressed
by Mr. Lallah and Mr. Wako on the use of firearms by such forces in the
preservation of public order, and regarded the provisions of the Armed Forces
(Special Powers) Act as incompatible with article 6 of the Covenant.
15. Mr. FODOR said that during the consideration of the
report the Committee had identified a number of fields in which legislation and
practice in India were not compatible with the terms of the Covenant, such as
the implementation of the Covenant in 'disturbed
areas',
arbitrary killings and arrests in some states, the excessive powers granted to
the security forces, and the failure to bring proceedings against police
offenders. At the same time, he felt confident that India, with its democratic
traditions and institutions, would succeed in overcoming its difficulties with
regard to implementation of the Covenant and that the Government's
next periodic report would reflect continuing progress towards that goal.
16. Mr. AGUILAR URBINA said that it was his impression that
the reservations to the Covenant showed that it was not being fully implemented
in India. Other articles, in respect of which no reservations had been entered,
were also at variance with such domestic legislation as the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and the Armed Services (Special Powers)
Act. In particular, the authority conferred by the latter Act on the security
forces with regard to the use of firearms was clearly excessive and in
contravention of article 6 of the Covenant, while article 14 was contravened by
the provisions in the former Act which invalidated the concept of due process by
denying presumption of innocence. In the case of article 14, the Committee
should have been notified of any derogation. He hoped, however, that the
constructive dialogue with the Government of India would continue and that the
next periodic report would go some way towards allaying the concerns voiced by
the Committee.
18. He (Mr. WAKO), too, hoped that the Indian Government
would consider ratifying the Optional Protocol so that its citizens would have
the added protection of being able to petition the Committee. He shared the
views of other Committee members concerning the Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act and National Security (Amendment) Act and was
particularly concerned about the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, which
broadly empowered police officers and the army to kill. The representative of
India had maintained that those powers had not been used to any great extent,
but the Committee had seen reports to the contrary. Neither was there convincing
evidence - apart
from the covert case on death in custody - that such violations had been
sufficiently investigated or prosecuted.
|
|
