Vol. 403 No. 6
11 Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if it is proposed to establish any court or any other adjudicating mechanism to decide on cases of dispute where citizens of member states of the CSCE feel that the rights granted to them under the Charter of Paris and earlier declaration of the CSCE, have been denied in practice.
The Charter of Paris, in common with other CSCE documents, is not a legally binding document although signatory states have undertaken a political commitment to abide by its provisions. The question of judicial interpretation of the provisions of the Charter of Paris does not, therefore, arise and it is, therefore, not proposed at present to establish a court of the type outlined by the Deputies. There has, however, already been some progress in the CSCE framework in the development on adjudicating mechanisms between states in relation to human rights and there are prospects that these may be developed further to involve individuals.
The Vienna Concluding Document, adopted in January 1989, contains provisions, known as the human dimension mechanism, whereby a participating state can raise with another state cases and situations where there is reason to believe that CSCE human rights commitments have been violated. On a number of occasions, these provisions have been invoked in relation to cases involving specific individuals.
The Paris Charter contains a commitment to expand this mechanism to include new procedures involving, inter alia, the services of experts or a roster of eminent persons experienced in those human rights issues which could be raised under the mechanism. There is also a commitment to make provision, in the context of the mechanism, for individuals to be involved in the protection of their rights.
The participating states have undertaken to develop further their commitments in this respect, in particular at the Moscow Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension which will take place from 10 September to 4 October 1991. This development will be without prejudice to obligations under existing international instruments to which these states are parties. The Government favour the expansion of the mechanism, and will work actively to this end.
I was trying to elicit from this question that the declarations on the CSCE were not merely declarations but that machinery will be put in place for a follow-through in relation to the decisions being taken so that they will not be just laid on the table and then forgotten about. I hope the Minister's reply means that there will be some form of mechanism where people who feel aggrieved under various declarations can seek redress.
I thank Deputy Barry for his remarks. The Government support the strengthening of means of ensuring that CSCE commitments undertaken in the field of human rights are fully implemented. With our colleagues and partners in the Twelve, we will consider how best this can be achieved by putting suitable proposals to the Moscow meeting which I have already mentioned. As the CSCE commitments are not legally binding and not drafted in legal terms, I foresee difficulties in attempting to establish a court to interpret them. However, that does not mean we cannot strive for the type of mechanism about which we are talking.
I have tabled Question No. 12 which seeks to know if the Government intend to use any means of disseminating information about a Charter which was signed? Is it intended to produce the Charter in pamphlet form? Will it be distributed to schools or libraries? In what way will the citizens of the State be informed of what was signed on their behalf?
Am I allowed to answer?
We have not reached Question No. 12. I am sorry, our time is up. That disposes of questions for today.
On a point of order, I should like to make a protest regarding the rights of the majority in the House which are constantly being eroded. Today is an example as one question took 23 minutes to discuss. Priority question time was allowed to run at least five minutes over the time allowed. There are other issues——
I take your point, Deputy Allen. The Chair is faulted for being too restrictive and for being too generous. It is very difficult and the Chair does his best, straight down the middle.
The best is not good enough.
If it is not this House has a remedy.
I am just making the point.
The Deputy can take the point whatever way he likes.
I said that I was making the point.
