I welcome Professor William Schabas, director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights, and his colleagues, Dr. Ray Murphy and Peter Fitzmaurice. All three are based in the National University of Ireland, Galway. They are here to discuss their ongoing work and activities in the field of human rights. I am obliged to inform them that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Do all three witnesses wish to make an initial contribution? Members will ask questions at the conclusion of contributions.
Irish Centre for Human Rights: Presentation.
Professor William Schabas
We have discussed this and I will make a short presentation before my colleagues and I field questions and engage the committee in a discussion. I intend to speak for about five to ten minutes. Material has been distributed to the committee about the activities of the centre, including an annual report. Details not covered in this presentation will be available in that material.
This institution was established just over five years ago at the National University of Ireland, Galway. It is affiliated with the law faculty there. The centre is an internationally renowned human rights centre, with seven full-time academics working there. This is as large a concentration of full-time academics as one would find working in the field of international human rights in any university in the world. Other employees work there also. Peter Fitzmaurice, who is present, is project manager. He is a trained solicitor but he works on organising specific research and advocacy projects at the centre. Dr. Murphy and I are academics and work in teaching and research.
On the teaching side, which is our primary mission as an academic institution, approximately 100 full-time postgraduate students at the masters degree and doctoral levels work in the area of human rights at the centre. Students began graduating at the masters degree level about four years ago and at the doctoral level last year. A cadre of highly-trained professionals is thus being created in Ireland. About 60% of our students are of Irish nationality, with about 40% from various other parts of the world. A highly-trained group has been developed, members of which are starting to find their way into institutions within Ireland and internationally. In the past year, four of our PhD. students have taken up positions with Irish universities, teaching in the field of international human rights and international law.
On the research side, even with seven full-time academics, it is not possible to cover all the issues in the field of human rights, which has become an enormous discipline. Our research is necessarily piecemeal, and we obviously play to our strengths. On the international level, the centre is well recognised for its work in the field of international criminal law. A course is ongoing in Galway this week on the International Criminal Court. The centre attracts annually about 50 to 60 civil servants, diplomats, journalists, academics etc. who take this course, which is delivered by the top specialists in the world, including judges and other personnel with the International Criminal Court.
The centre also has an international reputation in the field of international humanitarian law. This is the particular specialty of Dr. Murphy, a former member of the Irish Defence Forces who was a peacekeeper. The Irish Centre for Human Rights has a specialised degree in the field of peacekeeping.
The centre is also recognised internationally for its work in the field of capital punishment. Deputy Michael D. Higgins referred to this. The centre organised international conferences in Galway and last year in Paris, in partnership with the University of Paris and the Irish Cultural Centre, which was the venue for that conference which was held to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the birth of Séan McBride.
On a national level, within Ireland we have engaged particularly in the area of refugees and asylum seekers where we have a developed programme. We recently hosted an important conference in the area for professionals in the field, lawyers, justice department officials and people throughout the immigration and refugee process. Mr. Fitzmaurice takes the lead in that area. We are also engaged in research for bodies such as the Equality Authority, for which we are currently doing a project on aspects of equality law and anti-discrimination law. We send our students throughout Ireland and internationally to work as interns in various non-governmental organisations.
We are engaged with Irish NGOs such as Amnesty International in the training of people within civil society and within non-governmental organisations inside Ireland. After five years of operation, there is a new institution within Ireland, what might be described as one of the post-Good Friday institutions, although it was not formally part of the peace process, that raises Ireland's profile internationally and contributes to the promotion of human rights within the country.
I welcome the delegation, whose work is very important. My suggestion regarding the Irish Centre for Human Rights was originally made at the general committee. At that stage there were a number of issues. We previously had a presentation to this committee by Dr. Joshua Castellino in preparation for the Government's account of itself in Geneva. We specifically discussed the status of the Traveller community; we had a rather long discussion on that. However, more general issues were raised at the committee and I hope that in the autumn there will be an opportunity for representatives from the Centre for Human Rights to come to the committee to discuss some of those, for example, Professor Schabas's work in Rwanda and Sierra Leone, which is very important to our discussions, what is happening in Africa, and the more general issue of the sub-committee's conclusion on the whole question of capital punishment.
Members have different questions to ask. A number of us present are particularly interested in the fact that one of the internships is held by a Palestinian from the occupied territories. That is a very good development. We have an interest in the deteriorating situation in Palestine, which some of us witnessed recently.
Did the Deputy say it is being held by Palestine?
One of the internships is held by a Palestinian student and that is very valuable. I have an interesting question on which I will finish. I very much admire this work. It is very important and we should use it more as a resource. My question is specifically about the relationship with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the degree to which the analytical work of the Irish Centre for Human Rights can be crafted into representation by the Irish Government abroad. I am thinking in terms of using the centre's work and insights to inform Irish positions at the UN and its agencies, maybe specifically with regard to Geneva. I am very much interested in the approach of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice at the Hague. Senator Leyden visited Palestine recently and I was in Palestine in February. I am going back there in August with the international federation for justice and peace in Holland to look at the issue of the wall which is illegal and which is impacting on the lives of Palestinians. We are particularly interested in it.
I have been interested in turning around a more controversial issue that I believe is doing much damage, that is, the aid debate we have just had and the debate we continue to have on the world millennium development goals which includes aid, debt relief and trade. In regard to debt relief, the issue of corruption has arisen. A crude presentation has been made occasionally that we should cease relief aid and not consider debt relief for regimes described as undemocratic. If we did that in Uganda, the argument would be about the number of people whose attendance would be affected at, for example, primary level education.
A matter on which there has been total silence is the international legal issue of the recovery of funds that have been removed from countries which might have had the effect of reducing the health budget that led to child deaths and child malnutrition and so on. The precedents that were of interest to me were the cases taken against the Swiss bank system in regard to the Second World War and what had happened to the institutions in communities in different countries. It seemed to me — I may be totally wrong — that established a precedent that might have been used for tracing where dictators' funds are lodged. There is also a question about properties that have been bought in the European Union, which are very expensive in France and elsewhere, by a number of African dictators. The advantage would have been that as the corruption focus would have been on those who abused their own population and had abused the funds involved, we would have been following a valid line of inquiry in regard to the repatriation of funds. I am strongly in favour of this.
However, it is unfortunate that the issue of, say, debt relief should not be considered in a number of different countries because of the effect it will have on regimes. There are those who would not want debt relief in the first place. There are people who would be slow to give aid and they are using it as an excuse in many ways. In a way they have been handed an instrument and I wonder whether, either through the mandate of the World Court or the mandate of the Hague institution, there is a way in which the whole issue of abuse and removal of funds, which have the consequence of having such an impact, could be dealt with.
A wide range of issues has been raised by Deputy Michael D. Higgins.
Professor Schabas
The Deputy has covered a considerable amount of ground. I shall speak on the last issue he raised about the funds that have been looted out of Africa. I have always found that an intriguing question because the looting of African resources began long before the colonisation. We know that in the past 30 years a good deal of money was taken out by President Mobuto and others who squirrelledthe funds into Swiss bank accounts. If one recovered all the money that has been looted out of Africa one would have to close down Belgium, for example. This is one of the interesting issues that goes to the heart of the question of debt relief and why it is so unacceptable to make debt relief conditional on resolving corruption problems.
It has often been pointed out that there are two sides to the corruption issue. It is a terrible problem. As the Deputy has pointed out I have a considerable familiarity with Africa having worked in many countries there, particularly in Rwanda and Sierra Leone, and have seen the scourge of corruption up close. It is terrifying and is difficult to manage particularly when encouraged by various forces in the developed world who are dealing with the African leaders who are responsible for the corruption. I do not know if the International Criminal Court will address that issue. A number of international agreements have been developed in the past few years to deal with corruption. They are new instruments. Promises have been made that they will work and we will have to work at their enforcement.
I want to make a number of observations. The first relates to the issue of prisoners, particularly those in Central and South America. I do not know if Professor Schabas can give the committee or the Department of Foreign Affairs advice or support on developing bilateral arrangements between Ireland and countries like Ecuador, for example, which I understand are not party to the Strasbourg Convention. The manner in which prisoners are held in countries like Ecuador is, to put it mildly, unsatisfactory. I am aware a template is being put in place regarding a bilateral agreement with Cuba concerning an individual who is in prison there, but it is taking a long time and the Irish side blames the Cuban side while the Cuban side blames the Irish side. One Department here is blaming the other Department. Is there a mechanism other than forging a bilateral agreement between those countries that could be advanced to secure a retrial or repatriation with a view to the individual serving the sentence here? That is an issue in which I have an interest.
My second observation relates to Africa, particularly Ethiopia. It strikes me each time I visit that country that until such time as the question of land tenure and inheritance issues are addressed nothing other than marginal progress will be made in developing a stable economy there. I met some opposition groups in Addis Ababa last year which are involved in work with the ESRI, although I am not sure whether they mentioned the centre. I would be interested to know if there is anything the centre can do in terms of developing papers or something along that line on the issue of inheritance and land tenure.
In regard to Uganda, the main issue is the way we advance conflict resolution mechanisms in that country. I refer in particular to the ongoing Lord's Resistance Army conflict, particularly in the Gulu area. There is no doubt that there are very fine tribal people there as well as faith and church leaders who are working to try to advance that project but they need external expertise to do it. I am aware they have availed of the facilities in Glencree and other places in that regard. Is there anything Professor Schabas can do in that area?
On the EU-China network, it is clear there is much we can offer but the lack of human rights standards in China comes up when one travels to that country. It arises regularly here and many lobby groups meet us from time to time on those issues. What is the nature of Professor Schabas's involvement in the EU-China dialogue?
Professor Schabas
To respond to the Deputy's last question about human rights in China generally and the work we have done on our EU-China project, there are different elements to our relationship with China in the field of human rights. Our work began three and a half years ago when we were designated by the European Commission as the lead institution in organising a network of academic institutions in Europe and China. We held a number of conferences, expert meetings and exchanges, and Chinese academics came to work in Ireland at the Irish Centre for Human Rights. However, the European Commission's work has been suspended because it decided to wait a year and call for a new proposal, on which we will bid with the Commission.
We were awarded a grant recently from Development Co-Operation Ireland to engage in a bilateral exchange, building on the work we did as part of the EU-China network and dialogue. In the coming months and the coming year we will have a number of exchanges with China. One of our colleagues who worked at the centre for the past three years has taken up a position as professor at the University of Harbin in Manchuria. These are elements in developing a network of contracts, which perhaps is not as outspoken and aggressive a relationship on human rights as some human rights NGOs might like. We are building a solid dialogue and a relationship with people in academic life in China who are promoting human rights.
I was in Beijing three weeks ago for a dialogue meeting and noticed that already the goalposts have shifted on some of the debates, specifically capital punishment. We were engaged three weeks ago in a two-day workshop on the subject of capital punishment. In the three years we have been debating this subject with the leading Chinese academics, their position has shifted from being one of essentially defending the death penalty, saying it is part of Chinese culture and that we can have our own rules in Ireland but that they do things differently, to evolving to a position where they say that their objective is to abolish the death penalty within 30 or 40 years — they said "by 2015" and we said "how about by 2008?". We are debating the aspect of the years now. It is a more advanced debate than we might have with our colleagues in the United States on the subject, who defended it as a matter of principle rather than an issue with which they are attempting to deal.
I was encouraged by this movement because it was a sign of the progress and accomplishments that can be made from having this kind of dialogue. People are of mixed opinions as to whether the Chinese are simply engaging us and keeping us occupied by having this dialogue or whether we are moving matters forward. In that regard, I believe we are moving matters forward.
That kind of relationship is analogous to the kinds of exchanges academics had in the 1970s and early 1980s with eastern Europe. That fell under the umbrella of the Helsinki process. If we can develop similar relationships with China and perhaps other countries such as Iran and North Korea, perhaps we can also advance human rights in that way. It is something an academic institution can do because those doors are open to us. However, human rights NGOs cannot propose a network with human rights NGOs in China — they will not get visas, they simply will not be allowed into China. We have that little crack in the door, so to speak, and we are trying to occupy that space.
Deputy Carey's first question concerned prisoners in the Americas. There are two ways to approach this issue, one is to insist on respect for the highest human rights standards within Central and South America. Using the institutions of the Organisation of American States, the Irish Centre for Human Rights submitted recently what is called an amicus curiae, an intervenor’s brief, to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the subject of the treatment of prisoners awaiting execution in Guatemala. That was submitted to the court only a month or so ago. That is one aspect of the issue.
The other aspect is repatriation. I do not know that there is any way to approach that aspect other than by way of the bilateral treaties. There are many good models and substantial practice, but such agreements must be negotiated. It is more difficult for a small country to get the attention and devote the resources required to achieve such agreements than it is for a large country. The United States has all kinds of bilateral prisoner exchange agreements, but it has the resources required to engage in that process. The procedures involved are time-consuming. I do not know that there is an easy way to get around that problem.
Deputy Carey also asked about the question of land tenure and he referred to Ethiopia. That is one example, but such problems are widespread throughout Africa. One of our colleagues at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, Dr. VinodhJaichand, who is from South Africa, is a specialist in this area. He wrote a book on the subject of land tenure and continues to work in this area, an area of great interest. My impression, although it is not my specialty, is that many African people still live under what is essentially a feudal system of land tenure. It raises issues not just about development for economists, but also about human rights. Although we do not talk about it as often as we should, the fundamental human right is the right to property. That means peasants should have access to and be able to own land.
The final point was about conflict resolution in Uganda. As I said, given our limited resources, we must play to our strengths and focus on the areas where we have expertise. We have a lot of expertise in this area, but members may think it is from an unusual angle. The case of the Lord's Resistance Army was the first to be referred to the International Criminal Court. It has been investigating that case with a view to prosecuting the leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army since December 2003. It has not yet applied for any indictments, but that will come soon.
The issue of interest which has arisen recently is that there is a peace process in northern Uganda and members of civil society have said to the International Criminal Court and to the international community that perhaps such prosecutions will not help the peace process and that it may be counter-productive. That raises difficult questions of international law in terms of a duty to prosecute crimes against humanity and of whether the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court should back off from the possibility of a prosecution. We debated those questions during our summer programme yesterday and the day before in Galway. We are aware of this issue and we are in the middle of that debate. People will look to us for our expertise mainly in terms of directing and helping the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to untangle the issues about whether he can and should back off in the face of a peace process.
What would be the balance of opinion?
Professor Schabas
The schools of thought depend on where one belongs. If one went to The Hague and spoke to the people in the International Criminal Court and more generally in the international criminal justice field, they would say one must prosecute. Individual opinions will vary, but I am more amenable to the idea that the goal of international criminal justice is peace. We must balance peace and justice. I am more open to the suggestion that this is a good time for the prosecutor to back off. The prosecutor might spend more energy focusing on Sudan and leave Uganda alone if the peace process is advancing. However, one will probably find that people in the Department of Foreign Affairs, for example, who are closest to the justice side, would be anxious to pursue prosecutions, whereas the diplomats in Nairobi and elsewhere, who are following this closely, would be anxious to see the peace process advance and to put the prosecutions to the side. It is a live and difficult debate.
Dr. Ray Murphy
I would like to address the comments made by Deputy Michael D. Higgins about the aid to corrupt regimes in Africa. I agree that there is often a populist and simplistic response that aid should cease forthwith. If we look at the example of Zimbabwe, I am sure no one in this room is sympathetic to Robert Mugabe. However, cutting off all aid to Zimbabwe from Ireland is not in the best interests of those most in need. If the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Ireland Aid determine that giving some assistance is appropriate and they put in place proper mechanisms and checks and balances to ensure that it goes to the most needy, for example, AIDS victims, we should support that and argue for its retention. It will not achieve anything, particularly for those most in need, to cease all aid in such circumstances.
As regards mechanisms to deal with former tyrants from places such as Africa, it is not practical to abdicate something at a universal level. However, I do not understand why Ireland and other countries cannot within the European Union seek to have some type of policy whereby former tyrants from anywhere in the world are not given refuge in a nice chateau in the south of France or somewhere else. Within the European Union, we should seek a European policy to deal with this so that it does not occur. Ireland seems to be well placed to advocate this and get agreement on it.
On land rights, I concur with my colleague, Professor Schabas. Land rights are usual central to disputes in the first instances but are also an integral part of any dispute resolution process. We were asked what assistance we might be able to give with particular issues. We have a wide range of well trained, enthusiastic, eager and committed students who currently work all over the world as interns and there are students within the Irish Centre for Human Rights who already work on a pro bono basis on behalf of non-governmental organisations to assist in ways like this. I would recommend that if there is a specific problem the committee wants addressed, analysed and studied, and on which it wants certain recommendations made, then something should be framed along those lines and put to us because we are well placed to be of assistance in those circumstances.
I agree with Professor Schabas on the issue of prisoners' rights. Sometimes the international human rights community advocates a name and shame basis on which to achieve results in the field of human rights, and this is appropriate in the case of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. However, I am often more impressed by the achievements of organisations like the International Committee of the Red Cross, which work behind the scenes and whose work is often quite confidential but can achieve significant results. One need not advocate a confrontational approach on the prisoners in these circumstances. That will not achieve much. My personal view is that the best policy is quiet diplomacy and I would support strongly the idea that it would be preferable if these people could be repatriated to serve out their sentences. Of course it would be most important when trials are taking place in any of these countries that observers from the Houses of the Oireachtas and from organisations like the Irish Centre for Human Rights, the Irish Bar Association or Law Society be present to ensure that all international human rights standards are adhered to and fair trial process takes place. I would have reservations not only about the conditions in which some of these prisoners find themselves but the circumstances under which they were tried and found guilty in the first instance.
I happen to be dealing with an issue pertaining to Ecuador in conjunction with the Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas and some religious communities. On the issue of the quality of the legal representation which prisoners receive, is there any way of establishing whether a person who comes to a prison offering legal services is a bona fide qualified practitioner? I have had experience of one unfortunate person who has gone through three different lawyers, all of whom have disappeared into the great blue yonder with many euro in their back pockets.
Professor Schabas
That is a tough one. There are many excellent lawyers throughout Latin America. I have worked with and known many of them and we have had some of them visit and study with us. It is as with lawyers everywhere, that one must seek good advice and get the right one. I do not know any magic formula.
I would not ask for a nickel on that one.
Professor Schabas
I practised law for many years, as did my two colleagues, and therefore we know about those issues. Deputy Carey may call us. We could do a good job.
My first comment is on what Deputy Higgins stated. It is important to distinguish between aid, which is certainly never a problem for anyone, and debt recovery, which is a matter which should be suspended until moneys, which have been taken out of the country concerned, are found and replaced. He is correct about the Swiss or Belgian accounts where these moneys are held. There is growing concern that billions of dollars have been taken by dictators. When such action is proved illegal through an international courts or a human rights courts system, banks should be forced to react appropriately. I heard no mention today of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. We heard about Africa, South America, the Middle East but not at home. Is there a reason for this? We deal with countries such as Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Chechnya and Turkey where basic human rights do not apply. Reading through the material we have been given, there is no reference to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which has been doing a tremendous job over the years. How have you dealt with the issue of the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay for three or four years and who have never been charged? It is important that their rights are dealt with. Many Muslims feel aggrieved that these people have not been formally charged. While it is not right, it appears this has led to some of the atrocities that took place in England in the past week.
Dr. Murphy
With regard to Guantanamo Bay, this period in American history will be considered with great shame in the same way that the United States now considers the detention of Japanese American citizens during the Second World War. Professor Schabas and I have spoken publicly and written about this issue. Last year, we held a special seminar to deal with the issue and we have worked closely with some non-governmental organisations advocating that these people be brought before a properly established tribunal to determine their status as either prisoners of war or citizens who were doing something that could be termed illegal under international law. It is unacceptable, and even conservative British publications such as The Economist have been very critical of US policy in this regard. Many people in the United States are ashamed of the government’s policy in regard to the Guantanamo detainees and all the related issues such as the handing over of those detained to regimes where they are well aware they will be questioned in a manner which would not be acceptable in Europe or the United States.
We must continue to advocate for the United States to change its policy in this regard and to cease the seizure of such people in these circumstances. On a number of occasions, detainees have been released without charge after very prolonged periods in detention. We have received significant insights into their conditions and they have not yet been formally charged or brought before even the ill-conceived military commissions proposed by the US. Under international law, what the United States is currently doing is clearly illegal and contrary to the Geneva Conventions. It is under a legal obligation to bring these detainees before a properly constituted tribunal to determine their status and, if there is no evidence against them, they must be released because they are ordinary citizens. They are civilians who are entitled to protected status under Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law.
The Deputy asked why there is no mention of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg or the European Convention on Human Rights. At the time of the incorporation of the European Convention into Irish law, we disagreed with the minimalist approach adopted by the then Irish Government in the incorporation process. We held an international seminar to discuss this issue and we brought together non-governmental organisations from within Ireland and international experts. We have engaged in a number of national and international conferences and we have advocated a different policy than what eventually appeared. We were critical of the Act which was passed eventually. I do not think we could have done more. I accept fully that, for example, the provision of fundamental rights under the Irish Constitution are of a very high standard compared with international human rights law. However, I still cannot understand why we did not incorporate directly into Irish law and make directly applicable the European Convention on Human Rights. It was a lost opportunity and a mistake. With hindsight, I would still be critical of that policy.
Dr. Murphy has not mentioned the European Court of Human Rights and its work. He has mentioned all the world except for Europe which is on our doorstep.
Professor Schabas
I thank the Deputy for pointing that out. It is an oversight if it is not contained in our material. The European Court of Human Rights——
I glanced through the submission but I did not see any reference.
Dr. Murphy
It is there. We teach a course on the European Convention on Human Rights which directly concerns the jurisprudence and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. It is an integral part of our programme and therefore we do not ignore it.
I have only given the submission a cursory glance because we only received it a few minutes ago.
Professor Schabas
It is probably an oversight. We may take it for granted and that may explain why it is not obvious in the material but it is very much part of our lives. When I came to Ireland five and a half years ago to take up this job, it was my dream that I would some day argue a case in Strasbourg. Hopefully that dream will come true at some point.
We have a research project underway which is a typical academic project but may be of some interest to the committee. We are examining the history of Ireland's relationship with the European Court of Human Rights. I will be in Strasbourg on Monday and Tuesday poring through the archives and studying the old Lawless case and some other cases. We are attempting to develop that history of Ireland's role in its relationship with the European Court of Human Rights. The court is a part of our lives without question. I will revise our material to ensure we do not overlook reference to it because the Deputy has pointed out something that should not have happened.
I wish to be associated with the welcome to Professor Schabas, Dr. Murphy and Peter Fitzmaurice. I am delighted the Irish Centre for Human Rights is based in NUI Galway, as like my colleague I come from the west of Ireland and I have been a student of NUI Galway in some shape or form in the past. The centre was only established five years ago and it takes time for people to be aware of its existence.
On the question of Palestine, has the delegation any observations about the building and near completion of the wall of shame going right through the Occupied Territories and particularly surrounding the city of Bethlehem? There will be only one way in and out. It means that an open prison is being built. The reason for its construction has been to prevent suicide bombings. It has divided land and the people of Palestine are crying out for justice and are being ignored by the international community, in particular by the United States of America. Has the centre played any role in the question of the illegal erection of this wall which is being constructed with materials supplied unfortunately by an Irish company, CRH Holdings?
Professor Schabas
I thank the Senator for that question. The broader issue of Palestine and the rights of the Palestinian people are very much the preoccupation of the Irish Centre for Human Rights. We currently have Palestinian human rights activists studying on our programme, one of them funded by the Irish Government, for which we are grateful and we expect this will continue. Student interns work on a regular basis in the West Bank. We participate in the legal assistance to Palestinian activists. In November I will be participating in a conference in Ramallah on the legal issues relating to the wall. One of our colleagues at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, Dr. Kathleen Kavanagh, has been almost in the line of fire. She was one of the first people to go into Jenin a few years ago as part of the Amnesty International mission that examined the atrocities committed there.
On the substantive issue, the wall is clearly illegal. This has been declared not only by the International Court of Justice but even by the Supreme Court of Israel. I was speaking recently with an activist from Palestine and with the special rapporteur, John Dugard, whom I met a few days ago. He told me that these judgments, unfortunately, are not governing the current debate in Israel and Palestine. This important advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice was given last July — almost to the day as it was in the second week of July. It is now absent from the debate among Palestinians and within Israel. We could, perhaps, help by insisting the issue remain prominent. It is one of the great human rights sores of the world today. In that regard, we need only recall the bombings in London last week and the commemoration two days ago of events in Srebreniza. At the heart of all of this, in the context of our relationship with the Muslim world, is the fact that we cannot resolve peace in Palestine, an issue we must address.
I would also like to speak a little about Palestine. A delegation from the sub-committee visited Palestine in spring of this year. We had a meeting in the Knesset with the Foreign Affairs Committee and also visited the West Bank and other parts of the occupied territories. We had a difficult time in Hebron and have an unresolved issue in that regard as during our visit a humanitarian worker was harassed and is currently before the courts for allegedly obstructing a military officer and is awaiting sentencing. The case was discussed yesterday by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. Also discussed at that meeting was the case of a person accused and later prosecuted for obstruction having stood between settlers and an elderly woman when they tried to take her photograph.
I and an international group of European Cabinet Ministers will visit Palestine from 22 to 28 August with the specific intention of examining the implementation of the decision of the International Court of Justice which, as Professor Schabas said, is exactly one year old. The delegation will be led by the former Prime Minister of Holland. I am not sure how much progress we will make.
Senator Leyden referred to the open prisons. A publication from the Israeli Centre for Human Rights in the occupied territories uses the title he mentioned and points to a new problem that is emerging and likely to worsen in the next few months in the context of the withdrawal from Gaza — the Israeli Government refuses to accept that the six major international conventions to which it is a signatory apply in the occupied territories. The Israeli Centre for Human Rights in the occupied territories deals mainly with Gaza. The document to which I referred is constructed on individual case studies, many powerfully moving, about people wanting to go to Egypt for medical treatment that is not available in Gaza and elsewhere. That is a fundamental issue. The Israeli Government's argument that the Hague regulations and Geneva Convention do not apply in the occupied territories is worsened by the Oslo Agreement on the basis that the Israeli Government argues it has no obligations in those territories in which the Palestinian authority has been given a mandate. The withdrawal from Gaza will result in a worsening situation for 7,500 settler families. Effectively, civilians in the Gaza area will sink into a mire of rightlessness and will not be in a position to vindicate their rights.
I mentioned earlier the right of people with specific illnesses to seek treatment in Egypt. People, many seriously ill, often have to wait a year or year and a half for such treatment. Cases have been taken on the right of people to seek treatment and it has been argued that a person's movement should not be obstructed. The situation in Guantanamo is, as Dr. Murphy stated, serious in so far as it is akin to a black hole in which no protection of law applies. A similar situation in Gaza is deteriorating. I envisage that the situation will be made worse by the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. A close examination of the details of the withdrawal shows that an Israeli presence will continue and Israel will maintain control of the border and so forth.
In addition, during my visits to the area, we were given specific details regarding the limited communication between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, which interferes with the rights of families to reunification and so forth. It depresses me to have to express my belief that the position in the Gaza Strip will get worse in the short term. In many cases, the effort in which I will be involved with the greatest proximity is symbolic.
Professor Schabas
I cannot add to the Deputy's comments, with which I agree, except to confirm that difficult legal problems need to be unravelled and organisations such as the Irish Centre for Human Rights have the expertise to carry out this task. I realise we are probably at the end of the hourglass. As a human rights centre, we are a precious resource for Ireland and we are in a position to assist governments, civil society and parliamentarians. I hope Members will feel free to call upon us if they believe we can be of assistance in any area. The Irish Centre for Human Rights is available to others to take advantage of it.
Perhaps we will take advantage of Professor Schabas's kind offer. As he may have heard, one of the objectives the sub-committee attempts to pursue is the abolition of the death penalty. I ask Professor Schabas to elaborate on his comments on what appears to be progress in this regard in China. He noted that China aspires to abolish the death penalty within 30 years. Does this aspiration stem from the world of academia or has a political statement been made to this effect?
Will Professor Schabas advise the sub-committee on possible ways to make progress on the abolition of the death penalty? The sub-committee pursues individual cases but can do little other than write letters to governors, presidents, ambassadors and so on? Should we attempt to pursue other avenues? It is no longer a question of highlighting the death penalty because this receives attention in almost every country. There is, therefore, nothing new to add to the debate. Are more effective options for addressing the issue available?
Professor Schabas
As the death penalty is my all time favourite subject, I am delighted the Chairman has asked me to say a few more words on it. I have written books on the issue and continue to be engaged all over the world in a campaign for the total and universal abolition of capital punishment.
Although the centre's interlocutors in China are principally academics, they are very close to what one might describe as the policy community. One has the feeling, therefore, that one is hearing quasi-official pronouncements from those who are close to official thinking. We are in no doubt, however, that we are in contact with people who would be more friendly to our positions, in the same way as one would get different takes on how certain issues are addressed from speaking to judges, on the one hand, and prison guards or police chiefs, on the other.
On the death penalty in general, we should be extremely optimistic about the prospects for its universal abolition within our lifetimes. This objective is moving closer with two or three countries abolishing the death penalty every year and this pattern has been consistent for the past 30 years. The death penalty is still in force in 62 countries. One only has to do the maths, by dividing 2.5 into 62, to produce a result of total abolition at some time in the next 20 to 30 years. People argue that China, the United States and Iran are the tough nuts but I can remember working on this issue when the tough nuts were countries such as Russia, Ukraine and South Africa, all of which have abolished the death penalty.
We should be optimistic. We sometimes appear to take a somewhat routine approach in constantly undertaking the same initiatives — sending the same letters and applying the same pressure — but they work. We must not relax on that important message because we are close to universal success, an unusual development in human rights law.
Before moving to Ireland I lived in Canada and was involved in litigation before its Supreme Court. Canada, like Ireland, had abolished the death penalty in practice many years ago but it continued to extradite people to the United States. The issue has since been settled by a Supreme Court judgment which prohibits that practice.
In that last case in which I was involved on behalf of Amnesty International, the Italian Senate intervened and the Italian Senators engaged counsel in Canada who submitted a brief before the Canadian Supreme Court. Irish parliamentarians might consider doing that at some point in an appropriate case. The European Union has regularly intervened before the United States Supreme Court to express its views.
Ireland, uniquely and proudly, is the only case of a popular vote at referendum to prohibit the death penalty on a constitutional basis. Those countries that have the death penalty, and even some where it has been abolished, say this is an elitist development. In France or Britain it is said that people want the death penalty but the population of the Republic of Ireland voted 62% to prohibit the death penalty in the Constitution. It is a remarkable accomplishment and we should be proud of it and should remind people throughout the world that it can be done. We have a story to tell that is still unique.
A conference was held in Canada last year by the World Anti-Death Penalty Congress and it was suggested to the committee that we should lobby to hold such a conference in the future. Would that have an effect or would it be window dressing?
Professor Schabas
That is an exciting idea. I was due to attend the congress in Montreal, where I used to live, but I was called to Sierra Leone at the last minute and could not attend. It would be wonderful if Ireland could host the congress. I would even suggest boldly that Galway should host the event.
Reading some of the documentation last year, it was called a world congress but how international was it? Was it genuinely universal or was it limited in scope and participation? Was it the real deal?
Professor Schabas
The abolitionist community is complex and I know many of the participants in it. There are non-governmental organisations and coalitions and it draws on a broad spectrum, not just the classic non-governmental organisation activist but also faith-based groups and people from the legal community involved in the campaign to abolish capital punishment.
That conference in Montreal was mainly organised through the well established NGO Penal Reform International and was as close as possible to a truly universal conference. Representatives from the European Union were present. The Dutch ambassador, who was then head of human rights in the Netherlands which held the Presidency at the time, spoke, as did Mary Robinson. It is as close to worldwide coalition as one can get and I have the highest regard for it. This is a legitimate operation with which one could be proud to associate.
And Galway is available.
Professor Schabas
With our human rights centre, Galway would be a great place to hold it, although we are not averse to taking the train to Dublin once in a while, as we did today.
I thank the professor and his colleagues for their informative presentation and responses to questions. As Deputy Michael D. Higgins may have told them, there is a strong possibility they will be asked to appear before the general Committee on Foreign Affairs. That issue could perhaps be taken up at the next meeting.
I wrote to the Chairman of the committee about that already.
In that case a unilateral decision has been taken. I trust we will all meet Professor Schabas and his colleagues soon in some other forum. Once again, I thank them for the presentation. The delegation's remit is so broad that it could take days rather than hours to go through it but it has given us food for thought.
The sub-committee went into private session at 12.36 p.m. and adjourned at 12.40 p.m. until 12 noon on Thursday, 29 September 2005.