1. ODIHR Action Programme 2002 1.1. Projects 2002 In 2002, we foresee to implement a total number of around 80 projects in the OSCE region, for a total value of over EUR 5.1 million (in comparison with the total value of projects of EUR 5.8 million in 2001). We have received so far around EUR 1 million, meaning that we will still need EUR 4,1 million to implement the whole project package. The full Action Plan has been distributed to delegations again today, therefore I will not go into details here but just briefly mention some examples. In the Southern Caucasus we have a total of 15 projects in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, including regional projects which are implemented in all countries. Out of these 15 projects we have 4 gender projects, 4 projects on freedom of movement and migration, 2 on NGO capacity building, 3 on the rule of law, 1 on elections and 1 on civic diplomacy. I would like to highlight in particular the 'prison reform' project which will be conducted in all countries of the region, a project on the reform of the Armenian registration system, another on the adoption of a unified election code in Azerbaijan and the civic diplomacy project in Georgia, which aims at bringing together people across lines of conflict. In Central Asia we have a total of 25 projects to this day, 4 in Kazakhstan, 7 in Kyrgyzstan, 2 in Tajikistan, 1 in Turkmenistan and 2 in Uzbekistan, plus 9 regional projects. Out of these we have 4 gender, 13 rule of law, 2 freedom of movement/ migration, 1 freedom of religion, and 6 NGO/civic diplomacy/ awareness raising projects. As an example I would like to mention the prison service training which has been particularly successful in Kazakhstan, thanks to the dedication of the Minister of Justice and his staff, as well as projects on women's rights awareness, border service reform, reform of the registration system, and legislative reform assistance. In South Eastern Europe we have a total of 11 projects, out of which 2 on elections, 5 on rule of law, 1 on Roma, 1 on gender, 1 on conflict prevention and 1 general human dimension project. I would mention in particular the reform of the election legislation in the FRY as well as in Serbia, the victims advocacy project in Kosovo implemented through the Mission, as well as the crisis management project in FYROM bringing together police, army and local authorities such as mayors of villages and towns. We also have a regional project on prison service reform which is a joint initiative together with the Council of Europe. A number of anti-trafficking projects in the South-Eastern Europe will be implemented under the Stability Pact Task Force on Trafficking in Human Beings, in cooperation with other international agencies. In other countries we have a total of 17 projects to this day, with a centre of gravity in Belarus where we plan to implement 9 projects, which are to a great extent financed by the European Commission. In this context I would mention the Masters degree programme at the Centre for European and Transatlantic Studies at the European Humanistic University, a project on the prevention of trafficking of human beings, and human rights training for law enforcement personnel. These 9 projects are being implemented either through the AMG or directly by our experts. Belarus will remain a political priority for the ODIHR, and we will continue our programming activities there as part of the strategy of keeping the door open to the Belarussian society, including the civil society, young people, and people outside the capital. As was concluded in last year's election observation report, further isolation of Belarus helps no-one. Regarding co-operation with the Russian Federation I would like to mention that we will continue our support to Mr Kalamanov's office, President Putin's Special Representative for Human Rights in Chechnya, and we will conduct together with the UNHCR and Mr Kalamanov's office human rights training for judicial and legal practitioners, local administrators and human rights workers in Chechnya. In 2002, we will again have a number of anti-trafficking projects such as direct assistance for return and reintegration of victims of trafficking in Poland or the financing of NGO hotlines or networks against trafficking in Ukraine, Russia, Romania, and Poland. I would also like to inform that starting from February we will have a full time officer on secondment following up the work of the former OSCE Missions in Latvia and Estonia in the field of the human dimension. We have 10 projects which are not country or region-specific, such as the review and analysis of international commitments and standards for democratic elections, the electoral legislation alert and assistance programme, and the ODIHR anti-torture programme, where we hope to conduct training workshops for law enforcement bodies. With regard to further increasing the participation of election experts from developing democracies in OSCE observation missions I also have in mind sounding possibilities for enlarging the participation in observation missions by representatives from partner states for co-operation. In conclusion, those familiar with ODIHR projects will recognize in this year's programme many projects which are a continuation of previous years and a continuing commitment to strategic areas of development. I would like to use this opportunity to stress once again that the ODIHR priority, besides elections, is institution building. The programme that I have just summarized will consume 90% of the time and energy of the ODIHR resources, even if it does not make the headlines. We have established a sound and lasting basis for co-operation with our partners both at state and civil society level in a large number of participating States. I am convinced that this is in the interest of the States concerned, and of the Organization, and beyond, in the interest of a predictable, stable and democratic environment in the OSCE area and the development of modern states where individual rights and freedoms are respected. 1.2. Election observation Following major elections will take place in the OSCE area this year: For Ukraine's parliamentary elections of 31 March, we will deploy a full scale observation mission starting with media observation on 7 February, and the main core team to be deployed a week after. We foresee 29 core team members including 6 deployed under the election expert fund for experts from transition countries, as well as 250 short-term observers. For Hungary's parliamentary election on 7 April, we will deploy a needs assessment mission on 18-20 February. Portugal will have parliamentary elections in March and I wish to thank for the invitation to observe. France and Germany will have important elections as well. I hope that the French and German governments will invite the OSCE on the basis of the Copenhagen commitment. Montenegro municipal elections in May, possibly referendum this year, and presidential election in October. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia parliamentary elections, possibly in the course of the summer or autumn. Czech Republic parliamentary elections in May-June. Slovakia parliamentary elections in September. Latvia parliamentary elections in October. Bosnia and Herzegovina general elections in October. Georgia local elections in autumn. Republic of Serbia/ FRY presidential election in December The ODIHR's tentative election observation schedule for 2002 has been distributed to all delegations. 1.3. Human dimension meetings I hope that the topic which is proposed as draft decision today, Judicial system and human rights, will enable us to deal with a number of issues and concerns in all participating States. Besides the regular mandatory meetings such as the Human Dimension Seminar, Supplementary Human Dimension meetings and the Human Dimension Implementation meeting, we hope to organize this year a number of additional focused conferences. These include a conference on Creating Legal Basis to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings in Countries of Destination in Turkey; one on Constitutional Development in the OSCE Region in Geneva, and a third one on the Role of Religious Dialogue and Tolerance in Combating Terrorism to be held in Baku. The Geneva conference is of particular importance as it would bring together members of Supreme and Constitutional Courts from the participating States and could possibly initiate an interesting dialogue and process across the OSCE area, leading to periodical meetings and with a wide potential for projects in the field of constitutional developments. However this will only be possible if we receive voluntary contributions to organize these meetings, which is not the case to this date. I would appeal to all participating States willing to support such meetings to let us know as soon as possible, as we need - for organizational and logistical reasons - to confirm the dates and the venues by the end of February. Regarding the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw, I am looking very much forward to a comprehensive review of the format and modalities of this annual event, as tasked by the Bucharest Ministerial meeting, with the hope that it will lead to reconnecting the meeting with the OSCE's political agenda. I would like to remind you that a decision should be taken before the summer break. 2. Fight against terrorism 2.1 ODIHR Roadmap As requested by the Bucharest Ministerial decision we have distributed the ODIHR Roadmap for Implementation of the Bucharest Plan of Action for Combating Terrorism. As a whole, the Plan of Action and Decision No 1 of the Bucharest Ministerial place a heavy emphasis on the importance of respect for human rights and the rule of law during the fight against of terrorism. In both documents the participating States reaffirmed their international commitments and pledged to fully respect international law and human rights. A major theme of the Plan of Action is the need to strengthen democratic institutions, human rights, tolerance and multi-culturalism, as well as the importance of early warning and compliance with international standards. All of these fields lie within the core mandate of the ODIHR. However, we have to be realistic on what the OSCE and its institutions can do in this area, and therefore our approach is very much streamlining already existing activities. I would nevertheless like to mention a number of important projects proposed: The already mentioned conference in Baku on religious dialogue in combating terrorism; workshops in Caucasus on tolerance and discrimination; development of a tolerance package for the Armenian education system, a pilot project which could, if successful, be expanded to other countries. Of importance are also the various rule of law projects we propose, such as training for the judiciary, or civic diplomacy projects as the one in Georgia which is aimed at fostering dialogue across the lines of conflict. In accordance with the Article 6, 18 and 22 of the Bucharest Plan of Action the ODIHR will offer assistance and advise to participating States regarding legislation issues. Article 14 of the Plan of Action states that the 'OSCE will continue and intensify work aimed at early warning and appropriate response, conflict prevention, …'. In this regard the ODIHR will continue carrying out its early warning function in form of monitoring and analyzing human rights developments and compliance with OSCE Human Dimension commitments by participating States. It is altogether some 35 projects which, as said above, are already partially included in our Action Plan 2002, but which are particularly relevant to the fight against terrorism and have therefore been streamlined along this line. We hope that in particular these projects would be considered for funding by the participating States. 2.2. OSCE Commitments on state of emergency I sent sometime ago a letter to all Heads of Delegations reminding them of the commitment under the Moscow 1991 and Helsinki 1992 documents to inform the ODIHR whenever a state of emergency is declared and of any derogation from their international human rights obligations. We have given out today a Note Verbale on the same topic. To date, two participating States (USA, United Kingdom) have informed the ODIHR of their decisions to declare such a state of emergency, and three states (Finland, Spain and the Czech Republic) have informed the ODIHR that they have not declared any state of emergency. 2.3. International law in the context of the fight against terrorism I would like to close this point on terrorism with some questions on how we ensure that the fight against terrorism is compatible with international law and standards. In this context it is important to remember and take note of the threat which terrorism poses to our societies, and acknowlegde the legitimacy of the fight against terrorism. As we all know, last September's tragic events against the United States on its own soil, resulting with loss of several thousand civilian lives, were a crime against humanity which has wide-ranging consequences that are going to be felt for a long time and which are still not all identified to this day. The fact of the matter is that the US has since then been confronted with a real, concrete threat to the security of the society and its people. In this state of emergency, its right to self-defence cannot be questioned. Therefore, my point is not questioning the measures of self-defence taken by the Government of the United States, but to raise questions on some issues related to the implementation of international law. My first point refers to the six Algerian individuals who were handed over to US custody on 19 January and who have since been transferred to the Guantanamo detention facility. Two days earlier, on 17 January, the Federation Supreme Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina had ordered the release of the six men from pre-trial detention. It is important to stress that this decision referred to pre-trial detention exclusively, not the charges against them. At the same time, the BiH Human Rights Chamber, a body established by the Dayton Agreement with the authority to issue binding orders, had requested that "necessary steps should be taken to prevent the six men being taken out of the BiH by the use of force". These are facts. I wish to make clear that, first of all, the BiH authorities should be commended for their co-operation in fighting terrorism, and secondly, that as very serious suspicions against these six men exist, they should obviously not have been allowed to disappear after their release. But shouldn't any measure to this effect follow transparent legal procedures and the due process of law? The legal basis for the transfer of the six to US custody remains unclear to this day. As requests by the ODIHR for clarification remained unanswered, I do not have all the facts which would allow me to answer the question of the legal basis. Could these developments have been avoided if some consideration would have been given in due time to the legal aspects of the matter? In particular using the relevant Dayton Agreement provisions? Here again I do not possess all the elements for the answer. However, it is not unimportant to consider how this affair is perceived in Bosnia, and in particular what impact will these recent events have on the credibility of the Human Rights Chamber as well as on the BiH judiciary as a whole? Will this effect negatively the respect for future decisions of the Human Rights Chamber in the Republika Srpska, for example? It is all the more regrettable as the international community has not spared any effort since 1996 to establish respect for the rule of law in the BiH, and in particular to ensure compliance with the Human Rights Chamber's decisions. My second point refers to the detainees in Guantanamo detention facility. There are two issues to consider: the material conditions of the detainees and the implementation of international law. I will not elaborate on the material detention conditions as I am aware that the ICRC is addressing this issue, and according to information available so far, the material conditions are not in violation of basic human rights. However, what is important is that the US respects the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention (G3) which states that the final status of this type of detainees has to be determined by independent courts individually, on a case-by-case basis. I am not saying that all these detainees would eventually be recognized as PoWs (Prisoners of War), and it might well turn out that the vast majority will not come under this category, but it is crucial that this first be determined in accordance with the procedure set in the Third Geneva Convention if we are to avoid setting a precedent that the civilized world may one day regret. Articles 4 and 5 are of particular relevance in this context. As to the applicability of the G3 to this conflict, article 2 states that the Convention "shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties". Both the US and Afganistan have ratified the Geneva Conventions. My third point relates to the Executive Order of the President of the United States of 13 November 2001 on the establishment of special military tribunals. In principle, there is nothing wrong with setting up special courts dealing with cases of terrorism and there are examples of such courts existing in other countries as well. But this Executive Order contains a number of elements that are contrary to fair trial standards. The Order denies the detainees the right of appeal, which is a non-derogable right in all cases where the death penalty is imposed. As the Order only applies to non-US citizens it violates the principles of non-discrimination and equality before the law set out in articles 2, 14 (1) and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is to be hoped that this will never be implemented. In conclusion, my concern is how the non-implementation of international law would be perceived by the International Community. No-one has interest in a situation which eventually could weaken support for the coalition against terrorism on the one hand, and on the other hand, weaken the set of agreed rules governing international relations. It should therefore be in the interest of all of us to keep the moral high ground and not to engage on the slippery slope of derogations which would eventually only lead us to a chaotic and unpredictable international legal order. 3. Human dimension issues I would first like to commend Kyrgyzstan for the presidential decree on the Ten-Point National Human Rights Programme, as the programme envisages further harmonization of national legislation with international standards. I hope the programme will become a valuable guidance for further promotion of human rights in Kyrgyzstan. I also thank the Kyrgyz authorities for their assistance and co-operation so far in the organization of the forthcoming conference in Southern Kyrgyzstan on 15-16 February on the issue of freedom of belief. At the same time, however, I regret the continued detention of Azimbek Beknazarov, Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Judicial and Legal Affairs, which has led to public protests in Kyrgyzstan. I have expressed my concern to President Akaev and given out a press release on this case yesterday, urging the authorities to release Mr Beknazarov and allow for an impartial, transparent and independent investigation of his case. This case is an important example of the link between human dimension concerns and security, as there is an imminent risk of further deterioration of the internal situation if the authorities will not take all necessary measure to resolve this issue quickly. I take note and welcome the recent amnesty of 87 prisoners in Azerbaijan, of which 57 have been totally released, as well as the recent order for retrial of Messrs Gamidov, Gumbatov and Gaziev, which I requested the President to address during my last visit to Baku. It is important however that the complete retrials will include new judicial investigation of the three cases and will comply with principles of fair trial. On Turkmenistan I note positively the decision to abolish exit visas and I hope that this is a step towards a further opening of the society. On the issue of trafficking I welcome the recent operation conducted by the Yugoslav police in Belgrade arresting some of the major leaders of the organized crime network involved in trafficking of women.