 |
| |
MARY ROBINSON
In very broad terms how important do you think it is for the victims of human rights abuses that those who've perpetrated them should be punished?
It is extraordinarily important. That's something I learned during my five years as high commissioner. The terrible corruption and corroding effect of impunity when there is no recourse. I saw that in Sierra Leone, in East Timor, and I was back in East Timor in August of 2002 which was a month before I completed my term. I found that people were angrier than just after the referendum and the taking over by the UN initially and their new government because there had not been justice and because the human rights court in Jakarta was completely inadequate and people were seething with anger because there was no healing. Because there had been no taking stock of the terrible injustices done and for that reason I very much welcome not just courts and special courts and international tribunals but also the truth and reconciliation commissions and their role
Stay with the courts at the moment if we could. I suppose the idea of international courts has evolved over the last ten years since Bosnia. Thinking particularly of Yugoslavia, how effective do you think the courts idea has been in delivering that sense of justice to people?
I think it has taken time and it is quite an expensive process but it is still a very significant signal and sense that justice can be done. And even the process - if you take at the moment the trail of Milosovic - when he was being taken to trial there was a lot of outcry about it in Belgrade and elsewhere. Now he is not a respected figure because the process has brought out what he was doing and it has not ended yet. But already we've seen. I saw the same thing with the Pinochet litigation. The fact that somebody even if they had been a ahead of state could be brought to accountability and the message that was sending and the heartening message to human rights defenders.
Do you think it has reached the stage where it is actual a deterrence?
Not yet. I think it will more so when the International Criminal Court is fully functioning. I think it is good that 89 countries have no ratified, it has its prosecutor, that it is getting under way. I think it is regrettable that there is an undermining as far as the United States is concerned.
I was going to ask you about that. I mean firstly how significant a step down that road is the establishment of an international court itself and how damaged is the process by America's refusal to take part in it?
I said at the time that it was the most significant new institution of a new century. I was in Rome for the discussions on the statute of the International court and I have made it clear in many statements as high commissioner that it was central to addressing the issue of impunity to addressing human security which is a very big issue at the moment and I continue in a private capacity to speak at appropriate contexts and I am interested that certainly in the legal community here in the United States although there is a concern about certain aspects of it there is an understanding of the importance of the court and I don't rule out the possibility over time that the United States will come back to adherence.
Do you think there is any justice behind their concerns that people would use it for what they regard as frivolous political prosecutions?
I think it is a concern, I don't think it is a real issue. I think the concern can be met by looking at the fact that there are ways of dealing with the possibility of either frivolous claims or targeting unfairly somebody who is in a position of responsibility - because it is a second recourse court, because you have the role of the quality of the prosecutor of the court itself and all kinds of procedural safeguards that have been built in.
I suppose you could look at it and say it is going to be difficult to persuade a country which is so overwhelmingly powerful and which also regards itself as the font if you like of a lot of the ideals of human rights and indeed justice that are being discussed in the court actually to submit itself to that kind of international justice.
I think it is very important because of the significantly more visible superpower role of the United States particularly since the terrible attacks of 9/11, since the war on Iraq that it does link into and support the international human rights framework and at the moment there are problems there - I mean it is something I speak about quite a bit now here in the United States because I am concerned in a constructive way - I want the United States to be leader for human rights and freedom because that is very important and very necessary but if we look at the record in international, the civil liberties reports in this country, the committee report called 'The Inbalance of Powers' where they catalogue the inroads on civil liberties under the patriot act, the use of the immigration laws etc. Now the strength of the United States is that it criticism from within because this is a democratic country but when the United States talks about freedom and human rights outside the United States, people take their standard from the United States - if they are not upholding then the standard slips world-wide which we have seen happening. On the other side and in my view and equally important side of the human rights agenda - economic, social and cultural rights - the administration currently does not at all subscribe to those as being rights. They think of them as political aspirations whereas I saw an extraordinarily important commitment to using a rights based approach to economic, social and cultural rights and a whole process of pinning developing countries to fulfil their commitment in relation to children, in relation to women, in relation to vulnerable sectors - minorities etc and this whole structure is of vital importance for rule of law, human security, fairness, removal of discrimination so there is a lot to be done in encouraging another look at the human rights framework as also being a process of accountability.
I would like to come to that in a moment. Just a couple of questions about the court. If you look for example at what has happened over accusations that the Americans violated human rights of some of the immigrants they rounded up immediately after 11th September - they have gone through a process of investigating that, they have found out what was wrong and they are trying to correct it and I suppose you could say that it is only countries which have failed legal systems for which you need international courts and countries like the United States can deal with it themselves.
I think one of the overarching principles of human rights is the universality of human rights, that the universal declaration was written in terms of it being a framework for all countries, developed and developing. It is true that in practise it is fair to hold developed mature countries to a higher standard of adherence to a rule of law and indeed they are the standard but it was part of my approach as high commissioner to stand for the integrity and universality and interrelationship between all human rights and therefore it was necessary - and I did as High Commissioner - criticise the United States, not because I wanted to pick on the United States but I recognised that it was particularly important for the integrity of the human rights standards because if the United States was not criticised when it fell below the standards - and the United States is a, has ratified the international covenant on civil and political rights - so that's the standard the world is watching - then how do you uphold that standard elsewhere.
| | | |
| |
| | |
Listen