Continued from last week Government responds to USAs Human Rights report (part II) [Archives:2002/24/Reportage]

The report prepared by the U.S. Department of State on Human Rights Practices-2001 came to stress the United States of Americas keenness on following up developments of human rights conditions in Yemen, embodying depth of Yemeni-U.S. governments bilateral cooperation in various fields, especially questions related to human rights, though in some of its paragraphs there are indications showing non-comprehension of the volume of cooperation and special relationship between the two countries. The report has projected some positive aspects the Yemeni Republic has achieved at the legislative or at the real situation, but some of its paragraphs make it clear that the side that prepared it was deriving its information from what is published in press without trying to verify accuracy or attempt to be sure about correctness of what has been published. In addition, in some of the reports paragraphs there is a kind of confusion between different matters which we have tried to clarify. There are also some paragraphs and points that have been previously answered several times in our responses to former reports and we have not expected to be mentioned again. There is also some contradiction. For though there is projection of some accomplishments, the report in another part of it tries to belittle them under pretext of not reaching the required level or have not attained the necessary change the report sees as required, not taking into consideration of youthfulness of the democratic experiment in the Republic of Yemen and that human rights is one of the strategic issues necessitating much time and practice and training people on its principles and sublime concepts. Such things would not be realized merely by issuance of a law or a decree. It requires cooperation of all; governmental institutions, civil society organizations and regional and international organizations. With such cooperation we can redouble the asset of our accomplishments in various human rights areas.
The response takes three major premises:
1. General remarks on the report,
2. Reply to general allegations,
3. Refuting paragraphs of the report.
Firstly: General remarks on the report:
Despite the slight improvement in the report of the U.S. State Department on conditions of human rights in Yemen, most of its content came to be following the same style pursued in reports of previous years with regards to:
1. The repeated mistake regarding undisputed facts and axioms, as any error, even a very simple one, would men a reverse of their actual descriptions and also means a kind of blackout on those facts and axioms or at lest distorting them. For instance the report mentioned on its first page, second line, the phrase civil war. This phrase is completely wrong for there was absolutely no civil war in Yemen. What happened in the Summer of 1994 were insurgency events developed into an attempt for dividing the country once again. The events had been undermined and the blessed unity consolidated. This is a fact well-known to the whole world and course of events of that period had proved it. There is also the other phrase on the same page, the country was reunified. This phrase is an obvious mistake and very far away from what actually happened. We would wonder about when was Yemen divided after the unity in order to be reunified? Such accounting is negatively reflected on the rest paragraphs of the report and makes it loose credibility.
2. The form and style. For despite of the repeated indication that the situation in Yemen is not identical to situations in other countries, but that does not necessarily mean that all countries can be equal regarding their situations and circumstances. Yemen is a democratic state that respects human rights depending on values and teachings of the Islam religion and its cultural and civilization heritage. Its constitution and various legislations clearly stipulate that. This is a matter making it in a position much better than many other countries the form of the report can be applied to. It has been expected that the report would take this remark into consideration especially that it is closely related to the essence of the report that accordingly should have been changed in shape and style than what it is now.
3. The style of demonstrating content of the reports paragraphs. Although this years report has pointed out the achievements realized in Yemen, but it has unjustifiably underestimated them and included in them certain generalizations quite irrelevant to reality or are merely unverified allegations.
4. Repetition that is creating imbalance in content of the report. Despite Yemen republics repeated responses to general and detailed allegations mentioned in earlier reports of the American State Department, we find them repeated in following reports. The present report is an example in dropping some of the allegations that have been responded to previously, it has nonetheless mentioned against most of what it has tackled in the previous report.
5. Regarding the themes approached in the report. Although international conventions and agreements do not allow interference with Islamic doctrines and principles of the Islamic law that are considered the source of all Yemeni legislations and there is no chance for making any criticism against its principles.
6. Inaccurate language interpretations that may be attributed to inaccuracy in translation. For instance the report mentioned that the constitution restricts freedom of expressing opinion and freedom of press. In fact the term restrict has been mistakenly interpreted with that of the phrase limits of the law, as it has been mentioned in text of the article but has been linguistically interpreted in an inaccurate way.
Secondly: Reply to general allegations contained in the report.
-The report said Following a brief but bloody civil war in mid-1994, the country was reunified under Sanaa government. This sentence is completely inexpressive of the fact. Event of 1994 Summer were not a civil war and no partition took place in order to use the word reunification, as the report mentioned. The unity has been existent since 1990.
– The report mentioned that President Ali Abdullah Saleh was elected by the legislative to a 5-year term in 1994, and was elected to another 5-year term in the countrys first nationwide direct presidential election in September 1999. In this respect we would like to clarify that election of the president in 1994 was held pursuant to text of the constitution that granted the elected parliament the right to electing the president for a 5-year term. In 1999 the president was elected according to first nationwide direct competitive electoral process. According to the latest constitutional amendments the term of the president was extended to 7 years beginning from the date of his being sworn in. Assuming presidency post must not exceed two terms, each for 7 years.
-In introduction of the report it is reported that The parliament is not yet an effective counterweight to executive authority, although it increasingly demonstrates independence from government. The real political power rests with the executive branch, particularly the president. It should be clearly understood that the state three powers are defined according to the constitution and are interconnected in line with what is stipulated in the constitution. Out of this the three powers work with full independence, harmony and integration, rarely to be found in developing countries. This reality makes the some think of the authority being embodied in one body. Nobody can give a categorical judgment on extent of the three powers independence unless he is fully aware of the nature of the political rule in the republic of Yemen and closely watches interaction among these three powers. To claim that the real power rests with the executive power, especially the president, is inconsistent to truth. The president enjoys certain authorities defined in the constitution. Article 105 of the constitution states ( The executive power is exercised on behalf of the people by president of the republic and council of ministers within the limits stipulated in the constitution), i.e. the ruling system in the republic, as known for parliamentary systems, is based on a form of bilateral executive power, where besides the president there is a government accountable to the parliament. The parliament also has the right to granting confidence to the government. The parliament has summoned the government on various occasions to discuss a variety of subjects. Moreover, the constitution has granted the parliament the right to summon the government or one of its members for interpellation, ( articles 96, 97). Parliament also entertains the right to vote on non-confidence against the government according to article 98. The legislative power has the right to assign a fact-finding committee on any topic and refers its reports enclosed with suitable recommendations, proposals and treatments and they are to be discussed at the parliament, to be then referred to the government for implementation.
– The report mentions that The judiciary is nominally independent, but is weak and severely hampered by corruption, executive branch interference, and frequent failure of the authorities to enforce judgments.
This sentence has been literally repeated in the previous reports and it has been already clarified that judiciary is an independent power, judicially, financially and administratively from other powers of the state ( article 149 of the constitution). Judiciary officials, including the minister of justice, are appointed from among judiciary circles themselves. As the constitution stipulates, the judges are independent in performing their job and issuing judgments. There is no doubt that judiciary suffers from some failures and passivities, but the judiciary power has worked out a plan for comprehensive reform aimed at eliminating negative aspects and all hindrances standing against this power. Beginnings of the reform plan are felt in extensive reforms in the judicial power structure as well as the large-scale movement of transfers and promotions. Things did not stop at this point, the judiciary power, represented by the Supreme Judiciary Council, has taken punitive measures against some judges and their assistants and members from prosecution proved to be involved in acts of corruption. Some of them were pensioned off and others were taken to court via the Accountability Council which is affiliated to the Supreme Judiciary Council. This is an evidence on seriousness of the general orientation towards reform of the judicial system in Yemen. We should not skip pointing out scarcity of potentials available for this power. It greatly hinders going ahead with implementing reformatory programs requiring allotment of credits meeting that end. In this regard we renew welcoming international assistance in this field offered by sisterly and friendly countries that would help push forward the process of judicial reform, particularly in areas of habilitation and training of judges and their assistants and members of prosecution and informing them on latest scientific developments related to fields of their jobs. Such internal and foreign training courses have already been fruitful with regard to training a good number of judges and their assistants and members of prosecution under the help of some international bodies such as the World Bank. As for the frequent failure to enforce some judgments, it is under the process of tackling it through joint meetings between the judiciary power and the bodies concerned with enforcement of judicial judgments. There is serious coordination to secure the enforcement of sentences.
– The report mentions that The primary state security apparatus is the Political Security Organization, an independent agency that reports directly to the president. The Criminal Investigative Department of the police reports to the Ministry of Interior and conducts most criminal investigations and makes most arrests. The Central Security Organization, also part of the Ministry of Interior, maintains a paramilitary force. Members of the security forces, particularly the Political Security Organization, numerous, serious human rights abuses.
We want to make it clear that the Political Security Organization is one of the states central apparatuses established under a presidential decree No. 121 in 1992. The decree has defined tasks and authorities of the apparatus as well as its affiliation to presidential office. Also, duties and authorities of the organization are no secret and the decree is open for study to citizens. Constitution and law define all measures of arrests and inspection and any violation of them is considered a crime punishable by law. As for the numerous, serious human rights abuses, it has become a phrase repeated in each report year after year. This indication is not true and inconsistent with reality. There is nothing confirming it on the ground or certain incidents to be taken as evidence. As for the remark that on the Criminal Investigative Department and its making most arrests, we would like to say that there are no arrest campaigns but rather precautionary measures against those suspected of committing crimes. The department carries out tasks of detecting crime and those involved in it according to regulations defined by the law.
– The report mentions that There are significant limitations on citizens ability to change their government.. This is also a paragraph repeated in previous reports and had been responded to by elucidating that the legal and legitimate ways for changing governments in democratic countries is holding elections. This is what our country is doing through parliamentary elections for the years 1993, 1997 and the presidential elections in 1999 as well as local councils elections in 2001.
The report has also mentioned that Members of the security forces killed a number of persons during the year. Members of he security forces tortured and otherwise abused persons, and continued to arrest and detain citizens arbitrarily, especially oppositionists in the south and other persons regarded as secessionists.
– Generally, this is an incorrect allegation for there are no practices by security members regarding killing persons nor phenomena of arbitrary arrests of persons whether oppositionists or others. Concerning allegations on cases of torture and abuses, Yemen confirms they are very limited and rare cases. They do not form a phenomenon or organized operation or widespread to be mentioned in such a report. Those members from the security apparatus responsible for such rare cases of torture and violation of human rights have been brought to court and verdicts have been issued against those proved to have committed them. Trial measures are still going on concerning others accused of such acts. It is groundless regarding what has been mentioned about targeting certain areas or governorates. All citizens are equal before the law. The report should have pointed out such cases so that the concerned authorities be able to investigate into such allegations and whether they are correct and consequently to take legal measures against them.

——
[archive-e:24-v:2002-y:2002-d:2002-06-10-p:./2002/iss24/report.htm]