UNITED
N A T I O N S
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL
13 A p r i l 1950 ENGLISH: • ': ORIGINAL: FEEKCH
COIvMISSIOÎÎ OH HUMAN RIGHTS Sixth. Session StMMART RECORD OF THE HUNDRED AND FORTY-FIFTH MEIETING Held a t lake Success, New York, on Tuesday, 4 A p r i l 1 9 5 0 , a t 3 p. m.
C0Î1TENTS : Draft International Covenant on Human Rights (Annexes I and I I of the Report o f the Commission on Human Eights en I t s f i f t h session, document E/1371) A r t i c l e 8 (E/cN.lf/353/Add.l0, E / C N . V 3 6 5 , Е / С Н Л / З 8 8 , Е / С Н Л / З 9 1 , E/CN .h/kOk)
(continued)
A r t i c l e 9 ( Е / С Н Л / 3 5 3 , Add.lO, Е / с н Л / з б 5 , Е / с н Л / 3 9 б , Е / С Н Л / 3 9 7 , E / C N Л / 3 9 9 , E/cN.i+Aoo, Е / С Н Л А О 1 , Е / С И Л А О 2 , E / C N . 4 A O 5 , (continued)
Chairman:
Mrs. EOOSEVEIT
United States of America
Members :
Mr. 1 Ш Т 1 А М
Australia
Mr. STEYAE5T
Belgium
Mr. SANTA CRUZ
Chile
Mr. CHANG
China
.
E/CN.UAO6)
E/CÎ:.4/SR.I45 Pag© 2
Members: (continued) Mr. ЗОЕШЗОИ
Denmark
Mr. RAMADAN
Egypt
Mr. OEDQNKEAU
F]?ance
Mr. TBEODOROPOULOS
Greece
Mrs. MEHTA
India
Mr. MALIK
Lebanon
Mr. AZKOÜL Mr. MENDEZ
Philippines
Mr. HOARE
United Kingdom of Great B r i t a i n and Northero I r e l a n d
Mr. ORIBE
Uruguay
Mr. JEVREMOVIC
Yugoslavia
Mrs. CASTILLO lEDON
Commission on the Status of Women
A l s o present;
Representatives o f s p e c i a l i z e d agencies; b]r,
EVANS
Mr. lœiSS
I n t e r n a t i o n a l labour Organisation (iLO) I n t e r n a t i o n a l Refugee Organization (IRO)
Representative of a non-governmental o r g a n i z a t i o n i n Category A ; Miss SENDER
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)
Representatives o f non-.governmental organlzationa i n Category В : Mr. NOLDE
Commj.ssion o f the Churches on International Affairs
Mr. BERNSTEIN
Co-ordinating Committee of Jewish Organizations
Miss TOMLIKSON
I n t e r n a t i o n a l F e d e r a t i o n of Business and P r o f e s s i o n a l Women
Miss ROBB
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Federation of U n i v e r s i t y Women
Miss DBIGMAK
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Union f o r C h i l d Welfare
Mr. HUMPHREY
D i r e c t o r , D i v i s i o n o f Human Rights
Mr. LIN MOUSHENG
S e c r e t a r i e s o f the Commission
Secretariat :
Mr. DAS
/DRAFT
Б/СКЛ/ЗВ.145
Page 3
DRAFT niTERNATIOTÎAL COVENAKT OK
RIGHTS (AIWEXES I А Ш ) IÎ CF THE REPORT OF
THE ca^'MISSIOK OK.HUMAN RIGHTS OK ITS FIFTH SESSION> Е Д З ? ! ) A r t i e lo 8 (E/cN.4/353/AddaO,,E/cN.4/365, E/CN.4/388, E/CN.U/391, E/CN.4/4O4)
(continued) 1.
The CHAIRMAN proposed tlK,t, before beginning the examination of
aarfcicle 9 , the Commission should hear the report of the D r a f t i n g Group appointed t o consider parts o f a r t i c l e 8 , I t was so decided Ъу 8 votes t o none, vrith 5 abstentions.
2-
Mr. MALDC (Lehanon), Chairman of the D r a f t i n g Group.
composed of
representatives of A u s t r a l i a , Franco, Lehanon, the United Kini^dom, the United States of America, and entrusted w i t h the d r a f t i n g of a j o i n t t e x t on some c o n t r o v e r s i a l p o i n t s i n a r t i c l e 8
submitted the D r a f t i n g Group's
report (E/CN.4/.'+04). , 3-
He b r i e f l y explained how the Group had worked and which were the
p o i n t s on which i t had not been p o s s i b l e t o reach f i n a l agreement. aim had been t o cover a l l the cases envisaged i n a simple t e x t ;
Tho Group's
i t had t r i e d t o
draw up a t e x t d e a l i n g separately w i t h s.lavery and servitude and had grouped the k.
other cases i n a t h i r d category,
The CHAIRMAN asked members of the Commission whether they were
prepared t o consider a r t i c l e 8 immediately.
y-
bhr. ORD0NIÎEAU (France) feared t h a t hs would not be able t o give h i s
views on a r t i c l e 8 u n t i l he had r e c e i v e d the French t e x t of the new proijosal.
^.
The с Н А Ш е т s a i d t h a t i n t h a t case the Commission would go on t o
examine a r t i c l e
9.
A r t i c l e 9 ( E / C N . 4 / 3 5 3 , Add.lO, E / C N . 4 / 3 6 5 , E / C N . 4 / 3 9 6 , E/ON,4/39T, E / C N . 4 / 3 9 9 ,
E/CN,4/400, E/CN.4/401, E/CN.4/402, E/CN.4/405, E/CN.4AO6) (continued) 7
Mr. MALIK (Lebanon) s a i d the amendment which he proposed t o
paragraphs 1 and 2 of a r t i c l e 9 E/CN,4/405) would be d i s t r i b u t e d t o members of the Commission Immediately,
There vrevo
two main ideas i n h i s amendment 1
the f i r s t
was the p o s i t i v e idea o f p r o t e c t i o n o f human freedom by law, the second an exception r e l a t i n g t o governmental a c t i v i t i e s .
,^ . />\ The CHAIRMAN
Е/СКЛ/ЗЕ.11^5 Page 1^
*i
The CHAIRMAIÍ' 'Etae^ateá ' t M t • ttós"- èbràilWalon• Bbottld ' -begin • Ъу' exaainlhg
paragraph 3 o f a r t i c l e 9.
Speaking as representative o f the U n i t e d States o f
America, she recalîed' t h a t she had''not suhmitted atiy amendments-td pairagraphsS end I*, o f the a r t i c l e .
• ..
Mr.„gOARE. (-IJnlteà Kingdom) underlined the Inqportance o f Mr. Malik's
proposal.
I t might lead t o a g e n e r a l l y accep-tahle s o l u t i o n .
He added that
a r t i c l e 9 should he examined as a vhole w i t h the Lebanese representative's amendment In mind,
Mr. SAKTA CRUZ ( C h i l e ) J u s t i f i e d the amendment he had submitted t o . paragraph 3 (Е/С11.и/ЗЯ9) by the f a c t that the vord "promptly" vaa too vague and vould leave too much l a t i t u d e t o the a u t h o r i t y c a r r y i n g out the a r r e s t .
'• •
Mr. RAMADAN (Egypt).supported the C h i l e a n proposal.
He a l s o f e l t
t h a t the t e x t o f paragraphs 3 end k would leave t o o much t o the d i s c r e t i o n o f the authorities. •
Mr. SOBEI©ON (Denmark) understood the Chilean representative's vlevpolnt
and h i s d e s i r e that the person arrested should be informed o f the reasons f o r h l a a r r e s t without delay.
But i t vas not always p o s s i b l e t o give euch Informa
t i o n Immediately; . i n many c o u n t r i e s , the p o l i c e vho c a r r i e d out the a r r e s t had a warrant which d i d not mention the reasons f o r a r r e s t .
He thought the
p r o v i s i o n that the accused should be brought before a Judge w i t h i n a "reasonable time" was a s u f f i c i e n t guarantee.
I t seemed t o him dangeroua t o l a y down the
time l i m i t t o be observed too s t r i c t l y because some States might f i n d I t d i f f i c u l t t o undertake t o apply such a p r o v i s i o n . 3.
Mr. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) remarked that the o b l i g a t i o n l a i d down i n
paragraph 3 d i d not concern a l l the counts o f the Indictment; i t was merely a case o f informing thé accused i n very g e n e r a l terms o f the reasons ~vhy he had been a r r e s t e d . , The o b l i g a t i o n stated- i n .paragraph % '-was of á very d i f f e r e n t • kind.
There i t was a question o f "reasonable, time" i n the. Ji^dlçial procedure
before the Judge, such as the li-S-hours' time l i m i t set by the C o n s t i t u t i o n , o f Chile. Mr. HOAEE
1/сиЛ/зв.145
Page 5
14.
Mr. HOAEE (United Kingdom) agreed with Mr. Soreneon.
He thought the
t e x t adopted Ъу the Commteaion a t i t e f i f t h s e s s i o n \-J&B h o t t e r , vrithout the C h i l e s amendment. 15.
.,,
. ,,
The penal codes of a l l c i v i l i z e d countries recognized t h a t i t was
extremely important t h a t the acciised should Ъе informed upon a r r e s t of the reasons f o r h i s a r r e s t .
But t h e p r a c t i c a l circumstances i n which some a r r e s t s
were made must Ъе taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n :
i t might happen that the o f f i c e r
cari'yiiig o\it the a r r e s t d i d not himself Imow the exact reasons f o r i t . The c o m t s of the indictment теге i n general stated, vrhen the accused was brought before the representatives o f a hi.gher branch o f the p u b l i c a u t h o r i t y .
He d i d
not t h i n k i t possible t o improve the e x i s t i n g t e x t . 16.
Mr. MALIK (Lebanon) agreed with Mr. Santa Cruz that the word,
"promptly"
was very vague.. I n some countries a month might be consldei-ed a short time. Human beings had a n a t u r a l r i g h t t o l i b e r t y , and the o f f i c e r who arrested a person must have v a l i d groimds f o r such a c t i o n .
There was no reason why the
person concerned should not be immediately informed of those grounds.
I f there
vrere no grounds, there was no reason f o r an a r r e s t . 17.
The CHAIEMAÏÏ remeirked that the o f f i c e r s were u s u a l l y subordinates.
I f they arrested a person on t h e i r own a u t h o r i t y , they could e a s i l y give the reasons f o r the a r r e s t . 18.
Mr. MWMZ
( P h i l i p p i n e s ) admitted that i t v;as not always possible t o
Inform the accused of the grounds f o r h i s a r r e s t , but thou.ght that i t vras im portant t o give him as much information as p o s s i b l e at once.
He proposed that
the words "any charges" should, be replaced by "the charges". 19.
Mr. WHITLA1Í ( A u s t r a l i a ) would be p e r f e c t l y s a t i s f i e d vrith the t e x t
as i t stood, but recognized the v a l i d i t y of the arguments i n favour of the
/Chilean
Chilean proposal.
He ëaw no í»eaaon why a person Vho had been arrested should
not he i n f o m e d o f the reasons f o r h i s a r r e s t .
E i t h e r the o f f i c e r concerned
had a warrant l i s t i n g the counts o f the indictment, o r he made the a r r e s t on his own euthoriby.
I n either, case, t h e r e f o r e , he should be able t o give the
person errestejd the reasons.
The Commission should, hoverer, maintain the
word "promptij,'" as thoi charges which.were the basie o f a t r i a l o r an appeal naist be eatablislirjd v L t h ve'.y great care.
L a s t l y , Mr. Vlhltlam supported
Mr. Marados'' вил:;ъа*.1о;а.
Mr. ОКБОШШЛи (Егах-лю) x-ealized the advantages o f the Chilean proposal, but would be unable t o support i t .
He agreed as t o the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f inform
ing the a r r e s t e d person o f the reasons f o r h i s a r r e s t as soon as p o s s i b l e , but feared that the Chilean amendment, i f adopted, might have the opposite r e s u l t from what i t s author had.in mind, as i t was Important that the inforine,tlon given to an arrested.person should be s u f f i c i e n t l y precise and c l e a r .
A guilty
person knew f u l l w e l l why he was being a r r e s t e d , but care should be taken t o avoid an innocent person becoming the v i c t i m o f unjust charges against which, he could only defend himself i f he knew the p a r t i c u l a r s .
Consequently the
arrested person should be informed o f the charges by a competent a u t h o r i t y , and that d e s c r i p t i o n could not g e n e r a l l y be applied t o the o f f i c e r s who made arrests.
The f i n a l r e s u l t might be that the f o r m a l i t y of indictment l o s t a l l
meaning.
There was a l s o the danger o f the contrary, o f course, but Mr.
Ordonneau considered that danger l e s s serious than the danger the accused r a n when he was given i n s u f f i c i e n t o r wrong information.
I t was b e t t e r to leave
w e l l alone, and Mr.. Ordonneau supported the t e x t i n i t s e x i s t i n g form.
.
Mr. THEODOROP0ÜL0S (Greece) stated that there was no p r o v i s i o n i n
Greek law which would be contrary t o that proposed i n the Chilean amendment. Such might not, however, be the case, i n a l l c o u n t r i e s , and f o r that reason he endorsed Mr, Ordonneau's conclusions, •
The e x i s t i n g t e x t of paragraph 3 c o n s t i t u t e d a s p e c i f i c
because i t brought i n the reasons f o r the e r r e s t .
safeguard
The Chilean proposal would
reduce that p r o v i s i o n t o a mere f o r m a l i t y end deprive the arrested person o f any e f f e c t i v e safeguard.
With regard t o Mr. Méndez' suggestion, /HY,
Theodoropoulos
Page 7
%ie,
:
ftoodoTofiouloe jwaarirod t h a t l a ceiijatn cases there »о*в яо o r t o l m J . d j à t ^ e
egainat the person who was arreated.
That vas the case, for example, when
witnesses were arrested and detained. 23.
Mr.' EAMADAN (Egjrpt) f e l t that a d i s t i n c t i o n should he mad© between cases
of persons ceught In £lâ'g;gnt£ d g H
vhich raised no d i f f i c u l t y , and such
cases as p o l i t i c a l t r i a l s , whare th? accused vere unaware of the charges against them for months. ' ' M r . SAIÍTA. GFJ2 (Chile) feared that theare might be some confusion with regard to the tj-pe and nature of chírges end the method o f n o t i f i c a t i o n .
It
vas not a matter o f ¿ivlng'the arrested person a complete and detailed account of the charges — vhich vas coverod Ъу the a r t i c l e defining c r i m i n a l procedure — but o f providing the ârri».8t'éd person with siiffioient Information to enable him át drice to olalm h i s r i g h t to be hüard by a Judge, and to invoke, for instance, the' habeas corpus cliaúaé.
To'do t h a t , the arreated peirson must know whether he
had been arreated by a competent authority and whether the grounds for his arrest irefe s u f f i c i e n t arid proirided by l e v . '
Consequently any delay l a informing
the" acbuaed of the charges agatiist him prevented blm from exercising the r i g h t
'
to redress. '7.
Kii4 Sénta Criiz d i d not think that an o f f i c e r of the law could arrest
anyone without having a general idea o f the reasons for the a r r e s t .
He must
know'whether the brder given himi vas i n conformity with the law. ^••
' In cbriclusiori Mr. Santa Cruz stated h i s readiness to accept the
majority's d e c i s i o n .
The only purirase of h i s amendment was to t r y to produce-
a more perfect text than that i n the Commission's d r a f t . Mr. ORIBE (Uruguay) agreed with Mr. Santa Cruz that the problem had two very different aspects:
'<m the one hand, resort to i^abeàa corpus and, on the
other, the fact that the authority should be able to explain the reason for the arreet.
The f i r s t aspect should be dealt with In a r t i c l e 9.
He quoted a
p r o v i s i o n of the Constitution of Uruguay which said that a judge who ordered an a r r e s t incurred grave r e e p o n s l b l l l t y and had to n o t i f y the accueed of the reason for hie arrest within a шах1тш t i m e - l i m i t of f o r t y - e i g h t hours. /' '
He therefore
E/CIî.lf/SR.l45 Page 8
r'8.
Ho therefore supported the C h i l e a n proposal.
He d i d not t h i n k that
a r t i c l e 9 should c o n t a i n a l l the procedural d e t a l l e , but b e l i e v e d that I t vould be advisable t o i n s e r t a formal guarantee against i l l e g a l a r r e s t . I n h i s opinion, the vorda "at the time o f h i s a r r e s t " should not be taken l i t e r a l l y .
A rsaeon-
abie time might be l a i d йо\т., and h^ suggeated t h a t the vorda "or a t the l a t e s t v l t h l n tventy-four hourn" should Ъе added I n order t o enable c e r t a i n members of the Comalesion t o vote f o r the C h i l e a n j r o p o s a l . "
.
The person authorized t o inform the accused of the reasons f o r h i s
a r r e s t might moreover be e p p o l f l s d . He considered that that should be done by the competent examining magistrate and, auggestod therefore that the f o l l o w i n g words should be added: 30.
"....and by the ocmpotent examining magistrate."
Mr. MEMDEZ (Phi 11 pplnea.\ pointed out t h a t n a a r r e s t could l e g a l l y be
made without a warrant d u l y drawn up by the competent l e g a l a u t h o r i t y .
Moreover,
I t v6ie wrong t o speak o f the eürrest of a person r e q u i r e d t o appear as a witness. 31.
Vir.-ЗАЖА
CRUZ ( C h i l e ) explained t h a t his. amendment was Intended t o
ensure t h a t no person could be a r r e s t e d without being Informed why he was being deprived of h i s l i b e r t y .
The reasons could bo given t o him Immediately by the
o f f i c i a l making the a r r e s t . . The ccmpetent magistrate only сшце I n latçr. That was why the C h i l e a n d e l e g a t i o n could not support the Uruguayan representative's f i r s t suggestion.
I t accepted, however, h i s second proposal that any person
a r r e s t e d should be informed o f the reasons f o r h i s a r r e s t at the.time of the a r r e s t o r a t the l a t e s t w i t h i n twenty-four hours a f t e r h i s a r r e s t , although I t would be b e t t e r t o include that p r o v i s i o n i n pei-agraph 4 , which r e f e r r e d t o d e t e n t i o n properly s o - c a l l e d , namely, the stage f o l l o w i n g a r r e s t . 3'^.
Mr. QRDOHIÎEAU (France) noted that mariy members o f the Commission seemed
t o agree with the C h i l e a n representative t h a t i t would ba preferable i n a l l esses f o r the reasons f o r an a r r e s t t o be given t o the person a r r e s t e d .
I t vas deslrabJe,
however, t o be r e a l i s t i c and t o boar I n mind the s p e c i a l etrcumstances under which suoh a c t i o n s were sometimee c a r r i e d out.
The ТГшзиауаза representative was
E/CWA/SH.I45 Page 9
r i g h t i n s t a t i n g t h a t only the competent magistrate could properly give the accused the reasons f o r h i s àrï>est .i-'But i t vrould he d i f f i c u l t t o l a y do^m that' he should alv^ays do so vrlthin less:'than 'fwent^-four hoiu-s.
I n some covoitries,'
where .distances vrere great anâ communications d i f f i c u l t , some time might elapse • between the..- a r r e s t and the accused's ap'oearance before the competent magistrate. 33.
The-French d e l e g a t i o n therefore p r e f e r r e d the simpler d r a f t i n g of the
orig'inal t e x t , which would not give r i s e t o any p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t y i n applicp.tion.
The CHAIRMAN, speaking as United States representative, s t a t e d that her delegation a l s o p r e f e r r e d the o r i g i n a l t e x t . .
Commenting on the amendments suggeated by the Uruguayan represen-tatlve,
Mrs. Roosevelt pointed out -that i n cer-tain cases i n the United States o f America the committal f o r t r i a l vas made by a grand J u r y and not by a Judge.
I tтавnot
cer-tain whether such a Jury would be I n session a t the time an a r r e s t was made or, supposing t h a t i t was, t h a t i t could deal w i t h the matter w i t h i n twenty-four, hours.
In'the United States delegation's o p i n i o n , the o r i g i n a l t e x t had the merl-"
o f diuwlng a d i s t i n c t i o n between the reasons f o r an a r r e s t and the accusations which might be made a ^ i n s t the person a r r e s t e d .
She had been convinced by the
Grook representative's arguments against the amendment submitted by the P h i l i p p i n e ^ repiéeen''iative.
I t seemed b e t t e r t o her not to replace the words "any charges"
by -the words "the chctrges" as the former t e x t more n e a r l y met the requirement, that the r i g h t o f the person a r r e s t e d t o know a l l charges made against him, whatever they were, should be protected.
Mr. EGARE (United Kingdom) considered t h a t the discussion'had brought, t o l i g h t the many d i f f i c u l t l e a which might a r i s e i n the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the para graph because o f the divexgoncea 'between the various legial systems i n f o r c e . The Commission should therefore re.frc!,.in from entering i n t o questions o f d e t a i l which would o n l y a c c e n t m t e дисЬ d i f f l c i o l t i e s .
I t would be b e t t e r t o keep t o the t e x t
adopted a t the Commienlon-'s f i f t h session. 3".
Mr. WHITLAM- ( A u s t r a l i a ) s a i d that i t m s d i f f i c u l t f o r hlîa to imagine an"
a r r e s t being c a r r i e d out unless 'the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the law knew the reasons for i t . I n A u s t r a l i a the o f f i c e r who made an a r r e s t was personally responsible f o r his action. /Зо,
wViic
Е/СЫ. V S R . 1 4 5
Page 10
;j3.
While i t might he provided that a n a r r e s t e d person should Ъе informed
o f the reasons f o r h i s a r r e s t w i t h i n twenty-four hours, the seune p r o v i s i o n could not he e p p l i e d i n the case o f the d e t a i l e d charges drawn up Ъу the competent l e g a l a u t h o r i t y w i t h i n the time-llmJ.ts s p e c i f i e d i n the various codes o f procedure.
The Ciailean reprossnta^l-j.-yd's amendment could therefore Ъе accepted
o n l y i f a distinction.wa.?, nir-.ds tetwo-jn the communication o f the reasons f o r h i s a r r e s t t o an arr^'Sted ро:.-воп -- whicii could and should Ъе done immediately — and the communication o f the charges a g a i n s t hlmu
He therefore considered
that
Xhe Commiseion should t r y t o f i n d a compromise s o l u t i o n i n that d i r e c t i o n . '3?.
Mr.М А 1 Ж (Lehanon) agreed •\vlth the Austra3.1an representative.
He
urged the members of the Comsalasiosi >iot t o forget t h a t t h e i r primary r e s p o n e i h i l l t y was t o ensure the p r o t e c t i o n o f hiimn r i g h t s .
Although the l e g a l and other
d i f f i c u l t i e s o f pai'agraph 3 were r e a l , that was no reason f o r the Ccmmission t o g i v e up doing conebructive work. ^1^9.
The Egyptian representative had r i g h t l y pointed out t h a t the word
"promptly" In the E n g l i s h text
ш е t o o vague t o be s a t i s f a c t o r y . I n some c o u n t r i e s ,
where time d i d not have the same value as i n tlie V/est, f o r example, i t might be i n t e r p r e t e d as s e v e r a l weeks o r even s e v e r a l months. might be abused i n cases o f p o l i t i c a l a r r e s t .
î^trthermore, i t s vagueness
Mr, M a l i k therefore stressed the
need t o f i n d a fonaula which would e f f e c t i v e l y guarantee the r i g h t s o f the arrested person.
'kl.
The CHAIHMAH, speaking as t h e representative o f the United States o f
America, proposed the f o l l o w i n g t e s t :
"Anyone who i s a r r e s t e d s h a l l be Informed,
a t the time o f a r r e s t , o f the reasons f o r h i s a r r e s t and s h a l l Ъе promptly i n formed o fбшу charges against him" (E/CN. 4/1ю6), 4г.
Mr. MENDEZ ( P h i l i p p i n e s ) p r e f e r r e d that the d i s t i n c t i o n between the
reasonâ f o r the a r r e s t and the charges shoiad be emphasized s t i l l more. suggested that some formula such as the f o l l o w i n g might be used:
He
"Anyone a r r e s t e d
s h a l l Ъе t o l d the reasons and anyone detained s h a l l be t o l d the charges".
/'1-3.
Mr. JEVEbMOVIC
Е/ОТЛ/ЗЕ.145 ]?ag9 11
'КЗ. •
Mr. J ^ î I M O Ô C ••viigûslaviu) pointed out that tiie Coniiui.âeion was
fully
agreed on tbo priM-oiplo tbr.t anyone arrested should be iiafonaod of "the reasons f o r hia ап'евЬ and of any chai-'ges agatost him.
The purpose of para.graph 3 was
to
^ t a t e tiiut'ргг-т-'о!?!», and i t had been done euiciwivaly i n tho orig;ixal d m f t . kh,
ri'.r. ici\."!.Wcfî arose, however, when i t cerne to p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n .
Some" б/л1б#.3:-г.с-.\з li^id clG'^.rly ehovn, among other thingu, tha.t i t might prove impotípibio l a .тоэ,о ce.sis to i-ifcrm an arrested porsoa of'any charges agaiñst-'him imiiiecliatèiy and i n a e f e i l .
No^ortheless, i t me
important to ensure that any '
person against whom charges were l a i d should be brought before the re spans i b l e l e g a l authority witlioüt delay, and that was provided f o r i n paragraph h.
'h-y. ' ' -"Tl-iQ tv^irpeîjsi.v da2;s^,tion therefore considered that the o r i g i n a l text • was quite s a t i s f a c t o r y .
¿16.
•
Mr,. .SiUflA .C.;?l-?t (Chile) accepted the compromiee text proposed by the
United, States dolegatioa, which mot his delegation's views.
'i-T.
Mr. С Б А Ж (China) obsorved that the Commisaion had already discussed
a r t i c l e 9 a t length.
The a r t i c l e had been submitted to Governments and
which had thought f i t to do so had sent t h e i r comments and suggestions.
those It did
not seem advisable at that stage to modify a text which had been so closely studied. I t must not be forgotten that xhe Commission had reached tho etege of g i v i n g f i n a l form to the d r a f t covenant.
I t should devote i t s e n t i r e attention to and should
only attempt to modify those a r t i c l e s which had been the subject of serious criticism
and a r t i c l e 9 was not amaag them.
Otherwise i t would not complete
the work before i t during the ciirrent session.
fiC.
The CHAIEU^iAîî pointed out that, i n the case i n point, i t ш а
merely a
question of a d r a f t i n g amendment which had been introduced f o r the sake of c l a r i t y .
/ She asked
E/CK.VSR.l2f.5 Page 12
She asked the Conimission to vote on the United States amendment t o pamgraph 3 of a r t i c l e 9, which had been accepted by the Chilean delegation
4o.
{E/CN.h/hOS).
Mr. Ш Х Т Ь А М (Australia) wondered whether I t would not be advisable to
stress s t i l l fc.x-'±er the difference i n time between the communication of the reasons for Rarest aiid that o f the charges which J u s t i f i e d detention.
That might
be done by moving the word "promptly'^ which would only be applicable a t the moment of arrest, and by specifying In the second phrase that an arrested person would "thereafter" be informed of any charges agp-inst him.
yC,
Mr. CEAKG (China) thought that St was very d i f f i c u l t to make such subtle
time d i s t i n c t i o n s i n a single sentence.
He preferred the o r i g i n a l text.
Refoti'lng t o the United States aaiendiaent, Kr. MEIÎDE2 (Philippines) maintained the amandment which he had submitted to the o r i g i n a l d r a f t jíSíine.Vítbat ftft eercEbed person should be informed "of the chnrijes against him" and not "of any charges against him".
Mr. SORENSOH (Denmark) pointed out to the Philippine representative that paragraph 3 d i d not provide exclusively f o r a r r e s t f o r criminal reasons; I t might a l s o r e l a t e t o the confinement of a Itmatlc o r to i s o l a t i o n o f a person with an i n f e c t i o u s disease.
In those cases, no charge was brought against the person
deprived of h i s l i b e r t y ; his detention was none the l e s s J u s t i f i e d and he should be t o l d the reasons f o r i t .
У', comments.
Mr. RAMADAN (Egypt) wholeheartedly supported the Danish representative's The Commission's task •was not to d r a f t s t r i c t l y penal l e g i s l a t i o n but
an intej^iational covenant to protect human r i g h t s .
I t should therefore provide
for cases o f preventive a r r e s t and not s o l e l y cases of punitive a r r e s t .
/ % . Mr. WHITLAM
•ítr^'''WáCEIÁÍr'tAiót.2feU-la)' accôpt«3.' Ш в ' btíolsh- rejírecontatlvoarguments and s a i d tiiátЫ
the' ciícimistKacés lie could no --'ХойдоГ 'euv^J^'-'the 'íSitilpíplíieí
représentaiÍTe's amendmèîit'. '
"'y'rr
'fiîw • •C\«iíï•£B!#î^^púV•to--tb e- v o t e - th© •PhШpptг,o..dвlagal;lЬn^»йíá?^^
to
replace t h b ^rords "any cbargvis" Ъу the worlK "'¿'.•.o él.àreafci"., ТЪ.е aHru.l???nt v??3 ^roject^ed. hy 7 votc3 to^^reie; y l t h б abpt^i^tlqaa »
оЬ.'
'TheCHP^IHW-ïï'put'tlië ^:Wd
'"States aTifândftont