56

The Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights Covenant requires that the parties take steps towards "achieving progressively the full realizati rights recognized in the present Covenant." (Article 2(1)). A statement standing is recommended to reiterate this point and to emphasize that national legal obligations contained in this Covenant involve taking step rather than immediate implementation of the enumerated protections. guage quoted by the Lawyers Committee from Deputy Secretary Chr letter of submittal with respect to foreign aid obligations, distinctions citizenship, and other references to the standards of Articles 6 through are simply statements by Mr. Christopher and are not recommendatic Senate of formal understandings.

The Departments of State and Justice have concurred in the recomn of reservations, declarations and understandings to the two Covenant above stated reasons. However, Roberts Owen, the Legal Adviser of th ment of State said in his testimony:

"The reservations that we have recommended in some cases are a essential in order to avoid conflicts with our own Constitution.

"As to the other reservations, if the Senate should decide that the necessary, I think the Administration would be willing to dispense wi Then we would be, in effect, bringing about a more rigorous civil righ and there would be no possible criticism that we were not fulfilling th as a whole."

Senator PELL. If the Senate does not ratify the treaties alo reservations, is there any requirement of reciprocity with other before the reservations become effective?

Mr. GOLDKLANG. Did you say if the Senate does not ratif not quite hear the question.

Senator PELL. If the Senate does not ratify the treaties alo the reservations-well, let me reverse the phrasing to simp question. If the Senate does ratify the treaties along with the tions, is there any requirement of reciprocity with other nation the reservations become effective?

Mr. GOLDKLANG. This is the process we have adverted t party looks at the reservations. It can accept or reject the accepts them, it becomes a reciprocal reservation. They c advantage of our reservations, just as we can take advantage o Senator PELL. This is within the 1 year timeframe, isn't i that where this becomes important?

Mr. ROVINE. I thought I understood your question to me Chairman, is there a reciprocal effect with respect to each reservations. If that is the question, the answer is yes, ther other words, if we formulate a reservation with respect to any ular article, then any other country is entitled to invoke that tion as if it had made it itself, even though, in fact, it had not, treaty relationships with us.

In other words, if we reserve to article 10, for example, then nation in its treaty relationship with us also is entitled to say i obligation with respect to us as concerns article 10, but it do respect to all the other nations that are party to the treaty. because we would have a reservation to article 10, and on a re basis it is entitled to invoke it.

This is a settled rule of international practice.

Senator PELL. Thank you very much for that answer.

I thank you all for being with us. The record of this hearing kept open for a period of time to accommodate additions record.

Incidentally, the parliamentarian has indicated that any treaty on the Senate executive calendar not acted upon before the Senate adjourns sine die, is rereferred to the committee or committees which originally reported it. The treaty can be rereported when a subsequent Congress begins; or, a single Senator can seek unanimous consent that the committee reporting the treaty originally could be released of further reporting requirement and ask for the Senate's immediate consideration of the treaty.

This should be a part of the record. Again, with further research this may have to be amended, but this is the present understanding of this chairman with regard to the question of whether the treaty is. before the Senate or the committee.

I would add that Senator Helms requested that the record remain open for the submission of responses by Ms. Derien to written questions which he will be submitting to her. He regrets that he is unable to be here in person at this time. He asks that the answers be submitted as soon as possible. The record of these hearings will remain open for 3 weeks to give an adequate time for response to these and other written questions which may be submitted by any of my colleagues, and to permit insertion of any other material.

[Additional questions and answers follow:]

MS. PATRICIA DERIAN'S RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HELMS

Question 1. How many prisoners are being held in the Tipitapa model facility? Answer. The Nicaraguan Government of National Reconstruction has acknowledged holding approximately 7,200 prisoners as of October 31. The majority of these prisoners are being held in the vicinity of Managua either at Tipitapa or the central police station. An officer from the Human Rights Bureau visited on November 1 and 2 and was given an escorted visit to Tipitapa prison by Minister of Interior Tomas Borge. It was evident that the prision was overcrowded,_and this fact was admitted by Borge. A visit was made to the Managua Free Zonewhere three newly completed factory buildings were being converted into prison facilities to accommodate 1,000 prisoners, who would be transferred from Tipitapa and police stations in interior towns. Borge announced at that time that additional facilities would be built in other locations within Nicaragua to assist in relieving the pressure on current facilities. The Free Zone prison was nearly completed at the time of the visit and should be occupied by now.

Question 2. How many Nicaraguans are captive on islands in Lake Nicaragua, and on which islands are they held?

Answer. While consideration was given to locating prison facilities on an island in Lake Nicaragua, the decision to do so has apparently not been taken and we have no indication that any prisoners are currently being held on islands in the Lake.

Question 3. Have any banks, mines, insurance companies and all other financial institutions been nationalized? How many? Have any former owners been compensated?

Answer. The private banking system was nationalized on July 25. Foreign owned banks were allowed to continue operations but not to accept deposits. Compensation was to be paid in five-year bonds earning six and a half percent annually.

Nicaraguan insurance companies were nationalized and the operations of foreign insurance companies were limited by a decree issued on October 16. Six foreign companies, all U.S. or British, were affected. They were prohibited from selling new insurance, but are obligated to fulfill existing contracts and maintain guarantees and reserves.

The mining industry was nationalized by a decree dated November 2. The decree specifies compensation at book value with six and a half percent bonds with five years amortization. Foreign technicians have been invited to remain on the same terms and conditions as before.

Question 4. How many former national guardsmen have been executed inside Nicaragua?

Answer. The Minister of Interior admitted in a press conference on November 14 that many abuses had been committed in Nicaragua since the new government assumed power. He said that many elements which the FSLN cannot yet control have taken advantage of disorder in the country to abuse prisoners, that many Nicaraguans had been unjustly imprisoned and there had been some deaths. Specifically, he mentioned the case of National Guard Colonel Fonseca who was killed at Puerto Cabeza despite the government's intention to prevent such occurrences. The Minister promised that as the Sandinista police and army get better organized they will combat such abuses.

Earlier, on October 11, the private Nicaraguan Permanent Human Rights Commission charged that the Nicaraguan Government was holding 7,000 prisoners and that over 22 persons had been executed and another 304 listed as missing. Question 5. Have any Nicaraguan nationals living outside of Nicaragua been executed by Sandinista "death squads?"

Answer. The only specific allegation concerns the case of former "Commander Bravo" (Emilio Salazar), who was reported to have been killed in Honduras by Sandinista elements. The Nicaraguan Government has denied involvement but acknowledged that Bravo was considered an enemy of the state.

Question 6. How many Cuban "educators" are presently in Nicaragua? Answer. Reportedly, some 1,200 Cuban teachers are programmed to go to Nicaragua to participate in the secondary education program. There are credible reports of other Cuban advisors and/or technicians now in Nicaragua which would add to the above figure, but the Department does not have a total.

Question 7. I am told that peasants near Matagalpa resisted the Cuban influence. If so, how many Nicaraguans and Cubans were killed?

Answer. We have no information on resistance to Cuban influence in Matagalpa by inhabitants of the region and, therefore, cannot comment in a factual manner in this charge.

Question 8. How many Cuban doctors are in Nicaragua? Is it true that a number of Cuban doctors sought and received asylum at several Latin American embassies? Were any turned away from the United States Embassy?

Answer. Cuban medical teams began entering Nicaragua shortly after the FSLN victory and there may now be roughly 200 such personnel in the country. To our knowledge no one from these teams has sought asylum in Nicaragua with a foreign or the U.S. Embassy.

Question 9. Does fighting continue in Managua? Why? Who are the participants? Are captives from the Model Facility being systematically executed? Where are and how are the bodies being concealed?

Answer. Skirmishes reportedly do continue to occur in Managua, usually during the night. There are charges by Nicaraguan authorities that former National Guardsmen, engaging in what are described as "counter-revolutionary activities”, are responsible. There are also charges that elements of the Sandinista movement not under control of the government may be responsible for some of the incidents. As mentioned in question 4, the government has admitted abuse of some prisoners and some deaths, but would categorically deny systematic execution of prisoners at Tipitapa. The question of prisoners is a sensitive subject for the Nicaraguan Government which has made several public efforts to show the prison to outsiders in order to reveal more completely the actual situation. The InterAmerican Human Rights Commission has been invited to visit (probably in early 1980), and hopefully will provide another objective source of information on the prisoner situation.

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights will review the human rights situation in Nicaragua at its 1980 session. A sub-body of the Commission has invited the Nicaraguan Government to provide information on human rights violations not only "in the recent past" but on "measures" being taken "to prevent such violations from recurring in the future.”

Question 10. Explain the clashes between Sandinista Nicaraguan troops with the Hondurans inside Honduras. How many times have the Sandinista forces entered Honduran territory?

Answer. There have been reports of a number of border incidents involving Honduras and Nicaragua, most recently involving charges by Nicaragua that Honduran flights have violated Nicaraguan airspace. Also at issue are allegations that former National Guard elements enter Nicaragua from havens in Honduras, and the Honduran Government does not effectively interdict such activity. A specific example of the localized nature of the border problem occurred on October

16 when FSLN troops crossed the Honduran border touching off a shooting incident in which one Sandinista died. The Nicaraguan Government explained that troops who were in hot pursuit of "Somocistas" accidentally crossed the border. The Nicaraguan Government, in effect, apologized by stating that good relations were desired with Honduras and expressing hope that the incident would, not impede these relations. These and other examples of strain have resulted in high level efforts between the two governments to reach an accord in order that normal relations not be seriously jeopardized.

Question 11. Have the Sandinistas supplied arms to the Marxist terrorists in El Salvador?

Answer. Undoubtedly there was contact between the extreme left in El Salvador and the Sandinistas during the effort to topple Somoza. Conceivably, these contacts have been maintained and El Salvadoran terrorists may have had some access to training while serving as volunteers in the Nicaraguan conflict. We are unable to confirm this. The Nicaraguan Government publicly denies that it is assisting revolutionary movements elsewhere in Central America.

Question 12. How often are military supplies arriving from Cuba in Managua? Answer. We have no specific information on this subject.

Question 13, Why is the Sandinista government changing the Nicaraguan monetary system and have they forced Nicaraguan workers to deposit practically all of their earnings in government banks with no right of withdrawal for at least six months? Why have all 50 and 100 cordoba notes been forced from circulation with no compensation to the workers?

Answer. It is our understanding that a proposal to withdraw cordoba, notes from circulation and require deposits in the banking system was put forward soon after the overthrow of Somoza, but because of worker objections has not been put into effect.

Senator PELL. I thank you all for being here this morning.

Is Congressman George Miller, Chairman of the Human Rights Committee of Members of Congress for Peace Through Law, here? [No response.]

Senator PELL. Since the Congressman is not present, we will try to schedule his appearance for another day in this series of hearings. Now I would like to take off, or at least put aside, my chairman's hat and appear before this committee for a few minutes as a witness in my capacity as Cochairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, more commonly known as the Helsinki Commission.

Our Chairman, Congressman Dante Fascell, was unable to be here this morning. In his absence, I am pleased to represent the views of the Commission on this important matter.

In this regard I will ask that my statement be inserted in full into the record, and I will comment briefly on this matter.

As many of you know, the Helsinki Commission was created in 1976 and charged with monitoring and encouraging compliance with the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe that was signed in 1975 in Helsinki, Finland.

The Commission always has expressed the view that other Helsinki signatories will better understand the depth of our concern for the full realization of the Helsinki pledges if we demonstrate that we are working hard at home to fulfill our side of the bargain.

U.S. efforts to foster compliance with the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Accords are seriously hampered by our failure to ratify the covenants which are before us. For this reason, we hope that they will be ratified by the time we have our next CSCE review meeting, to be held in Madrid in November 1980.

I would ask that my statement appear at this point in the record. [Senator Pell's prepared statement follows:]

55-159-80-5

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CLAIBORNE PELL, COCHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE

I would now like to take off-or at least put aside-my chairman's hat and become a witness for a few minutes, in my capacity as Cochairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, commonly known as the Helsinki Commission. Our Chairman, Representative Dante Fascell, was unable to be here this morning and, in his absence, I am pleased to represent the views of the Commission on this important matter.

As many of you know, the Helsinki Commission was created in 1976 and charged with monitoring and encouraging compliance with the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe that was signed in 1975 in Helsinki, Finland. The Commission consists of six Senators, six members of the House, and three executive branch officials, one of whom-Assistant Secretary of State Patt Derian-so eloquently addressed the committee earlier this morning. Since its inception, the Commission has taken seriously its mandate to promote improved implementation of the provisions of the Helsinki agreement by all 35 signatory countries, including the United States.

The Commission has always expressed the view that the other Helsinki signatories will better understand the depth of our concern for the full realization of the Helsinki pledges if we demonstrate that we are working hard at home to fulfill our side of the bargain. In this regard, one of the Commission's first recommendations was that the United States sign and ratify the International Covenants on Human Rights and the Optional Protocol. Such action, the Commission said in a report issued in August of 1977, would substantially enhance the U.S. record of compliance with the Helsinki Final Act. The Commission reiterated this viewpoint in our recently-released comprehensive report on U.S. compliance with the Helsinki agreement, entitled: "Fulfilling Our Promises-The United States and the Helsinki Final Act." In that report, the Commission stated that:

"* * * ratification of the International Covenants on Human Rights and the Optional Protocol should be given the highest priority by both the Administration and the Congress. The Commission also believes that a minimum number of reservations, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, should be attached.

The Commission strongly urges the Administration to encourage the Senate to ratify the Covenants. The Commission recommends that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee report favorably on the Covenants so they may be brought before the full Senate during the 96th Congress. The Commission further recommends that the Senate ratify the Covenants and that the President sign the Optional Protocol and submit it to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification *****

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the section of the Commission's report on domestic compliance that deals with this issue be included in the record of this hearing.

The reference to the Covenants in the Final Act is contained in the last paragraph of Principle VII in which the signatory countries pledge to "respect human rights and fundamental freedoms." The CSCE nations, in addition to agreeing to "act in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" also reaffirmed their commitment to "fulfill their obligations in this field, including inter alia the International Covenants on Human Rights by which they may be bound." Another less direct reference to the Covenants-as well as to other human rights treaties-is contained in Principle X which commits the signatories to fulfill their existing obligations under international law. Although the Helsinki Final Act does not directly call upon signatory governments to become parties to the Covenants, failure to adhere to those Covenants would clearly be contrary to the spirit of the Final Act.

One of the major aims of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe was and remains the achievement of governmental respect for fundamental human freedoms and the acknowledgement that human rights are an important element of peaceful, cooperative behavior between the 35 Helsinki nations. While the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights made the subject of civil liberties a matter of international concern long before the Helsinki accord, the Final Act gave questions of a state's conduct toward its own citizens a fresh prominence and new status. By adopting a pledge of respect for human rights, the signatories made their compliance with that promise as relevant a measure of their standing in the community of nations as their respect for their neighbor's frontiers or their willingness to settle disputes peacefully. Thanks to Principle VII of the Helsinki Final Act, human rights became a legitimate item on the East-West agenda.