Robert F. Kennedy Center ‘s Erroneous grounds that led to the wrong decision

By African Bulletin on April 17, 2013

By Shoji Matsumoto
Professor of International Comparative Law
President of Sappporo Institute of International Solidarity

In my quality as a specialist in comparative and International Law, I’d like to focus on the suspicion of violation of the principles of neutrality on the part of Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights concerning the visit to Western Sahara.
While NGOs do claim to find “facts,” the claim may be mere “allegations,” as noted by professor Hurst Hunnum. In many situations, however, mere allegations would jump to a conclusion that international human rights had been violated, in disregard for the principles that have been developed in the relevant international human rights organs.
The Center has explored two areas, namely the territory of Western Sahara and the Sahrawi refugee camps in Algeria from August 24th to 31st 2012. Its objective was basically to assess the human rights situation on the spot. The fact–finding visit and report of the Center were not neutral.
To be neutral, audi alteram partem, or “hear the other side too.” The Latin phrase is considered a principle of fundamental justice in most legal systems. The other principle of neutrality is nemo iudex in causa sua, or “no-one should be a judge in their own cause.” The principle has been strictly applied even to an appearance of a possible bias, even when there is actually none. The principle requires to keep off any bias in making a finding of fact.
Among the criticisms that have focused on the lack of neutrality in the performance of the Center’s delegation members are two.
First, it excluded from their contacts even such Sahraoui NGOs that regularly criticize Moroccan government. The NGOs have been surprised by the over bias of the Center in favor of the separatists operating in Laayoune. The NGOs claim that the delegation has held meetings that excluded other activists of civil society and representatives of the local population that don’t agree with their point of view.
Second, it has been hosted by Aminatou Haidar, who has acted consistently against Morocco, instead of avoiding intimacy with any of the parties concerned. The delegation has reportedly visited Aminatou Haidar’s place. The visit is said to have been completely a familial like visit.
With respect to the States concerned, the Belgrade Minimal Rules of Procedure for International Human Rights Fact-Finding Missions, adopted by the International Law Association in 1980, prescribes that “[p]etitioners ought ordinarily to be heard by the fact finding mission in public session with an opportunity for questioning by the states concerned.” Moreover, the Lund-London Guidelines on International Human Rights Fact-Finding Visits and Reports, adopted by the International Bar Association in 2010, provides that “[w]here it is the practice for the NGO to submit the report to the government for its response in advance of publication, any comments received should be included if the government consents. Any failure of the government to respond should be noted in the report.” But any comments by Morocco are not included in the description of particular cases in the report.
Any activities in contravention of the principles of neutrality would not be beneficial to “a just, lasting and mutually agreeable solution” of the Western Sahara conflict.

Featured