Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume II, Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

190. Telegram From the Department of State to All Diplomatic and Consular Posts and the Embassies in Cape Verde, the Republic of Congo, and Uganda¹

Washington, August 4, 1979, 2305Z

203431. Inform Consuls as appropriate. Subject: Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: 1979. Ref: A) State 37888;² B) 78 State 207310.³

1. Summary: 1979 Human Rights Country Reports will be required on all UN member countries (other than the U.S.), including by Congressional direction countries that do not receive assistance from the U.S. Government.⁴ Reports will also be provided on North Korea, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, Taiwan, and Namibia, as well as on all U.S. aid recipient countries whether or not they are UN members (i.e., all those covered by 1978 reports). First drafts (in most cases provided by posts) should be received in Washington during September and October on a schedule to be established by regional bureaus, who will provide supplementary guidance to this cable by septels.

2. The 1978 Country Reports on human rights practices, which covered one hundred and fifteen countries, were a clear advance over those submitted previously. As Deputy Secretary Christopher stated in ref (A), the 1978 reports were “the most balanced and complete set of reports that we have sent to Congress.” The 1978 reports demonstrated increased recognition of the issues involved in advancing human rights and, in most cases, a more complete and objective description of the human rights situation in the countries covered. (All posts should have copies of the 1978 reports. Any that do not should request them by cable from the Department or from a U.S. Mission closer at hand.)

3. We want the 1979 reports to be as good as posts and the Department can make them. We recognize this imposes a significant work requirement on many posts, and assure all posts in advance that their contributions to this project are essential and appreciated. This will be especially true this year for the countries on whom reports were not submitted in 1978. For those especially, we recommend that posts begin immediately to gather information for the draft reports.

4. The format and presentation of the 1978 reports is applicable to the 1979 reports and should be followed in both form and substance, with changes noted below. In most cases posts can base their 1979 report on the 1978 report as submitted to the Congress. The new reports should recapitulate information from previous reports essential to provide context for the 1979 period, and should concentrate on trends, conditions, and practices in the December 1, 1978 to December 1, 1979 period.

5. The following guidelines refer to general areas in which we would like the 1979 reports strengthened:

A) Introductory section. It is important that this section provide a brief overall human rights description of the country. While avoiding detail, it should provide a capsule assessment of the current overall human rights situation and trends. The country should be described in general terms so that the human rights situation can be seen in the perspective of such factors as the country’s history, political and educational levels, financial resources, judicial institutions, and religious or cultural context. The reader should be able to judge how well the country is doing on human rights in light of available resources and past performance.

B) In discussing political prisoners, posts should distinguish if appropriate between “prisoners of conscience” and those who have been convicted or detained because of politically-motivated acts of violence, and comment on the fairness of treatment and trials of both categories. Any other distinctions posts deem relevant should be included.

C) The existence of discrimination on grounds such as race, language, religion, economic or social class, or national origin should be described as may be relevant.

D) In preparing section 2., posts should draw on AID’s country development strategy statements.

E) We are deleting the reference to freedom of “thought” under section 3.A., since this concept does not lend itself to objective analysis.

F) Women’s rights. This needs to be covered with greater specificity in all reports. We do not wish to create a separate section for this, so the subject should be covered as appropriate under all headings, and particularly under section 3.C. (see checklist below).

G) Labor rights. Greater attention should be paid to labor, including freedom of association and protection of the right to organize, the right to bargain collectively, abolition of forced labor, and the right to equal employment opportunities. This information also should be included under section 3.C.

H) Posts should consult reports on each country by responsible non-governmental organizations, such as Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, and the International League of Human Rights; and by appropriate organs of official international organizations such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Commission, the European Human Rights Commission, the International Labor Organization, and UNESCO. These reports should be quoted when that is a good way to make a point. Where there are significant charges in such reports, the charges should be reported, with comments supporting or not supporting the charges as the case may be. Country reports will be compared with NGO and other reports, and we need to be sure our reports take adequate account of what has been said in the other reports. (Country desks will have the reports and will assure posts have them if needed for drafting.)

I) Length. Reports should be concise but long enough to provide thorough coverage of the human rights situation. Final 1978 reports generally were appropriate in length and degree of specificity.

6. In preparation of the 1978 reports, the Deputy Secretary asked posts and regional bureaus to ensure that the reports were “objective, specific and responsive to the headings in the format.” (see ref (B)). Reporting for the 1979 country reports should also display these qualities. Reports must be objective and accurate, even where this may conflict with host government sensitivities. Specificity calls for serious efforts to provide specific factual information. The checklist below is designed to assist drafters in assuring that reports are responsive to the format.

7. The remainder of this telegram is a checklist developed in connection with last year’s reports, which is intended to serve as an aid for the preparation of the 1979 reports. The questions in the checklist vary in their degree of applicability and significance in different countries, but our experience with previous annual reports indicates they are relevant in most cases. In general, the complete report should be responsive to the points in the checklist, either by generalizations or by specific information.

Begin text checklist:

Introduction:

—Should provide brief overview of the country’s human rights situation, as well as historical, legal, cultural, religious, political, and other factors to establish adequate perspective. See 5.A above.

Section 1:

Respect for the integrity of the person, including freedom from:

A. Torture

Is torture prohibited by law, or custom?

—Does it occur? How frequently? What methods are used? Is torture used in interrogation? What are the sources of reports of torture? Are they credible reports?

—If torture does occur, is it authorized by the government? If not authorized, is it condoned? If it occurs without government sanction, what is the government’s response? Is anyone disciplined?

B. Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

—If such treatment occurs, when does it occur? Immediately after arrest? During interrogation? While awaiting trial? During detention after conviction?

—What form does it take?

—Are there summary executions? If so, to what extent?

—Have there been reports of prison officials using such treatment? Are they credible reports? Or police? Does government condone such actions, or does it seek to prevent them.

—What are prison or detention conditions like? Do those held have adequate health care? Is diet adequate? Are they allowed visits from family members? Attorneys of their choice? Are classes of imprisonment used, i.e., between political and ordinary prisoners?

—Does the International Committee of the Red Cross have access to detainees?

C. Arbitrary arrest and imprisonment

—Are there political prisoners? (see para. 5.B. above.) How many? If our estimate differs from that of human rights organizations, can we explain this difference?

—Does the government acknowledge holding political prisoners? If it does, how does it justify their detention or imprisonment?

—Does habeas corpus or its equivalent exist? Is it honored in practice?

—Does the law permit “preventive detention?” Are there safeguards on preventive detention? Does it have a fixed term? Can it be extended?

—Are persons arrested and held without charge? How long can they be thus held?

—Are persons held clandestinely?

—Do persons “disappear” for protracted periods?

D. Denial of fair public trial

—Recognizing that legal systems vary, is a right to fair public trial provided for by law? By practice or custom? Is this right honored in practice?

—Are defendants entitled to counsel? Does counsel have free access to defendants? May consultations between defendants and counsel be held in private? Are there incidents of harassment of defense counsel by the government?

—Are defendants made fully aware of the charges brought against them? May they and their lawyers inform themselves of the evidence on which the charges are based?

—Are the courts independent of executive or military control?

—Are there special courts to deal with security or political offenses? If so, do they adhere to the same standards as control the courts considering ordinary offenses?

—Are civilians tried by military courts? If so, under what circumstances? What standards control military courts?

—Have there been summary executions? Who orders or controls them?

—On what basis if any have such practices been justified?

E. Invasion of the home

—Is the sanctity of the home safeguarded by law and/or custom? Is it respected in practice?

—Are judicial warrants required before entering a home? What standards control the issuance of warrants?

—Are there allegations of illegal entry into homes? If so, how frequent are such allegations made? Are responsible officials disciplined for unauthorized entries or are such acts condoned?

Section 2:

Government policies relating to the fulfillment of such vital needs as food, shelter, health care and education

—What is the character of the country’s economy? Rural or urban? Capitalist, socialist, mixed or what? Does it confront special problems?

—What is the distribution of income? Of wealth? Of land? Are there efforts to bring about increased opportunity and equity? Is the tax system progressive or regressive?

—Is property privately owned, and is this right protected?

—Is adequate shelter a significant problem?

—Is health care available? How extensively?

—Is education free? Up to what level? Is it adequate in rural areas? What is the level of literacy?

—Is fulfillment of vital human needs hindered by corruption? If so, what is being done about it?

Section 3:

Respect for civil and political liberties, including:

A. Freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly

—Are these freedoms guaranteed by law or custom and respected in practice?

—Is there censorship? What are the subjects of censorship?

—Are the media—especially the press—subject to control? If the media are government-owned or controlled, are opposition views aired? Is criticism of the government by others permitted? Have journalists been intimidated or imprisoned? Newspapers closed?

—May religion be freely practiced? Are any sects or religions suppressed while others are unimpeded? Is there persecution or harassment of any religious groups? Are any religious groups discriminated against?

—Are there any impediments to assembly? Are certain groups allowed to hold public meetings and not others?

—Are there impediments to the freedom of association? Are particular groups or individuals denied the right to associate? Interest groups, workers, politicians? Limitations on purposes of activities?

B. Freedom of movement within the country, foreign travel and emigration

—Are these freedoms guaranteed by law or custom and respected in practice?

—Is domestic travel circumscribed or controlled? What is the rationale for such control?

—Are limits placed on travel abroad? Or the right to return? What are the reasons for limitations on travel abroad? Do excessive passport fees limit the right to travel abroad? (See answers to State 161057.)⁵

C. Freedom to participate in the political process

—What is the character of the political system? Authoritarian, dictatorial, democratic? Multi-party, two-party, single-party? Are any parties outlawed? Do opposition parties function freely? Have they access to the media? Can they hold public meetings?

—Is participation in the political system open to all citizens? If so, are there any groups who are denied citizenship? If some groups of citizens are denied the right to participate, what is the basis for this denial?

—What is the status of women? Are they legally equal to men? In practice, do women participate freely in social, economic and political life? Is their participation growing, or do they tend to remain in “traditional” roles? Are there social, cultural or religious factors which inhibit women from playing a larger role? Is there economic discrimination?

—Is there an active trade union movement? Is it granted by law the right to organize, strike, bargain collectively and lobby?

Section 4:

Government attitude and record regarding international and non-governmental investigation of alleged violations of human rights

—What is the government’s record and attitude regarding such investigations?

—If there have been discussions or communications with international or non-governmental human rights groups, what has been the subject and what has been their tenor?

—Has the government permitted investigations by individuals or teams sent from outside? Has it facilitated their work?

Vance

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790354–1059. Unclassified. Repeated for information to the consulates at Durban, Johannesburg, Kaduna, and Lubumbashi. Drafted by Sieverts; cleared by Derian, Schneider, Vogelgesang, Runyon, Bushnell, Paul Molineaux (M/MO), Cleveland, George Lambrakis (NEA/RA), Zak, Alden Irons (AF/I), Hewitt, John Sylvester (INR), Kenney, and Jennone Walker; approved by Christopher.
2. In telegram 37888 to multiple diplomatic and consular posts, February 13, the Department transmitted Christopher’s appreciation for the collective efforts of posts in preparing the 1978 human rights country reports. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790070–1020)
3. In telegram 207310 to all posts, August 16, 1978, the Department communicated Christopher’s desire that posts produce “first rate” country reports on human rights practices for 1978. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D780335–0583)
4. The International Development Cooperation Act of 1979 (H.R. 3324; P.L. 96–53; 93 Stat. 359–378), introduced by Zablocki in March and signed into law by the President on August 14, amended certain provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, requiring the Secretary of State to transmit a full and complete report regarding the status of internationally recognized human rights in countries receiving U.S. foreign assistance. The bill also required reporting on the human rights practices of UN-member nations, even if the nations were not recipients of U.S. foreign assistance. (Legislation on Foreign Relations Through 2002, p. 60, fn. 84)
5. In telegram 161057 to all diplomatic and consular posts, June 22, the Department referred to a study that compared American passport fees to those charged by other nations and requested that posts advise the Department concerning passport fees and expiration dates. (National Archives, RG 59, Central Foreign Policy File, D790326–0325)