HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE EXAMINES THE INITIAL REPORT OF LAO PEOPLE’S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

The Human Rights Committee this morning concluded the review of the initial report of Lao People’s Democratic Republic on its implementation of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Presenting the report, Bounkeuth Sangsomsak, Minister to the Prime Minister's Office and Chairman of the Lao National Steering Committee on Human Rights, stressed that during their very long history, the Lao people had gone through a series of foreign occupations, depriving them of their human rights and dignity. Accordingly, since the independence of the country in 1975, the Lao Government had deployed tremendous efforts to uphold the rule of law, good governance, democracy, and human rights. Political, economic, social and cultural rights were enshrined in the national Constitution, laws and other legal documents, which were in conformity with all international obligations. In the regional context, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic had played a leading role in drafting the terms of reference of the ASEAN human rights body, as well as the ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights. The National Assembly had adopted the newly amended Constitution in 2015 through a transparent, participatory and consultative process. It had also adopted the finalized draft of the Penal Code, as well as more than 120 laws relevant to the provisions of the Covenant.

In the ensuing discussion, the Committee Experts expressed hope that the first engagement of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic with the Committee would mark the beginning of close, constructive and fruitful cooperation, but regretted that the initial report was seven years late. The Committee had some serious concerns about the protection of human rights in the country, such as the lack of space for civil society, constraints on freedom of expression and opinion, impunity for enforced disappearances, and the treatment of ethnic minorities. Other issues emphasised by the Experts included reservations to articles 1, 18 and 22 of the Covenant, plans to establish a national human rights institution in line with the Paris Principles, hate speech, the death penalty, representation of women in public and political life, sex trafficking and forced labour, prohibition of torture, detention conditions, abortion, counter-terrorism legislation, state of emergency, the situation of ethnic minorities, the effect of development projects on local communities, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, association and assembly, State control over the media, the right to vote and stand for elections, and political pluralism.

In his concluding remarks, Mr. Sangsomsak, said that the dialogue had been very direct, open and productive, adding that the Government was ready to fully implement its international obligations. However, he asked the Committee Experts to share their sources of information, some of which were groundless. Furthermore, he noted that pluralism was not suitable for a country that had become independent only very recently.

Yuval Shany, Committee Chairperson, commended the delegation’s attitude and reminded that the Experts’ comments were intended to help the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to live up to its democratic aspirations, as reflected in the country’s name. The Committee’s role was not to impose a political system on countries, but it was its role to insist on the full implementation of the Covenant.

The delegation of Lao People’s Democratic Republic consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Permanent Mission of Lao People’s Democratic Republic to the United Nations Office at Geneva.


The Committee will next meet in public on Wednesday, 18 July, at 10 a.m. to continue discussing General Comment No. 36 on the right to life.


Report

The Committee has before it the initial report of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (CCPR/C/LAO/1).

Presentation of the Report

BOUNKEUTH SANGSOMSAK, Minister to the Prime Minister’s Office and Chairman of the National Steering Committee on Human Rights of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, reminded that during its very long history of almost 6,000 years, the Lao people had gone through serious difficulties, some of them threatening their very existence. They had been under foreign occupation and aggression four times. The longest foreign occupation had lasted almost 300 years, while the shortest one had lasted 60 years. Foreign occupations had deprived the Lao people of their dignity as human beings, liberty, freedoms and fundamental rights. Fortunately, in 1975 their long struggle for freedom had finally led to the foundation of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, opening a new era of genuine national independence. From 1975 until nowadays, the Lao Government had deployed tremendous efforts to concentrate on nation-building and to uphold basic rights. Under foreign occupation, the Lao people had tasted bitterly and painfully the denial of human rights. The Lao Government upheld the rule of law, good governance, and the principles of democracy and the promotion and protection of human rights. By adhering to those principles over the past 43 years, the country had enjoyed political stability, sustained economic growth, and increasing living conditions. The Government had adopted the eighth five-year National Socio-Economic Development Plan 2016-2020, the Development Strategy 2016-2025, and the Vision 2030, which would ultimately ensure Lao’s graduation from the status of a least developed country and categorization of a high-middle income country by 2030.

The promotion and protection of human rights was at the heart of the Lao Government’s policy. Political, economic, social and cultural rights were enshrined in the national Constitution, laws and other legal documents, which were in conformity with all international obligations. In the regional context, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic played a leading role in drafting the terms of reference of the ASEAN human rights body, as well as the ASEAN Declaration of Human Rights. In the area of legislation, the National Assembly had adopted the newly amended Constitution in 2015 through a transparent, participatory and consultative process. The National Assembly had also adopted the finalized draft of the Penal Code, as well as more than 120 laws relevant to the provisions of the Covenant. In the implementation of the provisions of the Covenant, the Government had put in place a policy governing the judicial sector in order to strengthen the rule of law and access to justice. The rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association were guaranteed by the Constitution. The violation of those fundamental freedoms was a criminal offence punishable by the Penal Code of 2005. It was also a criminal offence in the draft Penal Code. The Government continued to work on improving prison conditions and it attached great importance to the training of prison officers, and to raising awareness about the Covenant and its dissemination. In addition, the authorities attached great importance to the rights and legitimate concerns of the country’s 49 ethnic groups.

Questions by Committee Experts

Experts expressed hope that the first engagement of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic with the Committee would mark the beginning of close, constructive and fruitful cooperation, but regretted that the initial report was seven years late. The Committee had some serious concerns about the protection of human rights in the country, such as the lack of space for civil society, constraints on freedom of expression and opinion, impunity for enforced disappearances, and the treatment of ethnic minorities.

How often had international treaties been found to prevail over inconsistent national legislation? What was the list of cases in the past five years where it had occurred? What procedures were in place to ensure that national legislation was compliant with the Covenant prior to its promulgation? What steps had been taken to train the judiciary on ways to apply the Covenant in domestic law and court decisions?

Why were the reservations to article 22 of the Covenant and the interpretative declarations concerning articles 1 and 18 considered necessary? What conditions would be required for the State party to withdraw those reservations? How did the national context and reality affect the implementation of Covenant rights? When did the State party plan to ratify the Optional Protocols to the Covenant?

Were there plans in place to improve and strengthen the national commissions like the national mechanisms to promote and protect human rights? Had the Paris Principles informed the framework for those bodies? What conditions would be necessary for the establishment of a Lao independent human rights institution? What measures were currently in place to assist the possible transition from national commissions to an independent human rights institution?

Turning to enforced disappearances, Experts inquired about the concrete steps taken by the Government to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances. They also asked about the number of open and ongoing investigations, and the results of those investigations. What was the availability of an effective remedy for complainants in those situations? Had the Government considered inviting the United Nations Working Group on enforced and involuntary disappearances for a visit? Finally, Experts inquired about details of the investigation of the alleged enforced disappearance of Sombath Somphone in 2012, and of Kha Yang and the Hmong people.

As for non-discrimination and gender equality, Experts noted that the prohibited grounds for discrimination appeared to differ from one law to another. There was no explicit prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. Was there an intention to adopt comprehensive legislation on non-discrimination? What was the status of the draft Law on Gender Equality? Was there a wage gap between women and men? How many people had been arrested, prosecuted and convicted on the basis of the Penal Law in the past five years? What was the situation of the elderly, persons with disabilities, and minorities with respect to discrimination?

On hate speech, how many people had been punished and fined according to the Penal Law? How many legal persons or organizations had lost their permit or closed their activities according to the Penal Law? What was the interpretation of the “intention of undermining national solidarity”?

With respect to the right to life, Experts asked the delegation about the death sentence. Why had the State party not imposed an official moratorium on the death penalty? Experts reminded that the Committee was in the process of adopting General Comment 36 on the right to life, and that the term “serious crime” had to be read restrictively and pertain only to crimes of extreme gravity, involving intentional killing. When was the last time that a person had received the death penalty? How many of the 315 persons on death row were there for drug offences?

What steps did the State party intend to take to increase steadily the representation of women, and to ensure gender equality and non-discrimination both in public life and the private sphere?

Regarding the state of emergency and counter-terrorism measures, did the State party consider that it already had a comprehensive counter-terrorism legal framework? Was the broad definition of terrorism in the Law on Money Laundering in line with international standards and the Covenant?

What steps did the State party intend to take to encourage reporting of cases of domestic violence and further raising the awareness of women and children of their rights? What measures would the State party take to ensure prompt and effective investigation of cases of violence against women and children, appropriate punishment of perpetrators, and adequate remedies to victims?

As the Lao People’s Democratic Republic seemed to be a source and, to a lesser extent, a transit and destination country for women, children and men subjected to sex trafficking and forced labour, did the State party intend to strengthen its efforts to implement the 2016 anti-trafficking law by investigating, prosecuting, and convicting traffickers? What measures would be taken against the sexual exploitation of children from ethnic minorities, migrant and refugee children, children living in institutions, transgender boys, children working in exploitative conditions, children from rural areas, and children living in poverty?

Turning to the prohibition of torture, Experts reminded that the State party had not signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. When did the Government plan to incorporate the definition of torture into domestic legislation in line with the Convention against Torture? Did the State party intend to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture? What were the statistics for the past five years on the number of reported cases of torture? What measures did the State party intend to adopt to strengthen the supervision of prisons and detention centres? Were re-education camps still operating?

Unlawful abortions were prohibited. Were there any legal voluntary terminations of pregnancy under law? Could all women and girls access legal abortion and throughout the entire territory of the country? What measures had the State party considered to decriminalize abortion?

Unsafe abortions were common and they contributed to the high maternal mortality and morbidity. What were the statistics on unsafe abortions? What were updated figures on teenage pregnancies? Access to sexual and reproductive health services was limited for adolescents. What measures had been taken to increase capacity for neonatal care in the rural and remote areas?

Experts further inquired about the maximum period of pre-trial detention, and about examples when individuals had been held outside the auspices of the justice system. The Committee had received information that certain individuals had been held in detention for months and even years without being handed over to the justice system. What was the legal framework to differentiate between custody and pre-trial detention?

Replies by the Delegation

BOUNKEUTH SANGSOMSAK, Minister to Prime Minister Office and Chairman of the Lao National Steering Committee on Human Rights, assured the Committee that the delegation had come to Geneva to listen to the Experts’ comments and advice. He appreciated the Experts’ direct and constructive questions, which were encouragement for the authorities to make the country better. Lao People’s Democratic Republic was a small and underdeveloped country, and accordingly it was very difficult to implement all of the Experts’ proposals. How could a poor country implement all of them without financial support? It was not a question of political will.

Explaining the relationship between the Covenant and national legislation, the delegation informed about the adoption of the new law on treaties and international agreements. In case of conflict between treaty obligations and domestic law, treaty obligations prevailed. The Lao People’s Democratic Republic followed a dualistic legal model, which meant that treaty obligations would be effective after being transposed into domestic law. The new law allowed that some treaties could be directly applicable. It was the duty of concerned ministries to propose new laws in order to implement international obligations. Courts applied only national laws and were not mandated to apply international treaties. The International Law Project, which had lasted from 2001 and 2017, had organized many lectures and training sessions for Government officials, judges, prosecutors and law enforcement officers on the provisions of international treaties.

As for the State party’s reservations to articles 1, 18 and 22 of the Covenant, those were due to the position of the Government that the exercise of freedom of association had to be in line with the national Constitution. Many States parties had also made declarations on the right to self-determination (article 1 of the Covenant). All of the people of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic enjoyed self-determination in observance of the country’s territorial integrity. As for the declaration on article 18, the delegation explained that in the past, some groups had tried to abuse the right to freedom of religion or belief to divide solidarity in the country.

The Government was currently not ready to ratify the First Optional Protocol to the Covenant because it wanted to enhance national mechanisms for complaints.

The Lao People’s Democratic Republic was trying to strengthen the existing mechanisms on the promotion and protection of human rights, such as commissions on women’s issues, persons with disabilities, and child welfare. The authorities had worked closely with the Australian Human Rights Commission and other national human rights institutions in the region. The National Steering Committee on Human Rights was headed by the Prime Minister.

The Lao People’s Democratic Republic was one of the first countries in Asia to sign the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances. However, more awareness raising was needed before it was ratified. The country’s legal framework still did not have a definition of enforced disappearances. As for the alleged enforced disappearance of Sombath Somphone in 2012, the Government had established a committee to investigate the case. But it was very difficult to find a single person.

BOUNKEUTH SANGSOMSAK, Minister to the Prime Minister’s Office and Chairman of the Lao National Steering Committee on Human Rights, said that he was personally involved in the investigation of the case of community development activist Sombath Somphone. He noted that Somphone had amassed great wealth and assets, which the courts did not know whom to grant.

Speaking of women’s representation in public and political life, the delegation said that in 2013, out of 62 ministers, 19.6 per cent were women, and out of 121 deputy ministers, 12.3 per cent were women. Women also made up 16.2 per cent of directors-general at various ministries, 38 per cent of judicial officers, and 33.7 per cent of the staff in the Supreme Court.

All citizens of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic were equal before the law, including persons with different sexual orientation and gender identity. The Law on Gender Equality was currently in the process of being drafted, and it should be presented to the National Assembly by the end of the year. In line with the Labour Law, women were entitled to an equal salary as men for the work of equal value and position.

The Lao Women’s Union had counselling centres to offer rehabilitation services and counselling to victims of domestic violence and trafficking. The Women’s Union also worked with men and boys to address violence against women.

Children with disabilities had the right to express their opinion on the same footing as children without disabilities. There was no home care for the elderly in the country as their children took care of them.

Legal abortion was available to women in life threatening situations.

Some grounds for non-discrimination were missing from the law, the delegation said. Discussions were ongoing about the adoption of a comprehensive anti-discrimination law.

The Public Prosecutor had the authority to determine the length of pre-trial detention. In case of emergency, the police could arrest a suspect and place him or her in immediate custody for 24 hours. But the police had to inform the prosecutor and ask for a warrant.

The State party had not adopted a specific law on counter-terrorism, but on money laundering and financing of terrorism. As for trafficking in persons, the Government had adopted the Anti-Trafficking Law, as well as a national action plan to combat trafficking. The authorities were cooperating with Myanmar, Thailand and ASEAN countries in anti-trafficking efforts.

Follow-up Questions by Experts

Experts reiterated their questions about the status of remaining cases of enforced disappearances, and they asked for clarification on the Government’s reservation to article 22 of the Covenant.

Would the Government consider opening the membership of the National Steering Committee on Human Rights to civil society?

Experts also reminded the delegation that they were still waiting for answers about hate speech, discrimination against ethnic minorities, prohibition of torture, and the moratorium on the death penalty.

Replies by the Delegation

The delegation explained that the National Assembly had carefully discussed the abolition of the death penalty, and that after a vigorous debate, more than two thirds had voted in favour of maintaining the death penalty. Nevertheless, the draft of the new Penal Code restricted the crimes for which the death penalty could be handed down. The authorities had made efforts to take into account the views of civil society on that matter.

Re-education measures were applied vis-à-vis certain prisoners so that they could reflect on their behaviour and avoid recidivism. Those measures did not constitute torture, the delegation noted. According to the Law on Public Security, correctional officers did not have the right to physically attack inmates, and administrative measures were applied against officers who did not follow the law. The allegations of violence against prisoners on drug charges were false. The delegation added that international organizations could visit places of detention in the country, whereas torture would be criminalized in the draft of the new Penal Code.

The authorities had taken a series of measures to improve detention conditions. Detention conditions were better than the conditions in which correctional officers worked, the delegation noted. Detention facilities were divided for different categories of prisoners, and the Government was planning to build additional detention space in order to reduce overcrowding. There was a policy of early release in place, including pardons and amnesty, which was overseen by a specialized committee.

As for the state of emergency, the authorities could only undertake measures provided by the law, namely to act in case individuals threatened national security. Under the Media Law, journalists were protected while performing their job. There had been no reported cases of harassment of journalists so far.

Turning to the cases of discrimination against women, the delegation said that there was no record of judgments so far. In addition, the delegation would provide statistics on hate speech within 48 hours in writing.

As for the cases of enforced disappearances, namely of Kha Yang and the Hmong people, those allegations were groundless. The authorities had found no evidence that could confirm those allegations. The Committee had received misinformation from unreliable sources. The Lao Government denounced all forms of enforced disappearances as a serious human rights crime.

The Government informed civil society about the activities in the National Steering Committee on Human Rights. It was focused on full implementation of all ratified international treaties, in spite of limited resources, and on strengthening of domestic remedies for human rights.

The reservation to article 22 of the Covenant was necessary to make it clear that the exercise of freedom of association and assembly, and freedom of expression would not affect the Constitution of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and the exercise of people’s right to self-determination.

Second Round of Questions by Experts

Experts asked the delegation to send the Committee the definition of torture contained in the new Penal Code. They further inquired about the complaint mechanisms for prisoners, the treatment of juvenile offenders, and an independent mechanism to monitor detention facilities.

Speaking of detention conditions, Experts raised concern about minimal food supply, inadequate medical care, overcrowding, physical confinement and abuse of inmates, prohibition on receiving visits, and the punitive environment. There were at least eight drug detention centres across the country which seemed to lack basic guarantees for due process and access to legal assistance. How many onsite visits had been conducted by the Office of the Public Prosecutor in the past five years? Were drug detention centres equally monitored?

How many complaints concerning detention conditions had been addressed? How many measures had been taken against correctional officers for having abused prisoners’ rights? What was the total prison population and the capacity of the penitentiary system? What was the number of prison officers and medical staff? Could the State party confirm the existence of the so-called “exit tax” for prisoners who had not paid their court fines?

On guarantees for a fair trial, Experts wondered whether it was true that a defence attorney could be present during a trial, but that his role was passive and that he could not argue the merits of the case, challenging evidence. Who appointed judges and how was the independence of the judiciary guaranteed?

Turning to the situation of ethnic minorities, Experts highlighted many infrastructure projects which did not respect the principle of free, prior and informed consent of the people affected by those projects. How was free, prior and informed consent ensured in development projects? How did the Government balance the country’s development needs with the protection of lifestyles of affected communities? What measures did the State party intend to take to ensure compensation to resettled communities for their land rights? What measures did the Government intend to take to address the persecution of the Hmong people and to address the allegations of detention and enforced disappearance of Hmong men who surrendered to the authorities since 2005, as well as the malnutrition and lack of access to health care for Hmong communities?

Referring to the freedom of religion, Experts pointed out that the Christian minority was sometimes a victim of discrimination and persecution. What were the reasons for that?

Speaking of the right to peaceful assembly, Experts asked about the State party’s interpretation that assemblies could be prohibited when they intended to “cause social disorder.” How many persons had been arrested and sentenced on those charges? What was the delegation’s comment that the Lao authorities had prosecuted Lao citizens who had taken part in a peaceful demonstration abroad in December 2015?

As for freedom of association, it was reported that the process of registration of associations was very burdensome and lengthy. Had any organizations focusing on human rights been registered? Experts reminded that the proposed amendments to the Decree on Associations of 2009 could place further restrictions on the establishment and operation of associations, such as limiting the scope of their activities to specific fields, not including human rights. What measures had been taken to address those concerns?

Restrictions on the freedom of expression had to be formulated with precisions and had to conform to the principles of proportionality and necessity, Experts reminded. How did legal provisions and practices on defamation, libel and insult contained in the Criminal Code conform to the Covenant provisions, including the Decree No. 327 of 2014 which criminalized online criticism of the Government and the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party?

Could the delegation elaborate on State control over the media and what restrictions were imposed on the international media? What were the requirements for censorship and sanctions for publication of content that did not meet prior Governmental approval?

Turning to the reports of arbitrary arrest, detention, trial and imprisonment without due process of activists for expressing political opposition and critical opinions about State authorities and policies, Experts noted that the answers provided by the State party were too general and declarative. They asked the delegation to provide information about the case of Bounthanh Thammavong, who had been arrested in 2015 and sentenced to imprisonment for a Facebook post and an article critical of the Government, and about the case of Somphone Phimmasone, Lodkham Thammavong and Soukan Chaithad, who had been arrested in March 2016 for posting criticism of the Government on the Internet and for participating in a peaceful demonstration in Bangkok against the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, and detained incommunicado for at least six months, denied legal representation and sentenced to harsh prison sentences.

What measures had been taken to encourage and promote political pluralism? Was it true that citizens could stand for election only with approval from the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party or on political affiliation with the party? Could persons with mental disorder and persons serving prison sentences vote? How was a limitation to their right to vote determined?

Had civil society participated in consultations on the preparation of the State party’s report? Had they been given a chance to comment on the report? How did the State party intend to disseminate the outcome of the dialogue with the Committee to the people of Lao, including to ethnic and minority groups? What steps had the Government taken to address capacity and resource constraints to raise awareness and understanding of laws, legal instruments, and human rights conventions? Many of the family members of those who had disappeared were not aware of the United Nations human rights mechanisms and their possible access to them. How did the State party plan to solve that significant gap?

Experts reminded that the State party had a duty to investigate all patterns of enforced disappearances and to ensure accountability for victims of those human rights violations. Why did the fact that the State party had not ratified the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances prevent it from adopting a law on enforced disappearances? An Expert said that he was uncomfortable about what the delegation had said about the personality of Sombath Somphone instead of focusing on the investigation of his disappearance.

YUVAL SHUVAL, Committee Chairperson, said that the delegation had engaged with questions, but that it had met specific allegations of disappearances, torture and death in detention with blanket denial. The Committee needed to know what was happening in the country, namely investigative steps and court decisions taken. In order to alleviate the Committee’s concerns, the delegation needed to engage with questions more fully.

Replies by the Delegation

BOUNKEUTH SANGSOMSAK, Minister to the Prime Minister’s Office and Chairman of the Lao National Steering Committee on Human Rights, asked that the dialogue with the Committee be extended in view of the many questions received.

The delegation explained that there was separation of men and women in prison, as well as of inmates on the death row and of juvenile offenders. There was a rehabilitation centre for drug users, which was not a closed detention facility. Juvenile offenders were kept in facilities where parents could come for a visit every day. Addressing overcrowding was a priority for the Government. Detention facilities in the country had medical facilities to treat prisoners who were ill. In case those prisoners could not be treated on site, they would be transferred to regional hospitals.

As for the case of student leader Khamphouvieng Sisa-at who had died in Samkhe Prison in September 2001, the authorities had notified relevant services and his relatives had been present during his medical treatment.

The so-called “exit tax” for prisoners was, in fact, civil damages which could be paid in instalments. The authorities were trying very hard to address that issue. The Department of Prison Inspection of the Prosecutor General’s Office was in charge of prison monitoring and inspections.

Turning to the right to religion, the delegation noted that the Constitution clearly stated in article 9 that all Lao citizens had the right to believe or not to believe. The State respected that right for all citizens, as well as all lawful religious activities, and it encouraged all religious leaders and believers to be in solidarity with other citizens.

The Government conducted social impact assessment of development projects on affected communities, and it ensured that those communities had access to relevant legal services. The authorities were currently preparing a strategy for ethnic affairs. As for the situation of land rights defenders in the north of the country, the Government and provincial authorities had tried hard to convince them to receive compensation. A few people could not obstruct the development of the country.

As for the registration of associations, the authorities held annual meetings with associations in order to improve the registration process. However, sometimes those wishing to register did not want to comply with the requirements. The authorities needed to run background checks in each case in order to avoid the mismanagement of funds. There were 23 registered civil society associations in the field of education, 13 in public health, 11 in environment, five in rural development, six in the area of women’s and children’s affairs, and 39 in forestry and agriculture.

The delegation noted that the proposed amendments to the Decree on Associations of 2009 did not intend to place restrictions on the work of civil society associations, or to delay their registration. They were in line with the Government’s effort to promote the rule of law in the country, and would contribute to the proper management of funds.

With respect to State control over the media, the delegation underlined that the Media Law stipulated very clear policies on the work of the media, while respecting the freedom of expression and the right to receive information. There was no restriction for foreign media to access information, or to import their products from abroad. Likewise, there was no ban on any media reports, or any arrested journalists. Organizations and individuals had the right to participate in the work of the media. There were more than 13 daily newspapers in the country, and about 10 radio stations, as well as more than one million Internet users. More than 3,000 foreign reporters worked in the country.

The interpretation of the right to peaceful assembly was a prerogative of each State party. Legitimate limitations could be imposed when national security and order were affected. The concept of “intent to disturb social order” in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic was, thus, legitimate. In that context, Somphone Phimmasone, Lodkham Thammavong and Soukan Chaithad had violated the country’s laws. They had received financial support from Thailand, the United States and Australia for the purpose of overthrowing the Lao Government. What they had done had nothing to do with the freedom of expression. Similarly, Bounthanh Thammavong had also received funds from abroad to discredit the Lao Government.

The Government would continue conducting an active and efficient investigation into the disappearance of community development activist Sombath Somphone, and it had been very sincere in providing information to his family and other interested parties.

The National Assembly had oversight control over the executive and the judiciary. It elected and removed the President of the Supreme Court and the Prosecutor General. In case of irregularities, the National Assembly informed the Ministry of Justice. In addition, a judicial committee oversaw the work of the judiciary, as well as of the penitentiary system.

The Law on Elections clearly set the criteria for standing for elections, and there was no requirement that candidates be members of the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party. Turning to the right to vote, the delegation clarified that those persons serving prison sentences could not vote. As for persons with mental disabilities, their right to vote was determined through medical assessment.

International law was quite broad and sometimes it did not take into account country-specific contexts. The Lao Government tried to address gaps between international and domestic law through assessment and evaluation. The National Assembly had set up a department charged with that task. For example, the Lao Government had asked some international organizations and foreign countries to provide comments on the draft of the new Penal Code.

The National Steering Committee on Human Rights would be mandated to receive and investigate complaints of human rights violations. In addition, the authorities planned to disseminate the outcomes of the dialogue with the Committee.

The Government had tried to include a definition of enforced disappearances in the draft of the new Penal Code, but that proposal had been dropped because the country was not a party to the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.

Follow-up by Committee Experts

Experts asked the delegation to clarify restrictions on media content that did not have the Government’s approval.

While recognizing the leading role of the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party, Experts reiterated their concern that all candidates for elections had to in a way belong to that party.

Was a court decision necessary to limit the right to vote of persons with mental disabilities? Were all prisoners barred from exercising their right to vote, regardless of the type of offence?

What was the number of drug offenders on death row and when was the last death sentence delivered?

As for criticism of the Government, it was high time for the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to open up to pluralism, both in terms of political parties and civil society, Experts noted.

Replies by the Delegation

The Government had carefully studied the principles of proportionality and necessity when drawing up the Media Law.

Responding to Experts’ comments about elections and the leading role of the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party, the delegation noted that the political system in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic was the result of the country’s historical and cultural development, and that it had been chosen by the people. The Covenant did not prescribe political systems to countries. Accordingly, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic was free to adopt whatever political system was suitable for its conditions. Its system was legitimate under international law.

The Government was open to receiving criticism from any corner, but not the criticism that would undermine the country’s political system.

As for the number of prisoners on death row, there were 315 such prisoners, out of which 311 were for drug related crimes and four for murder.

Concluding Remarks

BOUNKEUTH SANGSOMSAK, Minister to the Prime Minister’s Office and Chairman of the Lao National Steering Committee on Human Rights, said that the dialogue had been very direct, open and productive. The Government was ready to fully implement its international obligations, but it asked the Committee to understand the constraints that it faced. The Committee Experts should share with the delegation their sources of information, noting that some information was groundless. Mr. Sangsomsak added that he was pleased that the Experts had not crossed the red line and interfered into the country’s sovereign affairs. As for the Experts’ suggestion that the Lao People’s Democratic Republic open up politically, Mr. Sangsomsak noted that pluralism was not suitable for a country that had become independent only very recently. The country needed strong leadership. The liberal democratic system was not the best system, but it was the least evil one.

YUVAL SHANY, Committee Chairperson, commended the delegation’s attitude and reminded that the Experts’ comments were intended to help the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to live up to its democratic aspirations, as reflected in the country’s name. The Committee’s role was not to impose a political system on countries, but it was its role to insist on the full implementation of the Covenant.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CCPR/18/20E