Press release About Human Rights Watch Report on "Human Rights in the Western Sahara and in the Tindouf Refugee Camps"

Having considered the recently-published report of Human Rights Watch (HRW) on the status of human rights in the Saharan provinces, on the one hand, and the Tindouf camps, on the other, the Advisory Council on Human Rights (CCDH), as a national and independent institution for the promotion and protection of human rights, could not but react to this report. After a thorough study of this report, it reached the following conclusions, which it would like to share with the national and international public opinion:

1. This report reveals a clear bias against Morocco. Indeed, long before its completion and publication, and more precisely on the eve of the third round of negotiations in Manhasset, HRW had published in New York a communiqué that foreshadowed a content hostile to Morocco, and whose clear objective was to scuttle these negotiations and in particular to deprive the Autonomy Plan presented by Morocco of any chance of being placed in the center of these negotiations. Even if they claim not to have commented on the political substance of the question of the Saharan provinces, it is obvious that the report’s authors espouse the secessionist theories of the Polisario. Therefore, they do not have the impartiality that would allow them to invoke in a credible way human rights.

2. The partiality of the report’s authors appeared already through the obvious imbalance between their treatment, from a purely methodological view, of the case of Morocco’s Saharan provinces, and that of the Tindouf camps. In the Saharan provinces and in Morocco in general, they were able to move freely for more than three years, meeting and interviewing whoever they wanted. In the Tindouf camps, they spent four days (!), and could talk only to people chosen by the masters of the house. Despite all this and because the truth is irreducible, violations glimpsed during the four days spent in the camps go beyond -for the person who knows how to read between the lines- and both in terms of severity and number, those attributed to Morocco in the Saharan provinces.

3. To put the readership off the track, the report hints several times that the Polisario is a “movement of liberation” (understand this: it can allow itself to manipulate human rights). But this leads them to the insurmountable contradictions. Because,

a. if the Polisario is a movement of liberation, then Morocco is an occupying power, therefore it should be judged not on the basis of the reference of human rights, but on that of international humanitarian law. However,

b. if the report’s authors had adopted the view of the international humanitarian law, more minimalist than that of human rights, then they would have been forced to abandon most, if not all, of their allegations against Morocco.

4. Against all logic and obviously for them, because the key point was to maximize as much as possible their charges against Morocco, the report's authors decided to adopt the perspective of human rights (see the paragraph on "legal framework" of the report). But since we can not defy logic with impunity, this made them facing new challenges. Even thought, how to maintain, even though, the presumption of occupation against Morocco? How to justify the special status of the Saharan provinces while on the other hand, though through paying lip service, the progress made by Morocco as a whole in terms of democracy and respect for human rights is recognized?

5. To put it clearly, the report’s authors fail miserably to prove that a state of exception prevails in the Saharan provinces. They completely obscure the gains of these provinces in terms of economic and social rights, while human rights are indivisible. As for civil and political rights, they cite in this area about thirty alleged violations; all of them are individual. Even assuming that all these violations are proven, which is far from being the case, do they constitute a systematic violation of human rights, which alone, by the way, would justify a special report? The report’s authors themselves do not dare to confirm it.

6. Being aware, in substance, of their failure, the report’s authors have no choice but to rush ahead. Forgetting that their aim was to condemn alleged human rights violations in the Saharan provinces, they attack the Moroccan laws -which obviously apply only to the Saharan provinces. This is an unacceptable action as those laws have been properly adopted by the assemblies which represent a sovereign state.

7. Rushing ahead by the report’s authors leads them in the conclusion of this report to recommend mainly the extension of the MINURSO’s mandate to issues relating to human rights. If the "problem" is in the Moroccan laws, this recommendation, supposing that it is legitimate, is clearly insufficient. If it is in the alleged individual violations of human rights in the Saharan provinces, then it is also clearly disproportionate. It reflects a bias that preceded the investigation and which aims, against the direction taken by the international community since the presentation by Morocco of its Autonomy Plan, to undermine the national sovereignty of Morocco.

The CCDH would have liked that HRW saved their breath in drawing a special report on the Saharan provinces of Morocco, which had no justification. Once the decision was made to draw up, in spite of everything, a special report, it would have liked that this report was conducted in all its stages according to the rule book. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Whether in terms of methodology, conduct of investigations or recommendations, the report reveals an unusual degree of non-professionalism, inconsistency and bad faith.

A better cooperation between HRW and CCDH as well as other Moroccan public and civil bodies would have certainly reduced the weaknesses of the report. The CCDH has repeatedly offered such cooperation. Regarding especially Saharan provinces, it duly invited HRW to attend the public debate that it held in Laayoune on October 29-30, 2008 and which was unanimously hailed as an open, transparent and fruitful debate. Unfortunately, HRW had declined the invitation and sent an unofficial observer.

We do not despair of building with HRW, as with all other international NGOs dealing with human rights, relations and mutual trust for the benefit of human rights in Morocco and elsewhere. But above all, this goes through a reassessment of the HRW report against Morocco and the qualification of its direct authors.

Ahmed HERZENNI, CCDH President

Done in Rabat on December 30, 2008.