On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following
this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration
and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other
educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have
outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall
enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the
highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to

rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of
law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights
of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life
in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United
Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for
the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL

DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples
and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this
Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for
these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their
universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States
themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
 ^ Top

Article 1.

 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with
reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

^ Top

Article 2.

 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without
distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no
distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status
of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust,
non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

^ Top

Article 3.

 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

^ Top

Article 4.

 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be
prohibited in all their forms.

^ Top

Article 5.

 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment.

^ Top

Article 6.
  Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

^ Top

Article 7.

 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal
protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in
violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

^ Top

Article 8.

 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts
violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

^ Top

Article 9.

 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

^ Top

Article 10.

 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and
impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal
charge against him.

^ Top

Article 11.

 (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until
proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees
necessary for his defence.
 (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission
which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time
when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was
applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

^ Top
Article 12.

 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to
the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

^ Top

Article 13.

 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of
each state.
 (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his
country.

^ Top

Article 14.

 (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from
persecution.
 (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-
political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United
Nations.

^ Top

Article 15.

 (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

 (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change
his nationality.

^ Top

Article 16.

 (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion,
have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to
marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
 (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending
spouses.
 (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to
protection by society and the State.
 ^ Top

Article 17.

 (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
 (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

^ Top

Article 18.

 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with
others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship and observance.

^ Top

Article 19.

 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom
to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

^ Top

Article 20.

 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
 (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

^ Top

Article 21.

 (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or
through freely chosen representatives.
 (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
 (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall
be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal
suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

^ Top
Article 22.

 Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to
realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with
the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights
indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

^ Top

Article 23.

 (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable
conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
 (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
 (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for
himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if
necessary, by other means of social protection.
 (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his
interests.

^ Top

Article 24.

 Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working
hours and periodic holidays with pay.

^ Top

Article 25.

 (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being
of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and
necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment,
sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances
beyond his control.
 (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children,
whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

^ Top

Article 26.
  (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary
and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and
professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be
equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
 (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to
the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote
understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and
shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
 (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their
children.

^ Top

Article 27.

 (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to
enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
 (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting
from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

^ Top

Article 28.

 Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms
set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

^ Top

Article 29.

 (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development
of his personality is possible.
 (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such
limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition
and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of
morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
 (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and
principles of the United Nations.

^ Top

Article 30.
  Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person
any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any
of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

WORLD CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Vienna, 14-25 June 1993

VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION

Note by the secretariat

Attached is the text of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, as adopted by the
World Conference on Human Rights on 25 June 1993.

VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION

The World Conference on Human Rights,

Considering that the promotion and protection of human rights is a matter of priority for the
international community, and that the Conference affords a unique opportunity to carry out a
comprehensive analysis of the international human rights system and of the machinery for the
protection of human rights, in order to enhance and thus promote a fuller observance of those
rights, in a just and balanced manner,

Recognizing and affirming that all human rights derive from the dignity and worth inherent in
the human person, and that the human person is the central subject of human rights and
fundamental freedoms, and consequently should be the principal beneficiary and should
participate actively in the realization of these rights and freedoms,

Reaffirming their commitment to the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the
United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
Reaffirming the commitment contained in Article 56 of the Charter of the United Nations to take
joint and separate action, placing proper emphasis on developing effective international
cooperation for the realization of the purposes set out in Article 55, including universal respect
for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all,

Emphasizing the responsibilities of all States, in conformity with the Charter of the United
Nations, to develop and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all,
without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,

Recalling the Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the determination to
reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, and in
the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small,

Recalling also the determination expressed in the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to establish conditions under which
justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can
be maintained, to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, to
practice tolerance and good neighbourliness, and to employ international machinery for the
promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

Emphasizing that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which constitutes a common
standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, is the source of inspiration and has been
the basis for the United Nations in making advances in standard setting as contained in the
existing international human rights instruments, in particular the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Considering the major changes taking place on the international scene and the aspirations of all
the peoples for an international order based on the principles enshrined in the Charter of the
United Nations, including promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms for all and respect for the principle of equal rights and self -determination of peoples,
peace, democracy, justice, equality, rule of law, pluralism, development, better standards of
living and solidarity,

Deeply concerned by various forms of discrimination and violence, to which women continue to
be exposed all over the world,

Recognizing that the activities of the United Nations in the field of human rights should be
rationalized and enhanced in order to strengthen the United Nations machinery in this field and
to further the objectives of universal respect for observance of international human rights
standards,

Having taken into account the Declarations adopted by the three regional meetings at Tunis, San
José and Bangkok and the contributions made by Governments, and bearing in mind the
suggestions made by intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, as well as the
studies prepared by independent experts during the preparatory process leading to the World
Conference on Human Rights,

Welcoming the International Year of the World's Indigenous People 1993 as a reaffirmation of
the commitment of the international community to ensure their enjoyment of all human rights
and fundamental freedoms and to respect the value and diversity of their cultures and identities,

Recognizing also that the international community should devise ways and means to remove the
current obstacles and meet challenges to the full realization of all human rights and to prevent the
continuation of human rights violations resulting thereof throughout the world,

Invoking the spirit of our age and the realities of our time which call upon the peoples of the
world and all States Members of the United Nations to rededicate themselves to the global task
of promoting and protecting all human rights and fundamental freedoms so as to secure full and
universal enjoyment of these rights,

Determined to take new steps forward in the commitment of the international community with a
view to achieving substantial progress in human rights endeavours by an increased and sustained
effort of international cooperation and solidarity,

Solemnly adopts the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.

1. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the solemn commitment of all States to
fulfil their obligations to promote universal respect for, and observance and protection of, all
human rights and fundamental freedoms for all in accordance with the Charter of the United
Nations, other instruments relating to human rights, and international law. The universal nature
of these rights and freedoms is beyond question.

In this framework, enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights is

essential for the full achievement of the purposes of the United Nations.

Human rights and fundamental freedoms are the birthright of all human beings; their protection
and promotion is the first responsibility of Governments.

2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine
their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien
domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right
of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to
realize their inalienable right of self-determination. The World Conference on Human Rights
considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and
underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.
In accordance with the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly
Relations and Cooperation Among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,
this shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or
impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent
States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-
determination of peoples and thus possessed of a Government representing the whole people
belonging to the territory without distinction of any kind.

3. Effective international measures to guarantee and monitor the implementation of human rights
standards should be taken in respect of people under foreign occupation, and effective legal
protection against the violation of their human rights should be provided, in accordance with
human rights norms and international law, particularly the Geneva Convention relative to the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 14 August 1949, and other applicable norms of
humanitarian law.

4. The promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms must be
considered as a priority objective of the United Nations in accordance with its purposes and
principles, in particular the purpose of international cooperation. In the framework of these
purposes and principles, the promotion and protection of all human rights is a legitimate concern
of the international community. The organs and specialized agencies related to human rights
should therefore further enhance the coordination of their activities based on the consistent and
objective application of international human rights instruments.

5. All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The
international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the
same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional
particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind,
it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote
and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

6. The efforts of the United Nations system towards the universal respect for, and observance of,
human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, contribute to the stability and well-being
necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations, and to improved conditions for
peace and security as well as social and economic development, in conformity with the Charter
of the United Nations.

7. The processes of promoting and protecting human rights should be conducted in conformity
with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and international law.

8. Democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are
interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Democracy is based on the freely expressed will of the
people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full
participation in all aspects of their lives. In the context of the above, the promotion and
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels
should be universal and conducted without conditions attached. The international community
should support the strengthening and promoting of democracy, development and respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms in the entire world.

9. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms that least developed countries committed to
the process of democratization and economic reforms, many of which are in Africa, should be
supported by the international community in order to succeed in their transition to democracy
and economic development.

10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in
the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal and inalienable right and an integral
part of fundamental human rights.

As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central
subject of development.

While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may
not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.

States should cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to
development. The international community should promote an effective international
cooperation for the realization of the right to development and the elimination of obstacles to
development.

Lasting progress towards the implementation of the right to development requires effective
development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a
favourable economic environment at the international level.

11. The right to development should be fulfilled so as to meet equitably the developmental and
environmental needs of present and future generations. The World Conference on Human Rights
recognizes that illicit dumping of toxic and dangerous substances and waste potentially
constitutes a serious threat to the human rights to life and health of everyone.

Consequently, the World Conference on Human Rights calls on all States to adopt and vigorously
implement existing conventions relating to the dumping of toxic and dangerous products and
waste and to cooperate in the prevention of illicit dumping.

Everyone has the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications. The World
Conference on Human Rights notes that certain advances, notably in the biomedical and life
sciences as well as in information technology, may have potentially adverse consequences for the
integrity, dignity and human rights of the individual, and calls for international cooperation to
ensure that human rights and dignity are fully respected in this area of universal concern

12. The World Conference on Human Rights calls upon the international community to make all
efforts to help alleviate the external debt burden of developing countries, in order to supplement
the efforts of the Governments of such countries to attain the full realization of the economic,
social and cultural rights of their people.

13. There is a need for States and international organizations, in cooperation with non-
governmental organizations, to create favourable conditions at the national, regional and
international levels to ensure the full and effective enjoyment of human rights. States should
eliminate all violations of human rights and their causes, as well as obstacles to the enjoyment of
these rights.

14. The existence of widespread extreme poverty inhibits the full and effective enjoyment of
human rights; its immediate alleviation and eventual elimination must remain a high priority for
the international community.

15. Respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms without distinction of any kind is a
fundamental rule of international human rights law. The speedy and comprehensive elimination
of all forms of racism and racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance is a priority
task for the international community. Governments should take effective measures to prevent and
combat them. Groups, institutions, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and
individuals are urged to intensify their efforts in cooperating and coordinating their activities
against these evils.

16. The World Conference on Human Rights welcomes the progress made in dismantling
apartheid and calls upon the international community and the United Nations system to assist in
this process.

The World Conference on Human Rights also deplores the continuing acts of violence aimed at
undermining the quest for a peaceful dismantling of apartheid.

17. The acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations as well as
linkage in some countries to drug trafficking are activities aimed at the destruction of human
rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy, threatening territorial integrity, security of States
and destabilizing legitimately constituted Governments. The international community should
take the necessary steps to enhance cooperation to prevent and combat terrorism.

18. The human rights of women and of the girl-child are an inalienable, integral and indivisible
part of universal human rights. The full and equal participation of women in political, civil,
economic, social and cultural life, at the national, regional and international levels, and the
eradication of all forms of discrimination on grounds of sex are priority objectives of the
international community.

Gender-based violence and all forms of sexual harassment and exploitation, including those
resulting from cultural prejudice and international trafficking, are incompatible with the dignity
and worth of the human person, and must be eliminated. This can be achieved by legal measures
and through national action and international cooperation in such fields as economic and social
development, education, safe maternity and health care, and social support.
The human rights of women should form an integral part of the United Nations human rights
activities, including the promotion of all human rights instruments relating to women.

The World Conference on Human Rights urges Governments, institutions, intergovernmental and
non-governmental organizations to intensify their efforts for the protection and promotion of
human rights of women and the girl-child.

19. Considering the importance of the promotion and protection of the rights of persons
belonging to minorities and the contribution of such promotion and protection to the political and
social stability of the States in which such persons live,

The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the obligation of States to ensure that persons
belonging to minorities may exercise fully and effectively all human rights and fundamental
freedoms without any discrimination and in full equality before the law in accordance with the
Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic
Minorities.

The persons belonging to minorities have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and
practise their own religion and to use their own language in private and in public, freely and
without interference or any form of discrimination.

20. The World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the inherent dignity and the unique
contribution of indigenous people to the development and plurality of society and strongly
reaffirms the commitment of the international community to their economic, social and cultural
well-being and their enjoyment of the fruits of sustainable development. States should ensure the
full and free participation of indigenous people in all aspects of society, in particular in matters
of concern to them. Considering the importance of the promotion and protection of the rights of
indigenous people, and the contribution of such promotion and protection to the political and
social stability of the States in which such people live, States should, in accordance with
international law, take concerted positive steps to ensure respect for all human rights and
fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, on the basis of equality and non-discrimination, and
recognize the value and diversity of their distinct identities, cultures and social organization.

21. The World Conference on Human Rights, welcoming the early ratification of the Convention
on the Rights of the Child by a large number of States and noting the recognition of the human
rights of children in the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection and Development of
Children and Plan of Action adopted by the World Summit for Children, urges universal
ratification of the Convention by 1995 and its effective implementation by States parties through
the adoption of all the necessary legislative, administrative and other measures and the allocation
to the maximum extent of the available resources. In all actions concerning children, non-
discrimination and the best interest of the child should be primary considerations and the views
of the child given due weight. National and international mechanisms and programmes should be
strengthened for the defence and protection of children, in particular, the girl-child, abandoned
children, street children, economically and sexually exploited children, including through child
pornography, child prostitution or sale of organs, children victims of diseases including acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome, refugee and displaced children, children in detention, children in
armed conflict, as well as children victims of famine and drought and other emergencies.
International cooperation and solidarity should be promoted to support the implementation of the
Convention and the rights of the child should be a priority in the United Nations system-wide
action on human rights.

The World Conference on Human Rights also stresses that the child for the full and harmonious
development of his or her personality should grow up in a family environment which accordingly
merits broader protection.

22. Special attention needs to be paid to ensuring non-discrimination, and the equal enjoyment of
all human rights and fundamental freedoms by disabled persons, including their active
participation in all aspects of society.

23. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms that everyone, without distinction of any
kind, is entitled to the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution, as
well as the right to return to one's own country. In this respect it stresses the importance of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees,
its 1967 Protocol and regional instruments. It expresses its appreciation to States that continue to
admit and host large numbers of refugees in their territories, and to the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for its dedication to its task. It also expresses its
appreciation to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near
East.

The World Conference on Human Rights recognizes that gross violations of human rights,
including in armed conflicts, are among the multiple and complex factors leading to
displacement of people.

The World Conference on Human Rights recognizes that, in view of the complexities of the
global refugee crisis and in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, relevant
international instruments and international solidarity and in the spirit of burden-sharing, a
comprehensive approach by the international community is needed in coordination and
cooperation with the countries concerned and relevant organizations, bearing in mind the
mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This should include the
development of strategies to address the root causes and effects of movements of refugees and
other displaced persons, the strengthening of emergency preparedness and response mechanisms,
the provision of effective protection and assistance, bearing in mind the special needs of women
and children, as well as the achievement of durable solutions, primarily through the preferred
solution of dignified and safe voluntary repatriation, including solutions such as those adopted by
the international refugee conferences. The World Conference on Human Rights underlines the
responsibilities of States, particularly as they relate to the countries of origin.

In the light of the comprehensive approach, the World Conference on Human Rights emphasizes
the importance of giving special attention including through intergovernmental and humanitarian
organizations and finding lasting solutions to questions related to internally displaced persons
including their voluntary and safe return and rehabilitation.

In accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of humanitarian law, the
World Conference on Human Rights further emphasizes the importance of and the need for
humanitarian assistance to victims of all natural and man-made disasters.

24. Great importance must be given to the promotion and protection of the human rights of
persons belonging to groups which have been rendered vulnerable, including migrant workers,
the elimination of all forms of discrimination against them, and the strengthening and more
effective implementation of existing human rights instruments. States have an obligation to
create and maintain adequate measures at the national level, in particular in the fields of
education, health and social support, for the promotion and protection of the rights of persons in
vulnerable sectors of their populations and to ensure the participation of those among them who
are interested in finding a solution to their own problems.

25. The World Conference on Human Rights affirms that extreme poverty and social exclusion
constitute a violation of human dignity and that urgent steps are necessary to achieve better
knowledge of extreme poverty and its causes, including those related to the problem of
development, in order to promote the human rights of the poorest, and to put an end to extreme
poverty and social exclusion and to promote the enjoyment of the fruits of social progress. It is
essential for States to foster participation by the poorest people in the decision-making process
by the community in which they live, the promotion of human rights and efforts to combat
extreme poverty.

26. The World Conference on Human Rights welcomes the progress made in the codification of
human rights instruments, which is a dynamic and evolving process, and urges the universal
ratification of human rights treaties. All States are encouraged to accede to these international
instruments; all States are encouraged to avoid, as far as possible, the resort to reservations.

27. Every State should provide an effective framework of remedies to redress human rights
grievances or violations. The administration of justice, including law enforcement and
prosecutorial agencies and, especially, an independent judiciary and legal profession in full
conformity with applicable standards contained in international human rights instruments, are
essential to the full and non-discriminatory realization of human rights and indispensable to the
processes of democracy and sustainable development. In this context, institutions concerned with
the administration of justice should be properly funded, and an increased level of both technical
and financial assistance should be provided by the international community. It is incumbent upon
the United Nations to make use of special programmes of advisory services on a priority basis
for the achievement of a strong and independent administration of justice.

28. The World Conference on Human Rights expresses its dismay at massive violations of
human rights especially in the form of genocide, "ethnic cleansing" and systematic rape of
women in war situations, creating mass exodus of refugees and displaced persons. While
strongly condemning such abhorrent practices it reiterates the call that perpetrators of such
crimes be punished and such practices immediately stopped.
29. The World Conference on Human Rights expresses grave concern about continuing human
rights violations in all parts of the world in disregard of standards as contained in international
human rights instruments and international humanitarian law and about the lack of sufficient and
effective remedies for the victims.

The World Conference on Human Rights is deeply concerned about violations of human rights
during armed conflicts, affecting the civilian population, especially women, children, the elderly
and the disabled. The Conference therefore calls upon States and all parties to armed conflicts
strictly to observe international humanitarian law, as set forth in the Geneva Conventions of 1949
and other rules and principles of international law, as well as minimum standards for protection
of human rights, as laid down in international conventions.

The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right of the victims to be assisted by
humanitarian organizations, as set forth in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and other relevant
instruments of international humanitarian law, and calls for the safe and timely access for such
assistance.

30. The World Conference on Human Rights also expresses its dismay and condemnation that
gross and systematic violations and situations that constitute serious obstacles to the full
enjoyment of all human rights continue to occur in different parts of the world. Such violations
and obstacles include, as well as torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment, summary and arbitrary executions, disappearances, arbitrary detentions, all forms of
racism, racial discrimination and apartheid, foreign occupation and alien domination,
xenophobia, poverty, hunger and other denials of economic, social and cultural rights, religious
intolerance, terrorism, discrimination against women and lack of the rule of law.

31. The World Conference on Human Rights calls upon States to refrain from any unilateral
measure not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that
creates obstacles to trade relations among States and impedes the full realization of the human
rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights
instruments, in particular the rights of everyone to a standard of living adequate for their health
and well-being, including food and medical care, housing and the necessary social services. The
World Conference on Human Rights affirms that food should not be used as a tool for political
pressure.

32. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the importance of ensuring the
universality, objectivity and non-selectivity of the consideration of human rights issues.

33. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms that States are duty-bound, as stipulated
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights and in other international human rights instruments, to ensure that
education is aimed at strengthening the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The
World Conference on Human Rights emphasizes the importance of incorporating the subject of
human rights education programmes and calls upon States to do so. Education should promote
understanding, tolerance, peace and friendly relations between the nations and all racial or
religious groups and encourage the development of United Nations activities in pursuance of
these objectives. Therefore, education on human rights and the dissemination of proper
information, both theoretical and practical, play an important role in the promotion and respect of
human rights with regard to all individuals without distinction of any kind such as race, sex,
language or religion, and this should be integrated in the education policies at the national as
well as international levels. The World Conference on Human Rights notes that resource
constraints and institutional inadequacies may impede the immediate realization of these
objectives.

34. Increased efforts should be made to assist countries which so request to create the conditions
whereby each individual can enjoy universal human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Governments, the United Nations system as well as other multilateral organizations are urged to
increase considerably the resources allocated to programmes aiming at the establishment and
strengthening of national legislation, national institutions and related infrastructures which
uphold the rule of law and democracy, electoral assistance, human rights awareness through
training, teaching and education, popular participation and civil society.

The programmes of advisory services and technical cooperation under the Centre for Human
Rights should be strengthened as well as made more efficient and transparent and thus become a
major contribution to improving respect for human rights. States are called upon to increase their
contributions to these programmes, both through promoting a larger allocation from the United
Nations regular budget, and through voluntary contributions.

35. The full and effective implementation of United Nations activities to promote and protect
human rights must reflect the high importance accorded to human rights by the Charter of the
United Nations and the demands of the United Nations human rights activities, as mandated by
Member States. To this end, United Nations human rights activities should be provided with
increased resources.

36. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the important and constructive role played
by national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, in particular in their
advisory capacity to the competent authorities, their role in remedying human rights violations,
in the dissemination of human rights information, and education in human rights.

The World Conference on Human Rights encourages the establishment and strengthening of
national institutions, having regard to the "Principles relating to the status of national
institutions" and recognizing that it is the right of each State to choose the framework which is
best suited to its particular needs at the national level.

37. Regional arrangements play a fundamental role in promoting and protecting human rights.
They should reinforce universal human rights standards, as contained in international human
rights instruments, and their protection. The World Conference on Human Rights endorses
efforts under way to strengthen these arrangements and to increase their effectiveness, while at
the same time stressing the importance of cooperation with the United Nations human rights
activities.

The World Conference on Human Rights reiterates the need to consider the possibility of
establishing regional and subregional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human
rights where they do not already exist.

38. The World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the important role of non-governmental
organizations in the promotion of all human rights and in humanitarian activities at national,
regional and international levels. The World Conference on Human Rights appreciates their
contribution to increasing public awareness of human rights issues, to the conduct of education,
training and research in this field, and to the promotion and protection of all human rights and
fundamental freedoms. While recognizing that the primary responsibility for standard-setting lies
with States, the conference also appreciates the contribution of non-governmental organizations
to this process. In this respect, the World Conference on Human Rights emphasizes the
importance of continued dialogue and cooperation between Governments and non-governmental
organizations. Non-governmental organizations and their members genuinely involved in the
field of human rights should enjoy the rights and freedoms recognized in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and the protection of the national law. These rights and freedoms
may not be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Non-
governmental organizations should be free to carry out their human rights activities, without
interference, within the framework of national law and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.

39. Underlining the importance of objective, responsible and impartial information about human
rights and humanitarian issues, the World Conference on Human Rights encourages the increased
involvement of the media, for whom freedom and protection should be guaranteed within the
framework of national law.

II

A. Increased coordination on human rights

within the United Nations system

1. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends increased coordination in support of

human rights and fundamental freedoms within the United Nations system. To this end, the
World Conference on Human Rights urges all United Nations organs, bodies and the specialized
agencies whose activities deal with human rights to cooperate in order to strengthen, rationalize
and streamline their activities, taking into account the need to avoid unnecessary duplication. The
World Conference on Human Rights also recommends to the Secretary-General that high-level
officials of relevant United Nations bodies and specialized agencies at their annual meeting,
besides coordinating their activities, also assess the impact of their strategies and policies on the
enjoyment of all human rights.

2. Furthermore, the World Conference on Human Rights calls on regional organizations and
prominent international and regional finance and development institutions to assess also the
impact of their policies and programmes on the enjoyment of human rights.

3. The World Conference on Human Rights recognizes that relevant specialized agencies and
bodies and institutions of the United Nations system as well as other relevant intergovernmental
organizations whose activities deal with human rights play a vital role in the formulation,
promotion and implementation of human rights standards, within their respective mandates, and
should take into account the outcome of the World Conference on Human Rights within their
fields of competence.

4. The World Conference on Human Rights strongly recommends that a concerted effort be made
to encourage and facilitate the ratification of and accession or succession to international human
rights treaties and protocols adopted within the framework of the United Nations system with the
aim of universal acceptance. The Secretary-General, in consultation with treaty bodies, should
consider opening a dialogue with States not having acceded to these human rights treaties, in
order to identify obstacles and to seek ways of overcoming them.

5. The World Conference on Human Rights encourages States to consider limiting the extent of
any reservations they lodge to international human rights instruments, formulate any reservations
as precisely and narrowly as possible, ensure that none is incompatible with the object and
purpose of the relevant treaty and regularly review any reservations with a view to withdrawing
them.

6. The World Conference on Human Rights, recognizing the need to maintain consistency with
the high quality of existing international standards and to avoid proliferation of human rights
instruments, reaffirms the guidelines relating to the elaboration of new international instruments
contained in General Assembly resolution 41/120 of 4 December 1986 and calls on the United
Nations human rights bodies, when considering the elaboration of new international standards, to
keep those guidelines in mind, to consult with human rights treaty bodies on the necessity for
drafting new standards and to request the Secretariat to carry out technical reviews of proposed
new instruments.

7. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends that human rights officers be assigned
if and when necessary to regional offices of the United Nations Organization with the purpose of
disseminating information and offering training and other technical assistance in the field of
human rights upon the request of concerned Member States. Human rights training for
international civil servants who are assigned to work relating to human rights should be
organized.

8. The World Conference on Human Rights welcomes the convening of emergency sessions of
the Commission on Human Rights as a positive initiative and that other ways of responding to
acute violations of human rights be considered by the relevant organs of the United Nations
system.

Resources
9. The World Conference on Human Rights, concerned by the growing disparity between the
activities of the Centre for Human Rights and the human, financial and other resources available
to carry them out, and bearing in mind the resources needed for other important United Nations
programmes, requests the Secretary-General and the General Assembly to take immediate steps
to increase substantially the resources for the human rights programme from within the existing
and future regular budgets of the United Nations, and to take urgent steps to seek increased
extrabudgetary resources.

10. Within this framework, an increased proportion of the regular budget should be allocated
directly to the Centre for Human Rights to cover its costs and all other costs borne by the Centre
for Human Rights, including those related to the United Nations human rights bodies. Voluntary
funding of the Centre's technical cooperation activities should reinforce this enhanced budget;
the World Conference on Human Rights calls for generous contributions to the existing trust
funds.

11. The World Conference on Human Rights requests the Secretary-General and the General
Assembly to provide sufficient human, financial and other resources to the Centre for Human
Rights to enable it effectively, efficiently and expeditiously to carry out its activities.

12. The World Conference on Human Rights, noting the need to ensure that human and financial
resources are available to carry out the human rights activities, as mandated by
intergovernmental bodies, urges the Secretary-General, in accordance with Article 101 of the
Charter of the United Nations, and Member States to adopt a coherent approach aimed at
securing that resources commensurate to the increased mandates are allocated to the Secretariat.
The World Conference on Human Rights invites the Secretary-General to consider whether
adjustments to procedures in the programme budget cycle would be necessary or helpful to
ensure the timely and effective implementation of human rights activities as mandated by
Member States.

Centre for Human Rights

13. The World Conference on Human Rights stresses the importance of strengthening the United
Nations Centre for Human Rights.

14. The Centre for Human Rights should play an important role in coordinating system-wide
attention for human rights. The focal role of the Centre can best be realized if it is enabled to
cooperate fully with other United Nations bodies and organs. The coordinating role of the Centre
for Human Rights also implies that the office of the Centre for Human Rights in New York is
strengthened.

15. The Centre for Human Rights should be assured adequate means for the system of thematic
and country rapporteurs, experts, working groups and treaty bodies. Follow-up on
recommendations should become a priority matter for consideration by the Commission on
Human Rights.
16. The Centre for Human Rights should assume a larger role in the promotion of human rights.
This role could be given shape through cooperation with Member States and by an enhanced
programme of advisory services and technical assistance. The existing voluntary funds will have
to be expanded substantially for these purposes and should be managed in a more efficient and
coordinated way. All activities should follow strict and transparent project management rules and
regular programme and project evaluations should be held periodically. To this end, the results of
such evaluation exercises and other relevant information should be made available regularly. The
Centre should, in particular, organize at least once a year information meetings open to all
Member States and organizations directly involved in these projects and programmes.

Adaptation and strengthening of the United Nations machinery for

human rights, including the question of the establishment of a
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

17. The World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the necessity for a continuing adaptation
of the United Nations human rights machinery to the current and future needs in the promotion
and protection of human rights, as reflected in the present Declaration and within the framework
of a balanced and sustainable development for all people. In particular, the United Nations
human rights organs should improve their coordination, efficiency and effectiveness.

18. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends to the General Assembly that when
examining the report of the Conference at its forty-eighth session, it begin, as a matter of priority,
consideration of the question of the establishment of a High Commissioner for Human Rights for
the promotion and protection of all human rights.

B. Equality, dignity and tolerance

1. Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia

and other forms of intolerance

19. The World Conference on Human Rights considers the elimination of racism and racial
discrimination, in particular in their institutionalized forms such as apartheid or resulting from
doctrines of racial superiority or exclusivity or contemporary forms and manifestations of
racism, as a primary objective for the international community and a worldwide promotion
programme in the field of human rights. United Nations organs and agencies should strengthen
their efforts to implement such a programme of action related to the third decade to combat
racism and racial discrimination as well as subsequent mandates to the same end. The World
Conference on Human Rights strongly appeals to the international community to contribute
generously to the Trust Fund for the Programme for the Decade for Action to Combat Racism
and Racial Discrimination.

20. The World Conference on Human Rights urges all Governments to take immediate measures
and to develop strong policies to prevent and combat all forms and manifestations of racism,
xenophobia or related intolerance, where necessary by enactment of appropriate legislation,
including penal measures, and by the establishment of national institutions to combat such
phenomena.

21. The World Conference on Human Rights welcomes the decision of the Commission on
Human Rights to appoint a Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The World Conference on Human Rights
also appeals to all States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination to consider making the declaration under article 14 of the Convention.

22. The World Conference on Human Rights calls upon all Governments to take all appropriate
measures in compliance with their international obligations and with due regard to their
respective legal systems to counter intolerance and related violence based on religion or belief,
including practices of discrimination against women and including the desecration of religious
sites, recognizing that every individual has the right to freedom of thought, conscience,
expression and religion. The Conference also invites all States to put into practice the provisions
of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based
on Religion or Belief.

23. The World Conference on Human Rights stresses that all persons who perpetrate or authorize
criminal acts associated with ethnic cleansing are individually responsible and accountable for
such human rights violations, and that the international community should exert every effort to
bring those legally responsible for such violations to justice.

24. The World Conference on Human Rights calls on all States to take immediate measures,
individually and collectively, to combat the practice of ethnic cleansing to bring it quickly to an
end. Victims of the abhorrent practice of ethnic cleansing are entitled to appropriate and effective
remedies.

2. Persons belonging to national or ethnic,

religious and linguistic minorities

25. The World Conference on Human Rights calls on the Commission on Human Rights to
examine ways and means to promote and protect effectively the rights of persons belonging to
minorities as set out in the Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic,
Religious and Linguistic Minorities. In this context, the World Conference on Human Rights
calls upon the Centre for Human Rights to provide, at the request of Governments concerned and
as part of its programme of advisory services and technical assistance, qualified expertise on
minority issues and human rights, as well as on the prevention and resolution of disputes, to
assist in existing or potential situations involving minorities.

26. The World Conference on Human Rights urges States and the international community to
promote and protect the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic
minorities in accordance with the Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or
Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities.

27. Measures to be taken, where appropriate, should include facilitation of their full participation
in all aspects of the political, economic, social, religious and cultural life of society and in the
economic progress and development in their country.

Indigenous people

28. The World Conference on Human Rights calls on the Working Group on Indigenous
Populations of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities to complete the drafting of a declaration on the rights of indigenous people at its
eleventh session.

29. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends that the Commission on Human
Rights consider the renewal and updating of the mandate of the Working Group on Indigenous
Populations upon completion of the drafting of a declaration on the rights of indigenous people.

30. The World Conference on Human Rights also recommends that advisory services and
technical assistance programmes within the United Nations system respond positively to requests
by States for assistance which would be of direct benefit to indigenous people. The World
Conference on Human Rights further recommends that adequate human and financial resources
be made available to the Centre for Human Rights within the overall framework of strengthening
the Centre's activities as envisaged by this document.

31. The World Conference on Human Rights urges States to ensure the full and free participation
of indigenous people in all aspects of society, in particular in matters of concern to them.

32. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends that the General Assembly proclaim
an international decade of the world's indigenous people, to begin from January 1994, including
action-orientated programmes, to be decided upon in partnership with indigenous people. An
appropriate voluntary trust fund should be set up for this purpose. In the framework of such a
decade, the establishment of a permanent forum for indigenous people in the United Nations
system should be considered.

Migrant workers

33. The World Conference on Human Rights urges all States to guarantee the protection of the
human rights of all migrant workers and their families.

34. The World Conference on Human Rights considers that the creation of conditions to foster
greater harmony and tolerance between migrant workers and the rest of the society of the State in
which they reside is of particular importance.

35. The World Conference on Human Rights invites States to consider the possibility of signing
and ratifying, at the earliest possible time, the International Convention on the Rights of All
Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

3. The equal status and human rights of women

36. The World Conference on Human Rights urges the full and equal enjoyment by women of all
human rights and that this be a priority for Governments and for the United Nations. The World
Conference on Human Rights also underlines the importance of the integration and full
participation of women as both agents and beneficiaries in the development process, and
reiterates the objectives established on global action for women towards sustainable and
equitable development set forth in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and
chapter 24 of Agenda 21, adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June 1992).

37. The equal status of women and the human rights of women should be integrated into the
mainstream of United Nations system-wide activity. These issues should be regularly and
systematically addressed throughout relevant United Nations bodies and mechanisms. In
particular, steps should be taken to increase cooperation and promote further integration of
objectives and goals between the Commission on the Status of Women, the Commission on
Human Rights, the Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the United
Nations Development Fund for Women, the United Nations Development Programme and other
United Nations agencies. In this context, cooperation and coordination should be strengthened
between the Centre for Human Rights and the Division for the Advancement of Women.

38. In particular, the World Conference on Human Rights stresses the importance of working
towards the elimination of violence against women in public and private life, the elimination of
all forms of sexual harassment, exploitation and trafficking in women, the elimination of gender
bias in the administration of justice and the eradication of any conflicts which may arise between
the rights of women and the harmful effects of certain traditional or customary practices, cultural
prejudices and religious extremism. The World Conference on Human Rights calls upon the
General Assembly to adopt the draft declaration on violence against women and urges States to
combat violence against women in accordance with its provisions. Violations of the human rights
of women in situations of armed conflict are violations of the fundamental principles of
international human rights and humanitarian law. All violations of this kind, including in
particular murder, systematic rape, sexual slavery, and forced pregnancy, require a particularly
effective response.

39. The World Conference on Human Rights urges the eradication of all forms of discrimination
against women, both hidden and overt. The United Nations should encourage the goal of
universal ratification by all States of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women by the year 2000. Ways and means of addressing the particularly
large number of reservations to the Convention should be encouraged. Inter alia, the Committee
on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women should continue its review of reservations
to the Convention. States are urged to withdraw reservations that are contrary to the object and
purpose of the Convention or which are otherwise incompatible with international treaty law.

40. Treaty monitoring bodies should disseminate necessary information to enable women to
make more effective use of existing implementation procedures in their pursuits of full and equal
enjoyment of human rights and non-discrimination. New procedures should also be adopted to
strengthen implementation of the commitment to women's equality and the human rights of
women. The Commission on the Status of Women and the Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women should quickly examine the possibility of introducing the right of
petition through the preparation of an optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The World Conference on Human Rights welcomes
the decision of the Commission on Human Rights to consider the appointment of a special
rapporteur on violence against women at its fiftieth session.

41. The World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the importance of the enjoyment by
women of the highest standard of physical and mental health throughout their life span. In the
context of the World Conference on Women and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Discrimination against Women, as well as the Proclamation of Tehran of 1968, the World
Conference on Human Rights reaffirms, on the basis of equality between women and men, a
woman's right to accessible and adequate health care and the widest range of family planning
services, as well as equal access to education at all levels.

42. Treaty monitoring bodies should include the status of women and the human rights of women
in their deliberations and findings, making use of gender-specific data. States should be
encouraged to supply information on the situation of women de jure and de facto in their reports
to treaty monitoring bodies. The World Conference on Human Rights notes with satisfaction that
the Commission on Human Rights adopted at its forty-ninth session resolution 1993/46 of 8
March 1993 stating that rapporteurs and working groups in the field of human rights should also
be encouraged to do so. Steps should also be taken by the Division for the Advancement of
Women in cooperation with other United Nations bodies, specifically the Centre for Human
Rights, to ensure that the human rights activities of the United Nations regularly address
violations of women's human rights, including gender-specific abuses. Training for United
Nations human rights and humanitarian relief personnel to assist them to recognize and deal with
human rights abuses particular to women and to carry out their work without gender bias should
be encouraged.

43. The World Conference on Human Rights urges Governments and regional and international
organizations to facilitate the access of women to decision-making posts and their greater
participation in the decision-making process. It encourages further steps within the United
Nations Secretariat to appoint and promote women staff members in accordance with the Charter
of the United Nations, and encourages other principal and subsidiary organs of the United
Nations to guarantee the participation of women under conditions of equality.

44. The World Conference on Human Rights welcomes the World Conference on Women to be
held in Beijing in 1995 and urges that human rights of women should play an important role in
its deliberations, in accordance with the priority themes of the World Conference on Women of
equality, development and peace.

4. The rights of the child

45. The World Conference on Human Rights reiterates the principle of "First Call for Children"
and, in this respect, underlines the importance of major national and international efforts,
especially those of the United Nations Children's Fund, for promoting respect for the rights of
the child to survival, protection, development and participation.

46. Measures should be taken to achieve universal ratification of the Convention on the Rights of
the Child by 1995 and the universal signing of the World Declaration on the Survival, Protection
and Development of Children and Plan of Action adopted by the World Summit for Children, as
well as their effective implementation. The World Conference on Human Rights urges States to
withdraw reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child contrary to the object and
purpose of the Convention or otherwise contrary to international treaty law.

47. The World Conference on Human Rights urges all nations to undertake measures to the
maximum extent of their available resources, with the support of international cooperation, to
achieve the goals in the World Summit Plan of Action. The Conference calls on States to
integrate the Convention on the Rights of the Child into their national action plans. By means of
these national action plans and through international efforts, particular priority should be placed
on reducing infant and maternal mortality rates, reducing malnutrition and illiteracy rates and
providing access to safe drinking water and to basic education. Whenever so called for, national
plans of action should be devised to combat devastating emergencies resulting from natural
disasters and armed conflicts and the equally grave problem of children in extreme poverty.

48. The World Conference on Human Rights urges all States, with the support of international
cooperation, to address the acute problem of children under especially difficult circumstances.
Exploitation and abuse of children should be actively combated, including by addressing their
root causes. Effective measures are required against female infanticide, harmful child labour, sale
of children and organs, child prostitution, child pornography, as well as other forms of sexual
abuse.

49. The World Conference on Human Rights supports all measures by the United Nations and its
specialized agencies to ensure the effective protection and promotion of human rights of the girl
child. The World Conference on Human Rights urges States to repeal existing laws and
regulations and remove customs and practices which discriminate against and cause harm to the
girl child.

50. The World Conference on Human Rights strongly supports the proposal that the Secretary-
General initiate a study into means of improving the protection of children in armed conflicts.
Humanitarian norms should be implemented and measures taken in order to protect and facilitate
assistance to children in war zones. Measures should include protection for children against
indiscriminate use of all weapons of war, especially anti-personnel mines. The need for aftercare
and rehabilitation of children traumatized by war must be addressed urgently. The Conference
calls on the Committee on the Rights of the Child to study the question of raising the minimum
age of recruitment into armed forces.

51. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends that matters relating to human rights
and the situation of children be regularly reviewed and monitored by all relevant organs and
mechanisms of the United Nations system and by the supervisory bodies of the specialized
agencies in accordance with their mandates.

52. The World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the important role played by non-
governmental organizations in the effective implementation of all human rights instruments and,
in particular, the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

53. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends that the Committee on the Rights of
the Child, with the assistance of the Centre for Human Rights, be enabled expeditiously and
effectively to meet its mandate, especially in view of the unprecedented extent of ratification and
subsequent submission of country reports.

5. Freedom from torture

54. The World Conference on Human Rights welcomes the ratification by many Member States
of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment and encourages its speedy ratification by all other Member States.

55. The World Conference on Human Rights emphasizes that one of the most atrocious
violations against human dignity is the act of torture, the result of which destroys the dignity and
impairs the capability of victims to continue their lives and their activities.

56. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms that under human rights law and
international humanitarian law, freedom from torture is a right which must be protected under all
circumstances, including in times of internal or international disturbance or armed conflicts.

57. The World Conference on Human Rights therefore urges all States to put an immediate end to
the practice of torture and eradicate this evil forever through full implementation of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights as well as the relevant conventions and, where necessary,
strengthening of existing mechanisms. The World Conference on Human Rights calls on all
States to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture in the fulfilment
of his mandate.

58. Special attention should be given to ensure universal respect for, and effective
implementation of, the Principles of Medical Ethics relevant to the Role of Health Personnel,
particularly Physicians, in the Protection of Prisoners and Detainees against Torture and other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment adopted by the General Assembly of the
United Nations.

59. The World Conference on Human Rights stresses the importance of further concrete action
within the framework of the United Nations with the view to providing assistance to victims of
torture and ensure more effective remedies for their physical, psychological and social
rehabilitation. Providing the necessary resources for this purpose should be given high priority,
inter alia, by additional contributions to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for the Victims of
Torture.
60. States should abrogate legislation leading to impunity for those responsible for grave
violations of human rights such as torture and prosecute such violations, thereby providing a firm
basis for the rule of law.

61. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms that efforts to eradicate torture should,
first and foremost, be concentrated on prevention and, therefore, calls for the early adoption of an
optional protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, which is intended to establish a preventive system of regular visits to
places of detention.

Enforced disappearances

62. The World Conference on Human Rights, welcoming the adoption by the General Assembly
of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, calls upon all
States to take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent,
terminate and punish acts of enforced disappearances. The World Conference on Human Rights
reaffirms that it is the duty of all States, under any circumstances, to make investigations
whenever there is reason to believe that an enforced disappearance has taken place on a territory
under their jurisdiction and, if allegations are confirmed, to prosecute its perpetrators.

6. The rights of the disabled person

63. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms that all human rights and fundamental
freedoms are universal and thus unreservedly include persons with disabilities. Every person is
born equal and has the same rights to life and welfare, education and work, living independently
and active participation in all aspects of society. Any direct discrimination or other negative
discriminatory treatment of a disabled person is therefore a violation of his or her rights. The
World Conference on Human Rights calls on Governments, where necessary, to adopt or adjust
legislation to assure access to these and other rights for disabled persons.

64. The place of disabled persons is everywhere. Persons with disabilities should be guaranteed
equal opportunity through the elimination of all socially determined barriers, be they physical,
financial, social or psychological, which exclude or restrict full participation in society.

65. Recalling the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons, adopted by the
General Assembly at its thirty-seventh session, the World Conference on Human Rights calls
upon the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council to adopt the draft standard
rules on the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities, at their meetings in 1993.

C. Cooperation, development and strengthening of human rights

66. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends that priority be given to national and
international action to promote democracy, development and human rights.
67. Special emphasis should be given to measures to assist in the strengthening and building of
institutions relating to human rights, strengthening of a pluralistic civil society and the protection
of groups which have been rendered vulnerable. In this context, assistance provided upon the
request of Governments for the conduct of free and fair elections, including assistance in the
human rights aspects of elections and public information about elections, is of particular
importance. Equally important is the assistance to be given to the strengthening of the rule of
law, the promotion of freedom of expression and the administration of justice, and to the real and
effective participation of the people in the decision-making processes.

68. The World Conference on Human Rights stresses the need for the implementation of
strengthened advisory services and technical assistance activities by the Centre for Human
Rights. The Centre should make available to States upon request assistance on specific human
rights issues, including the preparation of reports under human rights treaties as well as for the
implementation of coherent and comprehensive plans of action for the promotion and protection
of human rights. Strengthening the institutions of human rights and democracy, the legal
protection of human rights, training of officials and others, broad-based education and public
information aimed at promoting respect for human rights should all be available as components
of these programmes.

69. The World Conference on Human Rights strongly recommends that a comprehensive
programme be established within the United Nations in order to help States in the task of
building and strengthening adequate national structures which have a direct impact on the overall
observance of human rights and the maintenance of the rule of law. Such a programme, to be
coordinated by the Centre for Human Rights, should be able to provide, upon the request of the
interested Government, technical and financial assistance to national projects in reforming penal
and correctional establishments, education and training of lawyers, judges and security forces in
human rights, and any other sphere of activity relevant to the good functioning of the rule of law.
That programme should make available to States assistance for the implementation of plans of
action for the promotion and protection of human rights.

70. The World Conference on Human Rights requests the Secretary-General of the United
Nations to submit proposals to the United Nations General Assembly, containing alternatives for
the establishment, structure, operational modalities and funding of the proposed programme.

71. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends that each State consider the
desirability of drawing up a national action plan identifying steps whereby that State would
improve the promotion and protection of human rights.

72. The World Conference on Human Rights on Human Rights reaffirms that the universal and
inalienable right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development,
must be implemented and realized. In this context, the World Conference on Human Rights
welcomes the appointment by the Commission on Human Rights of a thematic working group on
the right to development and urges that the Working Group, in consultation and cooperation with
other organs and agencies of the United Nations system, promptly formulate, for early
consideration by the United Nations General Assembly, comprehensive and effective measures to
eliminate obstacles to the implementation and realization of the Declaration on the Right to
Development and recommending ways and means towards the realization of the right to
development by all States.

73. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends that non-governmental and other
grass-roots organizations active in development and/or human rights should be enabled to play a
major role on the national and international levels in the debate, activities and implementation
relating to the right to development and, in cooperation with Governments, in all relevant aspects
of development cooperation.

74. The World Conference on Human Rights appeals to Governments, competent agencies and
institutions to increase considerably the resources devoted to building well-functioning legal
systems able to protect human rights, and to national institutions working in this area. Actors in
the field of development cooperation should bear in mind the mutually reinforcing
interrelationship between development, democracy and human rights. Cooperation should be
based on dialogue and transparency. The World Conference on Human Rights also calls for the
establishment of comprehensive programmes, including resource banks of information and
personnel with expertise relating to the strengthening of the rule of law and of democratic
institutions.

75. The World Conference on Human Rights encourages the Commission on Human Rights, in
cooperation with the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to continue the
examination of optional protocols to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights.

76. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends that more resources be made available
for the strengthening or the establishment of regional arrangements for the promotion and
protection of human rights under the programmes of advisory services and technical assistance
of the Centre for Human Rights. States are encouraged to request assistance for such purposes as
regional and subregional workshops, seminars and information exchanges designed to strengthen
regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights in accord with universal
human rights standards as contained in international human rights instruments.

77. The World Conference on Human Rights supports all measures by the United Nations and its
relevant specialized agencies to ensure the effective promotion and protection of trade union
rights, as stipulated in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and
other relevant international instruments. It calls on all States to abide fully by their obligations in
this regard contained in international instruments.

D. Human rights education

78. The World Conference on Human Rights considers human rights education, training and
public information essential for the promotion and achievement of stable and harmonious
relations among communities and for fostering mutual understanding, tolerance and peace.
79. States should strive to eradicate illiteracy and should direct education towards the full
development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms. The World Conference on Human Rights calls on all States and
institutions to include human rights, humanitarian law, democracy and rule of law as subjects in
the curricula of all learning institutions in formal and non-formal settings.

80. Human rights education should include peace, democracy, development and social justice, as
set forth in international and regional human rights instruments, in order to achieve common
understanding and awareness with a view to strengthening universal commitment to human
rights.

81. Taking into account the World Plan of Action on Education for Human Rights and
Democracy, adopted in March 1993 by the International Congress on Education for Human
Rights and Democracy of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,
and other human rights instruments, the World Conference on Human Rights recommends that
States develop specific programmes and strategies for ensuring the widest human rights
education and the dissemination of public information, taking particular account of the human
rights needs of women.

82. Governments, with the assistance of intergovernmental organizations, national institutions

and non-governmental organizations, should promote an increased awareness of human rights
and mutual tolerance. The World Conference on Human Rights underlines the importance of
strengthening the World Public Information Campaign for Human Rights carried out by the
United Nations. They should initiate and support education in human rights and undertake
effective dissemination of public information in this field. The advisory services and technical
assistance programmes of the United Nations system should be able to respond immediately to
requests from States for educational and training activities in the field of human rights as well as
for special education concerning standards as contained in international human rights
instruments and in humanitarian law and their application to special groups such as military
forces, law enforcement personnel, police and the health profession. The proclamation of a
United Nations decade for human rights education in order to promote, encourage and focus
these educational activities should be considered.

E. Implementation and monitoring methods

83. The World Conference on Human Rights urges Governments to incorporate standards as
contained in international human rights instruments in domestic legislation and to strengthen
national structures, institutions and organs of society which play a role in promoting and
safeguarding human rights.

84. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends the strengthening of United Nations
activities and programmes to meet requests for assistance by States which want to establish or
strengthen their own national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights.

85. The World Conference on Human Rights also encourages the strengthening of cooperation
between national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, particularly
through exchanges of information and experience, as well as cooperation with regional
organizations and the United Nations.

86. The World Conference on Human Rights strongly recommends in this regard that
representatives of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights convene
periodic meetings under the auspices of the Centre for Human Rights to examine ways and
means of improving their mechanisms and sharing experiences.

87. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends to the human rights treaty bodies, to
the meetings of chairpersons of the treaty bodies and to the meetings of States parties that they
continue to take steps aimed at coordinating the multiple reporting requirements and guidelines
for preparing State reports under the respective human rights conventions and study the
suggestion that the submission of one overall report on treaty obligations undertaken by each
State would make these procedures more effective and increase their impact.

88. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends that the States parties to international
human rights instruments, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council should
consider studying the existing human rights treaty bodies and the various thematic mechanisms
and procedures with a view to promoting greater efficiency and effectiveness through better
coordination of the various bodies, mechanisms and procedures, taking into account the need to
avoid unnecessary duplication and overlapping of their mandates and tasks.

89. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends continued work on the improvement
of the functioning, including the monitoring tasks, of the treaty bodies, taking into account
multiple proposals made in this respect, in particular those made by the treaty bodies themselves
and by the meetings of the chairpersons of the treaty bodies. The comprehensive national
approach taken by the Committee on the Rights of the Child should also be encouraged.

90. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends that States parties to human rights
treaties consider accepting all the available optional communication procedures.

91. The World Conference on Human Rights views with concern the issue of impunity of
perpetrators of human rights violations, and supports the efforts of the Commission on Human
Rights and the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities to
examine all aspects of the issue.

92. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends that the Commission on Human
Rights examine the possibility for better implementation of existing human rights instruments at
the international and regional levels and encourages the International Law Commission to
continue its work on an international criminal court.

93. The World Conference on Human Rights appeals to States which have not yet done so to
accede to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Protocols thereto, and to take all
appropriate national measures, including legislative ones, for their full implementation.
94. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends the speedy completion and adoption
of the draft declaration on the right and responsibility of individuals, groups and organs of
society to promote and protect universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms.

95. The World Conference on Human Rights underlines the importance of preserving and
strengthening the system of special procedures, rapporteurs, representatives, experts and working
groups of the Commission on Human Rights and the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, in order to enable them to carry out their mandates
in all countries throughout the world, providing them with the necessary human and financial
resources. The procedures and mechanisms should be enabled to harmonize and rationalize their
work through periodic meetings. All States are asked to cooperate fully with these procedures
and mechanisms.

96. The World Conference on Human Rights recommends that the United Nations assume a
more active role in the promotion and protection of human rights in ensuring full respect for
international humanitarian law in all situations of armed conflict, in accordance with the
purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

97. The World Conference on Human Rights, recognizing the important role of human rights
components in specific arrangements concerning some peace-keeping operations by the United
Nations, recommends that the Secretary-General take into account the reporting, experience and
capabilities of the Centre for Human Rights and human rights mechanisms, in conformity with
the Charter of the United Nations.

98. To strengthen the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, additional approaches
should be examined, such as a system of indicators to measure progress in the realization of the
rights set forth in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There
must be a concerted effort to ensure recognition of economic, social and cultural rights at the
national, regional and international levels.

F. Follow-up to the World Conference on Human Rights

99. The World Conference on Human Rights on Human Rights recommends that the General
Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and other organs and agencies of the United
Nations system related to human rights consider ways and means for the full implementation,
without delay, of the recommendations contained in the present Declaration, including the
possibility of proclaiming a United Nations decade for human rights. The World Conference on
Human Rights further recommends that the Commission on Human Rights annually review the
progress towards this end.

100. The World Conference on Human Rights requests the Secretary-General of the United
Nations to invite on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights all States, all organs and agencies of the United Nations system related to human
rights, to report to him on the progress made in the implementation of the present Declaration
and to submit a report to the General Assembly at its fifty-third session, through the Commission
on Human Rights and the Economic and Social Council. Likewise, regional and, as appropriate,
national human rights institutions, as well as non-governmental organizations, may present their
views to the Secretary-General on the progress made in the implementation of the present
Declaration. Special attention should be paid to assessing the progress towards the goal of
universal ratification of international human rights treaties and protocols adopted within the
framework of the United Nations system.
The UN Global Compact asks companies to embrace, support and enact, within their sphere of
influence, a set of core values in the areas of human rights, labour standards, the environment
and anti-corruption:

Human Rights

 Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally

proclaimed human rights; and
 Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.

Labour

 Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective
recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
 Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;
 Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour; and
 Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

Environment

 Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental

challenges;
 Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and
 Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly
technologies.

Anti-Corruption

 Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including
extortion and bribery.
 CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment

The States Parties to this Convention,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United
Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is
the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote
universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or
to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the
General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)),

Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world,

Have agreed as follows:

Part I

Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering,
whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining
from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third
person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a
third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering
 is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or
other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from,
inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which
does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to
prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal
political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of
torture.

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there
are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall
take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the
State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same
shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes
complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into
account their grave nature.

Article 5

1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over
the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
1. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a
ship or aircraft registered in that State;

2. When the alleged offender is a national of that State;

3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.

2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its
jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory
 under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States
mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.

3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal
law.

Article 6

1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances
so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence
referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to
ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of
that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or
extradition proceedings to be instituted.
2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.

3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating
immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national,
or, if he is a stateless person, to the representative of the State where he usually resides.

4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately
notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody
and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary
inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said
State and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.

Article 7

1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any
offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not
extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary
offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5,
paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way
be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.

3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences
referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.

Article 8

1. The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in

any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such
offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a
request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may
 consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offenses. Extradition
shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.

3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall
recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions
provided by the law of the requested state.

4. Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they
had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of
the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1.

Article 9

1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with civil
proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the
supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.
2. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph 1 of this article in conformity with
any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them.

Article 10

1. Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against
torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical
personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation
or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.
2. Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the
duties and functions of any such persons.

Article 11

Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and
practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of
arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any
cases of torture.

Article 12

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial
investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee
in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 13
Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any
territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to and to have his case promptly and impartially
examined its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses
are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence
given.

Article 14

1. Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains
redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation including the means for
as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of
torture, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation.
2. Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other person to compensation which
may exist under national law.

Article 15

Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of
torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture
as evidence that the statement was made.

Article 16

1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as
defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent
or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the
obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references
to torture or references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
2. The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other
international instrument or national law which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment or which relate to extradition or expulsion.

Article 17

1. There shall be established a Committee against Torture (hereinafter referred to as the

Committee) which shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided. The Committee shall
consist of 10 experts of high moral standing and recognized competence in the field of human
rights, who shall serve in their personal capacity. The experts shall be elected by the States
Parties, consideration being given to equitable geographical distribution and to the usefulness of
the participation of some persons having legal experience.
2. The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons
nominated by States Parties. Each State Party may nominate one person from among its own
nationals. States Parties shall bear in mind the usefulness of nominating persons who are also
 members of the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights and are willing to serve on the Committee against Torture.

3. Elections of the members of the Committee shall be held at biennial meetings of States Parties
convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. At those meetings, for which two
thirds of the States Parties shall constitute a quorum, the persons elected to the Committee shall
be those who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the
representatives of States Parties present and voting.

4. The initial election shall be held no later than six months after the date of the entry into force of
this Convention. At least four months before the date of each election, the Secretary-General of
the United Nations shall address a letter to the States Parties inviting them to submit their
nominations within three months. The Secretary-General shall prepare a list in alphabetical
order of all persons thus nominated, indicating the States Parties which have nominated them,
and shall submit it to the States Parties.

5. The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. They shall be eligible
for re-election if renominated. However, the term of five of the members elected at the first
election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the first election the names of
these five members shall be chosen by lot by the chairman of the meeting referred to in
paragraph 3.

6. If a member of the Committee dies or resigns or for any other cause can no longer perform his
Committee duties, the State Party which nominated him shall appoint another expert from
among its nationals to serve for the remainder of his term, subject to the approval of the
majority of the States Parties. The approval shall be considered given unless half or more of the
States Parties respond negatively within six weeks after having been informed by the Secretary-
General of the United Nations of the proposed appointment.

7. States Parties shall be responsible for the expenses of the members of the Committee while they
are in performance of Committee duties.

Article 18

1. The Committee shall elect its officers for a term of two years. They may be re-elected.
2. The Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure, but these rules shall provide, inter alia,
that

1. Six members shall constitute a quorum;

2. Decisions of the Committee shall be made by a majority vote of the members present.

3. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall provide the necessary staff and facilities for
the effective performance of the functions of the Committee under this Convention.

4. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall convene the initial meeting of the Committee.
After its initial meeting, the Committee shall meet at such times as shall be provided in its rules
of procedure.
 5. The State Parties shall be responsible for expenses incurred in connection with the holding of
meetings of the States Parties and of the Committee, including reimbursement of the United
Nations for any expenses, such as the cost of staff and facilities, incurred by the United Nations
pursuant to paragraph 3 above.

Article 19

1. The States Parties shall submit to the Committee, through the Secretary-General of the United
Nations, reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under this
Convention, within one year after the entry into force of this Convention for the State Party
concerned. Thereafter the States Parties shall submit supplementary reports every four years on
any new measures taken, and such other reports as the Committee may request.
2. The Secretary-General shall transmit the reports to all States Parties.

3. [Each report shall be considered by the Committee which may make such comments or
suggestions on the report as it considers appropriate, and shall forward these to the State Party
concerned. That State Party may respond with any observations it chooses to the Committee.

4. The Committee may, at its discretion, decide to include any comments or suggestions made by it
in accordance with paragraph 3, together with the observations thereon received from the State
Party concerned, in its annual report made in accordance with article 24. If so requested by the
State Party concerned, the Committee may also include a copy of the report submitted under
paragraph 1.]

Article 20

1. If the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded

indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State Party, the
Committee shall invite that State Party to co-operate in the examination of the information and
to this end to submit observations with regard to the information concerned.
2. Taking into account any observations which may have been submitted by the State Party
concerned as well as any other relevant information available to it, the Committee may, if it
decides that this is warranted, designate one or more of its members to make a confidential
inquiry and to report to the Committee urgently.

3. If an inquiry is made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee shall seek the co-operation
of the State Party concerned. In agreement with that State Party, such an inquiry may include a
visit to its territory.

4. After examining the findings of its member or members submitted in accordance with paragraph
2, the Committee shall transmit these findings to the State Party concerned together with any
comments or suggestions which seem appropriate in view of the situation.

5. All the proceedings of the Committee referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this article shall be
confidential, and at all stages of the proceedings the co-operation of the State Party shall be
sought. After such proceedings have been completed with regard to an inquiry made in
accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee may, after consultations with the State Party
 concerned, decide to include a summary account of the results of the proceedings in its annual
report made in accordance with article 24.

Article 21

1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article 3 that it recognizes
the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a
State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention.
Such communications may be received and considered according to the procedures laid down in
this article only if submitted by a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard
to itself the competence of the Committee. No communication shall be dealt with by the
Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration.
Communications received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following
procedure:
1. If a State Party considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provisions of
this Convention, it may, by written communication, bring the matter to the attention of
that State Party. Within three months after the receipt of the communication the
receiving State shall afford the State which sent the communication an explanation or
any other statement in writing clarifying the matter which should include, to the extent
possible and pertinent, references to domestic procedures and remedies taken, pending,
or available in the matter.

2. If the matter is not adjusted to the satisfaction of both States Parties concerned within
six months after the receipt by the receiving State of the initial communication, either
State shall have the right to refer the matter to the Committee by notice given to the
Committee and to the other State.

3. The Committee shall deal with a matter referred to it under this article only after it has
ascertained that all domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the matter,
in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law. This shall not
be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is
unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this
Convention.

4. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this
article.

5. Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (c), the Committee shall make available its
good offices to the States Parties concerned with a view to a friendly solution of the
matter on the basis of respect for the obligations provided for in the present Convention.
For this purpose, the Committee may, when appropriate, set up an ad hoc conciliation
commission.

6. In any matter referred to it under this article, the Committee may call upon the States
Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), to supply any relevant information.
 7. The States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), shall have the right to be
represented when the matter is being considered by the Committee and to make
submissions orally and/or in writing.

8. The Committee shall, within 12 months after the date of receipt of notice under
subparagraph (b), submit a report.

1. If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is reached, the Committee

shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution
reached.

2. If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is not reached, the Committee
shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts; the written submissions
and record of the oral submissions made by the States Parties concerned shall
be attached to the report.

In every matter, the report shall be communicated to the States Parties concerned.

2. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention
have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited
by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies
thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification
to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter
which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further
communication by any State Party shall be received under this article after the notification of
withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party
concerned has made a new declaration.

Article 22

1. A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the
competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of
individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the
provisions of the Convention. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it
concerns a State Party to the Convention which has not made such a declaration.
2. The Committee shall consider inadmissible any communication under this article which is
anonymous, or which it considers to be an abuse of the right of submission of such
communications or to be incompatible with the provisions of this Convention.

3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, the Committee shall bring any communication
submitted to it under this article to the attention of the State Party to this Convention which has
made a declaration under paragraph 1 and is alleged to be violating any provisions of the
Convention. Within six months, the receiving State shall submit to the Committee written
explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been
taken by that State.
 4. The Committee shall consider communications received under this article in the light of all
information made available to it by or on behalf of the individual and by the State Party
concerned.

5. The Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual under this article
unless it has ascertained that:

1. The same matter has not been, and is not being examined under another procedure of
international investigation or settlement;

2. The individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this shall not be the rule
where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring
effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention.

6. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article.

7. The Committee shall forward its views to the State Party concerned and to the individual.

8. The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention
have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited
by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit
parties thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by
notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of
any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no
further communication by or on behalf of an individual shall be received under this article after
the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General,
unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration.

Article 23

The members of the Committee, and of the ad hoc conciliation commissions which may be appointed
under article 21, paragraph 1 (e), shall be entitled to the facilities, privileges and immunities of experts
on missions for the United Nations as laid down in the relevant sections of the Convention on the
Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

Article 24

The Committee shall submit an annual report on its activities under this Convention to the States Parties
and to the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Part III

Article 25

1. This Convention is open for signature by all States.

 2. This Convention is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 26

This Convention is open to accession by all States. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an
instrument of accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Article 27

1. This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession.
2. For each State ratifying this Convention or acceding to it after the deposit of the twentieth
instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day
after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or accession.

Article 28

1. Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto,
declare that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20.
2. Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article may, at
any time, withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United
Nations.

Article 29

1. Any State Party to this Convention may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-
General of the United Nations. The Secretary-General shall thereupon communicate the
proposed amendment to the States Parties to this Convention with a request that they notify
him whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering and voting
upon the proposal. In the event that within four months from the date of such communication at
least one third of the State Parties favours such a conference, the Secretary-General shall
convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by
a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted by the
Secretary-General to all the States Parties for acceptance.
2. An amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph 1 shall enter into force when two thirds
of the States Parties to this Convention have notified the Secretary-General of the United
Nations that they have accepted it in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.

3. When amendments enter into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have
accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of this Convention and
any earlier amendments which they have accepted.

Article 30
 1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of
this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation, shall, at the request of one of
them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for
arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of
those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity
with the Statute of the Court.
2. Each State may at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto,
declare that it does not consider itself bound by the preceding paragraph. The other States
Parties shall not be bound by the preceding paragraph with respect to any State Party having
made such a reservation.

3. Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with the preceding paragraph may at
any time withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United
Nations.

Article 31

1. A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of
the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of the
notification by the Secretary-General.
2. Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party from its obligations
under this Convention in regard to any act or omission which occurs prior to the date at which
the denunciation becomes effective. Nor shall denunciation prejudice in any way the continued
consideration of any matter which is already under consideration by the Committee prior to the
date at which the denunciation becomes effective.

3. Following the date at which the denunciation of a State Party becomes effective, the Committee
shall not commence consideration of any new matter regarding that State.

Article 32

The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all members of the United Nations and all
States which have signed this Convention or acceded to it, or the following particulars:

1. Signatures, ratifications and accessions under articles 25 and 26;

2. The date of entry into force of this Convention under article 27, and the date of the entry into
force of any amendments under article 29;

3. Denunciations under article 31.

Article 33

1. This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are
equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations.
2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of this Convention to
all States.
On February 4, 1985, the Convention was opened for signature at United Nations Headquarters
in New York. At that time, representatives of the following countries signed it: Afghanistan,
Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France,
Greece, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Senegal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and
Uruguay. Subsequently, signatures were received from Venezuela on February 15, from
Luxembourg and Panama on February 22, from Austria on March 14, and from the United
Kingdom on March 15, 1985.

(signatures)

Republic of the Philippines

Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila

Fourteenth Congress
Third Regular Session

Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-seventh day of July, two thousand nine.

REPUBLIC ACT N0. 9745

AN ACT PENALIZING TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN AND

DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES
THEREFOR

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress

assembled:

Section 1. Short Title. - This Ad shall be known as the "Anti-Torture Act of 2009".

Section 2. Statement of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State:

(a) To value the dignity of every human person and guarantee full respect for human
rights;

(b) To ensure that the human rights of all persons, including suspects, detainees and
prisoners are respected at all times; and that no person placed under investigation or held
in custody of any person in authority or, agent of a person authority shall be subjected to
physical, psychological or mental harm, force, violence, threat or intimidation or any act
that impairs his/her free wi11 or in any manner demeans or degrades human dignity;
 (c) To ensure that secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado or other similar forms
of detention, where torture may be carried out with impunity, are prohibited; and

(d) To fully adhere to the principles and standards on the absolute condemnation and
prohibition of torture as provided for in the 1987 Philippine Constitution; various
international instruments to which the Philippines is a State party such as, but not limited
to, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on
the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDA W) and the Convention Against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT); and all other
relevant international human rights instruments to which the Philippines is a signatory.

Section 3. Definitions. - For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall mean:

(a) "Torture" refers to an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or
mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him/her
or a third person information or a confession; punishing him/her for an act he/she or a
third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or intimidating or
coercing him/her or a third person; or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,
when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a person in authority or agent of a person in authority. It does not include
pain or Buffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

(b) "Other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment" refers to a deliberate
and aggravated treatment or punishment not enumerated under Section 4 of this Act,
inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a person in authority against a person under
his/her custody, which attains a level of severity causing suffering, gross humiliation or
debasement to the latter.

(c) "Victim" refers to the person subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment as defined above and any individual who has suffered
harm as a result of any act(s) of torture, or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment
or punishment.

(d) "Order of Battle" refers to any document or determination made by the military,
police or any law enforcement agency of the government, listing the names of persons
and organizations that it perceives to be enemies of the State and that it considers as
legitimate targets as combatants that it could deal with, through the use of means allowed
by domestic and international law.

Section 4. Acts of Torture. - For purposes of this Act, torture shall include, but not be limited to,
the following:
(a) Physical torture is a form of treatment or punishment inflicted by a person in authority
or agent of a person in authority upon another in his/her custody that causes severe pain,
exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or more parts of the body, such as:

(1) Systematic beating, headbanging, punching, kicking, striking with truncheon

or rifle butt or other similar objects, and jumping on the stomach;

(2) Food deprivation or forcible feeding with spoiled food, animal or human
excreta and other stuff or substances not normally eaten;

(3) Electric shock;

(4) Cigarette burning; burning by electrically heated rods, hot oil, acid; by the
rubbing of pepper or other chemical substances on mucous membranes, or acids
or spices directly on the wound(s);

(5) The submersion of the head in water or water polluted with excrement, urine,
vomit and/or blood until the brink of suffocation;

(6) Being tied or forced to assume fixed and stressful bodily position;

(7) Rape and sexual abuse, including the insertion of foreign objects into the sex
organ or rectum, or electrical torture of the genitals;

(8) Mutilation or amputation of the essential parts of the body such as the
genitalia, ear, tongue, etc.;

(9) Dental torture or the forced extraction of the teeth;

(10) Pulling out of fingernails;

(11) Harmful exposure to the elements such as sunlight and extreme cold;

(12) The use of plastic bag and other materials placed over the head to the point of
asphyxiation;

(13) The use of psychoactive drugs to change the perception, memory. alertness or
will of a person, such as:

(i) The administration or drugs to induce confession and/or reduce mental

competency; or

(ii) The use of drugs to induce extreme pain or certain symptoms of a disease; and

(14) Other analogous acts of physical torture; and

 (b) "Mental/Psychological Torture" refers to acts committed by a person in authority or
agent of a person in authority which are calculated to affect or confuse the mind and/or
undermine a person's dignity and morale, such as:

(1) Blindfolding;

(2) Threatening a person(s) or his/fher relative(s) with bodily harm, execution or

other wrongful acts;

(3) Confinement in solitary cells or secret detention places;

(4) Prolonged interrogation;

(5) Preparing a prisoner for a "show trial", public display or public humiliation of
a detainee or prisoner;

(6) Causing unscheduled transfer of a person deprived of liberty from one place to
another, creating the belief that he/she shall be summarily executed;

(7) Maltreating a member/s of a person's family;

(8) Causing the torture sessions to be witnessed by the person's family, relatives or
any third party;

(9) Denial of sleep/rest;

(10) Shame infliction such as stripping the person naked, parading him/her in
public places, shaving the victim's head or putting marks on his/her body against
his/her will;

(11) Deliberately prohibiting the victim to communicate with any member of

his/her family; and

(12) Other analogous acts of mental/psychological torture.

Section 5. Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. - Other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment refers to a deliberate and aggravated treatment or
punishment not enumerated under Section 4 of this Act, inflicted by a person in authority or
agent of a person in authority against another person in custody, which attains a level of severity
sufficient to cause suffering, gross humiliation or debasement to the latter. The assessment of the
level of severity shall depend on all the circumstances of the case, including the duration of the
treatment or punishment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, religion, age
and state of health of the victim.
Section 6. Freedom from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, An Absolute Bight. - Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment as criminal acts shall apply to all circumstances. A state of war or a threat of war,
internal political instability, or any other public emergency, or a document or any determination
comprising an "order of battle" shall not and can never be invoked as a justification for torture
and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

Section 7. Prohibited Detention. - Secret detention places, solitary confinement, incommunicado

or other similar forms of detention, where torture may be carried out with impunity. Are hereby
prohibited.

In which case, the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
and other law enforcement. agencies concerned shall make an updated list of all detention
centers and facilities under their respective jurisdictions with the corresponding data on the
prisoners or detainees incarcerated or detained therein such as, among others, names, date of
arrest and incarceration, and the crime or offense committed. This list shall be made available to
the public at all times, with a copy of the complete list available at the respective national
headquarters of the PNP and AFP. A copy of the complete list shall likewise be submitted by the
PNP, AFP and all other law enforcement agencies to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR),
such list to be periodically updated, by the same agencies, within the first five (5) days of every
month at the minimum. Every regional office of the PNP, AFP and other law enforcement
agencies shall also maintain a similar list far all detainees and detention facilities within their
respective areas, and shall make the same available to the public at all times at their respective
regional headquarters, and submit a copy. updated in the same manner provided above, to the
respective regional offices of the CHR.

Section 8. Applicability of the Exclusionary Rule; Exception. - Any confession, admission or

statement obtained as a result of torture shall be inadmissible in evidence in any proceedings,
except if the same is used as evidence against a person or persons accused of committing torture.

Section 9. Institutional Protection of Torture Victims and Other Persons Involved. - A victim of
torture shall have the following rights in the institution of a criminal complaint for torture:

(a) To have a prompt and an impartial investigation by the CHR and by agencies of
government concerned such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Public Attorney's
Office (PAO), the PNP, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the AFP. A
prompt investigation shall mean a maximum period of sixty (60) working days from the
time a complaint for torture is filed within which an investigation report and/or resolution
shall be completed and made available. An appeal whenever available shall be resolved
within the same period prescribed herein,

(b) To have sufficient government protection against all forms of harassment; threat
and/or intimidation as a consequence of the filing of said complaint or the presentation of
evidence therefor. In which case, the State through its appropriate agencies shall afford
security in order to ensure his/her safety and all other persons involved in the
 investigation and prosecution such as, but not limited to, his/her lawyer, witnesses and
relatives; and

(c) To be accorded sufficient protection in the manner by which he/she testifies and
presents evidence in any fora in order to avoid further trauma.

Section 10. Disposition of Writs of Habeas Corpus, Amparo and Habeas Data Proceedings and
Compliance with a Judicial 07'der. - A writ of habeas corpus or writ of amparo or writ of habeas
data proceeding, if any, filed on behalf of the victim of torture or other cruel, degrading and
inhuman treatment or punishment shall be disposed of expeditiously and any order of release by
virtue thereof, or other appropriate order of a court relative thereto, shall be executed or
complied with immediately.

Section 11. Assistance in Filing a Complaint. - The CHR and the PAO shall render legal
assistance in the investigation and monitoring and/or filing of the complaint for a person who
suffers torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, or for any
interested party thereto.

The victim or interested party may also seek legal assistance from the Barangay Human Rights
Action Center (BRRAC) nearest him/her as well as from human rights nongovernment
organizations (NGOs).

Section 12. Right to' Physical, Medical and Psychological Examination. - Before and after
interrogation, every person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall have the right
to he informed of his/her right to demand physical examination by an independent and competent
doctor of his/her own choice. If such person cannot afford the services of his/her own doctor,
he/she shall he provided by the State with a competent and independent doctor to conduct
physical examination. The State shall endeavor to provide the victim with psychological
evaluation if available under the circumstances. If the person arrested is a female, she shall be
attended to preferably by a female doctor. Furthermore, any person arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation, including his/her immediate family, shall have the right to immediate
access to proper and adequate medical treatment. The physical examination and/or psychological
evaluation of the victim shall be contained in a medical report, duly signed by the attending
physician, which shall include in detail his/her medical history and findings, and which shall he
attached to the custodial investigation report. Such report shall be considered a public document.

Following applicable protocol agreed upon by agencies tasked to conduct physical,

psychological and mental examinations, the medical reports shall, among others, include:

(a) The name, age and address of the patient or victim;

(b) The name and address of the nearest kin of the patient or victim;

(c) The name and address of the person who brought the patient or victim for physical,
psychological and mental examination, and/or medical treatment;
 (d) The nature and probable cause of the patient or victim's injury, pain and disease
and/or trauma;

(e) The approximate time and date when the injury, pain, disease and/or trauma was/were
sustained;

(f) The place where the injury, pain, disease and/or trauma was/were sustained;

(g) The time, date and nature of treatment necessary; and

(h) The diagnosis, the prognosis and/or disposition of the patient.

Any person who does not wish to avail of the rights under this pr<;lvision may knowingly and
voluntarily waive such rights in writing, executed in the presence and assistance of his/her
counsel.

Section 13. Who are Criminally Liable. - Any person who actually participated Or induced
another in the commission of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment or who cooperated in the execution of the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment by previous or simultaneous acts shall be liable as principal

Any superior military, police or law enforcement officer or senior government official who
issued an order to any lower ranking personnel to commit torture for whatever purpose shall be
held equally liable as principals.

The immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of the AFP or the immediate senior
public official of the PNP and other law enforcement agencies shall be held liable as a principal
to the crime of torture or other cruel or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment for any
act or omission, or negligence committed by him/her that shall have led, assisted, abetted or
allowed, whether directly or indirectly, the commission thereof by his/her subordinates. If he/she
has knowledge of or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that acts of
torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment shall be committed, is
being committed, or has been committed by his/her subordinates or by others within his/her area
of responsibility and, despite such knowledge, did not take preventive or corrective action either
before, during or immediately after its commission, when he/she has the authority to prevent or
investigate allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment
but failed to prevent or investigate allegations of such act, whether deliberately or due to
negligence shall also be liable as principals.

Any public officer or employee shall be liable as an accessory if he/she has knowledge that
torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment is being committed and
without having participated therein, either as principal or accomplice, takes part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following manner:
 (a) By themselves profiting from or assisting the offender to profit from the effects of the
act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment;

(b) By concealing the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment and/or destroying the effects or instruments thereof in order to prevent its
discovery; or(c) By harboring, concealing or assisting m the escape of the principal/s in
the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment:
Provided, That the accessory acts are done with the abuse of the official's public
functions.

Section 14. Penalties. - (a) The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the
perpetrators of the following acts:

(1) Torture resulting in the death of any person;

(2) Torture resulting in mutilation;

(3) Torture with rape;

(4) Torture with other forms of sexual abuse and, in consequence of torture, the
victim shall have become insane, imbecile, impotent, blind or maimed for life;
and

(5) Torture committed against children.

(b) The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed on those who commit any act of
mental/psychological torture resulting in insanity, complete or partial amnesia, fear of
becoming insane or suicidal tendencies of the victim due to guilt, worthlessness or
shame.

(c) The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed on those who commit any act of
torture resulting in psychological, mental and emotional harm other than those described
1n paragraph (b) of this section. '

(d) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed
if, in consequence of torture, the victim shall have lost the power of speech or the power
to hear or to smell; or shall have lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or a leg; or shall have
lost the use of any such member; Or shall have become permanently incapacitated for
labor.

(e) The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed if,
in consequence of torture, the victim shall have become deformed or shall have lost any
part of his/her body other than those aforecited, or shall have lost the use thereof, or shall
have been ill or incapacitated for labor for a period of more than ninety (90) days.
 (f) The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
minimum period shall be imposed if, in consequence of torture, the victim shall have
been ill or incapacitated for labor for mare than thirty (30) days but not more than ninety
(90) days.

(g) The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period shall be
imposed if, in consequence of torture, the victim shall have been ill or incapacitated for
labor for thirty (30) days or less.

(h) The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed for acts constituting cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment as defined in Section 5 of this Act.

(i) The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon those who establish, operate
and maintain secret detention places and/or effect or cause to effect solitary confinement,
incommunicado or other similar forms of prohibited detention as provided in Section 7 of
this Act where torture may be carried out with impunity.

(j) The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon the responsible officers or
personnel of the AFP, the PNP and other law enforcement agencies for failure to perform
his/her duty to maintain, submit or make available to the public an updated list of
detention centers and facilities with the corresponding data on the prisoners or detainees
incarcerated or detained therein, pursuant to Section 7 of this Act.

Section 15. Torture as a Separate and Independent Crime. - Torture as a crime shall not absorb
or shall not be absorbed by any other crime or felony committed as a consequence, or as a means
in the conduct or commission thereof. In which case, torture shall be treated as a separate and
independent criminal act whose penalties shall be imposable without prejudice to any other
criminal liability provided for by domestic and international laws.

Section 16. Exclusion from the Coverage of Special Amnesty Law. - In order not to depreciate the
crime of torture, persons who have committed any act of torture shall not benefit from any
special amnesty law or similar measures that will have the effect of exempting them from any
criminal proceedings and sanctions.

Section 17. Applicability of Refouler. - No person shall be expelled, returned or extradited to

another State where there are substantial grounds to believe that such person shall be in danger of
being subjected to torture. For the purposes of determining whether such grounds exist, the
Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Secretary of the DOJ, in
coordination with the Chairperson of the CHR, shall take into account all relevant considerations
including, where applicable and not limited to, the existence in the requesting State of a
consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

Section 18. Compensation to Victims of Torture. - Any person who has suffered torture shall have
the right to claim for compensation as provided for under Republic Act No. 7309: Provided, That
in no case shall compensation be any lower than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00). Victims of
torture shall also have the right to claim for compensation from such other financial relief
programs that may be made available to him/her under existing law and rules and regulations.

Section 19. Formulation of a Rehabilitation Program. - Within one (1) year from the effectivity
of this Act, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the DOJ and the
Department of Health (DOH) and such other concerned government agencies, and human rights
organizations shall formulate a comprehensive rehabilitation program for victims of torture and
their families. The DSWD, the DOJ and thc DOH shall also call on human rights nongovernment
organizations duly recognized by the government to actively participate in the formulation of
such program that shall provide for the physical, mental, social, psychological healing and
development of victims of torture and their families. Toward the attainment of restorative justice,
a parallel rehabilitation program for persons who have committed torture and other cruel,
inhuman and degrading punishment shall likewise be formulated by the same agencies.

Section 20. Monitoring of Compliance with this Act. - An Oversight Committee is hereby created
to periodically oversee the implementation of this Act. The Committee shall be headed by a
Commissioner of the CRR, with the following as members: the Chairperson of the Senate
Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the respective Chairpersons of the House of
Representatives' Committees on Justice and Human Rights, and the Minority Leaders of both
houses or their respective representatives in the minority.

Section 21. Education and Information Campaign. - The CHR, the DOJ, the Department of
National Defense (DND), the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) and
such other concerned parties in both the public and private sectors shall ensure that education
and information regarding prohibition against torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment shall be fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel,
civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in
the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest,
detention or imprisonment. The Department of Education (DepED) and the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED) shall also ensure the integration of human rights education courses in
all primary, secondary and tertiary level academic institutions nationwide.

Section 22. Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. - The provisions of the Revised Penal Code
insofar as they are applicable shall be suppletory to this Act. Moreover, if the commission of any
crime punishable under Title Eight (Crimes Against Persons) and Title Nine (Crimes Against
Personal Liberty and Security) of the Revised Penal Code is attended by any of the acts
constituting torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment as defined
herein, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum period.

Section 23. Appropriations. - The amount of Five million pesos (Php5,000,000.00) is hereby
appropriated to the CHR for the initial implementation of tills Act. Thereafter, such sums as may
be necessary for the continued implementation of this Act shall be included in the annual General
Appropriations Act.
Section 24. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The DOJ and the CHR, with the active
participation of human rights nongovernmental organizations, shall promulgate the rules and
regulations for the effective implementation of tills Act. They shall also ensure the full
dissemination of such rules and regulations to all officers and members of various law
enforcement agencies.

Section 25. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared invalid or
unconstitutional, the other provisions not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force and
effect.

Section 26. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, executive orders or rules and regulations
contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.

Section 27. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the
Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,

(Sgd.) PROSPERO C. (Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILE

NOGRALES President of the Senate
Speaker of the House of
Representatives

This Act which is a consolidation of House Bill No. 5709 and Senate Bill No. 1978 was finally
passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate on September 2,2009.

(Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA- (Sgd.) EMMA LIRIO-REYES

YAP Secretary of Senate
Secretary General
House of Representives

Approved: November 10, 2009

(Sgd.) GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

President of the Philippines

WIWA v. ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM COMPANY

Ken WIWA, individually and as Administrator of the Estate of his deceased father, Ken
Saro-Wiwa, Owens Wiwa, and Blessing Kpuinen, individually and as Administratrix of the
Estate of her husband, John Kpuinen, and Jane Doe, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees,
 v. ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM COMPANY, and Shell Transport and Trading
Company, P.L.C., Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.

Docket Nos. 99-7223, 99-7245.

Argued:  Oct. 22, 1999 -- September 14, 2000

Before:  OAKES, LEVAL and POOLER, Circuit Judges.

Judith Brown Chomsky, Elkins Park, PA (Jennifer M. Green, Beth Stephens, and Richard Herz,
Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, N.Y. on the brief) for Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-
Appellees.Rory O. Millson, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York, N.Y. (Sandra C. Goldstein on
the brief) for Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.

This case concerns the application of forum non conveniens doctrine to suits under the Alien Tort
Claims Act (ATCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, involving claimed abuses of the international law of
human rights.   Plaintiffs are three Nigerian émigrés, and a woman identified only as Jane Doe
to protect her safety, who allege that they (or in some cases their deceased next of kin) suffered
grave human rights abuses at the hands of the Nigerian authorities.   Defendants Royal Dutch
Petroleum Company (“Royal Dutch”) and Shell Transport and Trading Co., P.L.C. (“Shell
Transport”) are business corporations, incorporated in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom
respectively, that are alleged to have directly or indirectly participated in or directed these
abuses.   The district court (Wood, J.) dismissed the action for forum non conveniens after
determining that England is an adequate alternative forum and that a balancing of public interest
and private interest factors make the British forum preferable.   Plaintiffs appeal, arguing, inter
alia, that the district court erred in not affording sufficient weight to the plaintiffs' choice of
forum and to the interests of the United States in providing a forum for the adjudication of claims
of abuse of international human rights.   Defendants contend that, regardless of the propriety of
a dismissal based on forum non conveniens, the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them.  
We hold that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over the defendants.   As to the
dismissal for forum non conveniens, we reverse.

BACKGROUND

A. Allegations of the Complaint

Defendant Royal Dutch is a holding company incorporated and headquartered in the

Netherlands.   Defendant Shell Transport is a holding company incorporated and headquartered
in England.   The two defendants jointly control and operate the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, a
vast, international, vertically integrated network of affiliated but formally independent oil and
gas companies.   Among these affiliated companies is Shell Petroleum Development Company
of Nigeria, Ltd. (“Shell Nigeria”), a wholly-owned Nigerian subsidiary of the defendants that
engages in extensive oil exploration and development activity in the Ogoni region of Nigeria.
The amended complaint (“the complaint”) alleges that plaintiffs and their next of kin (hereafter
collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) were imprisoned, tortured, and killed by the Nigerian
government in violation of the law of nations at the instigation of the defendants, in reprisal for
their political opposition to the defendants' oil exploration activities.   According to the
complaint, Shell Nigeria coercively appropriated land for oil development without adequate
compensation, and caused substantial pollution of the air and water in the homeland of the Ogoni
people.   A protest movement arose among the Ogoni.   Ken Saro-Wiwa was an opposition
leader and President of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MSOP);  John
Kpuinen was a leader of the MSOP's youth wing.

Allegedly, Shell Nigeria recruited the Nigerian police and military to attack local villages and
suppress the organized opposition to its development activity.   Saro-Wiwa and Kpuinen were
repeatedly arrested, detained and tortured by the Nigerian government because of their
leadership roles in the protest movement.   In 1995, Saro-Wiwa and Kpuinen were hanged,
along with other Ogoni leaders, after being convicted of murder by a special military tribunal.  
Allegedly, they were convicted on fabricated evidence solely to silence political criticism and
were not afforded the legal protections required by international law.   The complaint further
alleges that plaintiff Owens Wiwa (Saro-Wiwa's brother) was illegally detained by Nigerian
authorities, that plaintiff Jane Doe was beaten and shot by the Nigerian military in a raid upon
her village, and that Saro-Wiwa's family-including Ken Saro-Wiwa's 74-year-old mother-were
beaten by Nigerian officials while attending his trial.

According to the complaint, while these abuses were carried out by the Nigerian government and
military, they were instigated, orchestrated, planned, and facilitated by Shell Nigeria under the
direction of the defendants.   The Royal Dutch/Shell Group allegedly provided money, weapons,
and logistical support to the Nigerian military, including the vehicles and ammunition used in the
raids on the villages, procured at least some of these attacks, participated in the fabrication of
murder charges against Saro-Wiwa and Kpuinen, and bribed witnesses to give false testimony
against them.1

B. Facts Relating to Jurisdiction in New York

1. Defendants' New York Stock Exchange Listings and Sundry Activities

Neither of the defendants has extensive direct contacts with New York. Both companies list their
shares, either directly or indirectly,2 on the New York Stock Exchange.   They conduct activities
in New York incident to this listing, including the preparation of filings for the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) and the employment of transfer agents and depositories for their
shares.   Royal Dutch also maintains an Internet site, accessible in New York. They have
participated in at least one lawsuit in New York as defendants, without contesting jurisdiction.  
They have for many years retained New York counsel.

Defendants own subsidiary companies that do business in the United States, including Shell
Petroleum Inc. (SPI), a Delaware corporation.   SPI in turn owns all the shares of Shell Oil
Company (Shell Oil), the well-known oil and gas concern.   Shell Oil has extensive operations
in New York and is undisputedly subject to the jurisdiction of the New York courts.

2. Defendants' Maintenance of an Investor Relations Office in New York City

The defendants also maintain an Investor Relations Office in New York City, administered by
James Grapsi, whose title is “Manager of Investor Relations.”   The office is nominally a part of
Shell Oil. However, all of its functions involve facilitating the relations of the parent holding
companies, the defendants Royal Dutch and Shell Transport, with the investment community.  
The expenses of the office (consisting primarily of rent and salaries) are directly paid in the first
instance by Shell Oil, but Shell Oil is reimbursed by the defendants, who therefore bear the full
expense of the office.   Those expenses average about $45,000 per month, or about $500,000 per
year.   The Investor Relations Office's duties involve fielding inquiries from investors and
potential investors in Royal Dutch and Shell Transport, mailing information about the defendants
to thousands of individuals and entities throughout the United States, and organizing meetings
between officials of the defendants and investors, potential investors, and financial analysts.  
Each year the Investor Relations Office organizes about six such sessions and schedules them for
various financial centers throughout the United States, including New York. Grapsi manages
these functions out of a New York City office located in the Southern District of New York, and
characteristically seeks the defendants' approval before scheduling meetings and making other
similar decisions.

C. Proceedings Below

Plaintiffs filed this action on November 8, 1996 and filed an amended complaint on April 29,
1997.   The amended complaint seeks damages under the ATCA, the Racketeering Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, international law and treaties,
Nigerian law, and various state law torts.   More specifically, the complaint alleges that the
defendants are liable for summary execution;  crimes against humanity;  torture;  cruel, inhuman,
and degrading treatment;  arbitrary arrest and detention;  violations of the rights to life, liberty,
security of the person, and peaceful assembly and association;  wrongful death;  assault and
battery;  intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress;  and conspiracy.   It is not
entirely clear whether the liability of the defendants is predicated on their own actions, on a
theory of responsibility for the actions of their subsidiary Shell Nigeria, or on a combination of
both.

At the time of the filing, two of the four plaintiffs (Blessing Kpuinen and Owens Wiwa) lived in
the United States, though not in New York.3

The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and
failure to state a claim.   In a Report and Recommendation dated March 31, 1998, Magistrate
Judge Henry Pitman recommended that Judge Wood dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction or,
alternatively, for forum non conveniens.   Explicitly reserving the “difficult” questions of
substantive law raised by the defendants' 12(b)(6) motion, Magistrate Judge Pitman found that
neither the maintenance of the Investor Relations Office nor the defendants' direct actions in
New York, were sufficient to constitute “doing business” in New York, as required to establish
general jurisdiction under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 301.   Turning to the forum non conveniens issue, he
determined that England was an “adequate alternative forum” and that the various factors a court
is required to balance in evaluating such a motion favor adjudication of the dispute in England.

Upon plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report, Judge Wood, by order dated
September 25, 1998, found that jurisdiction over the defendants was established under § 301 by
virtue of their maintenance of the Investor Relations Office in New York, but accepted the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation to dismiss for forum non conveniens.

Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration in light of this court's decision in Jota v. Texaco, Inc., 157
F.3d 153 (2d Cir.1998).   By order dated January 20, 1999, Judge Wood granted their motion, to
the extent of conditioning dismissal on the defendants' commitment to consent to service of
process in England, comply with all discovery orders, pay any judgment rendered in England,
waive a security bond, and waive a statute of limitations defense if an action is begun in England
within one year of the conclusion of these proceedings, which conditions defendants accepted.  
Otherwise the motion was denied.

DISCUSSION

A. Personal Jurisdiction

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may exercise jurisdiction over any defendant
“who could be subjected to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state in which
the district court is located,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(a), provided of course that such an exercise of
jurisdiction comports with the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.   The question is
therefore whether the defendants may be subjected to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of
New York.

Before the court below, plaintiffs offered multiple theories as to why New York could properly
exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants.   While the Magistrate Judge rejected all of
these theories, the district court held that, under prevailing law, the activities of the Investor
Relations Office on the defendants' behalf in New York were both attributable to the defendants
and sufficient to confer jurisdiction.   On appeal, defendants make four arguments:  (1) these
activities are not attributable to the defendants for jurisdictional purposes;  (2) these New York
activities cannot be considered in the jurisdictional calculus because they are merely “incidental”
to a stock market listing and are jurisdictionally inconsequential as a matter of law;  (3) the
Investor Relations activities are legally insufficient to confer general jurisdiction;  and (4)
exercising jurisdiction over the defendants would violate the fairness requirement of the Due
Process Clause.   For the reasons discussed below, we reject each of these contentions and hold
that the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the Southern District of New York.4

(1) The Agency Analysis.

  Under New York law, a foreign corporation is subject to general personal jurisdiction in New
York if it is “doing business” in the state.   See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 301 (codifying caselaw that
incorporates “doing business” standard);  see also Hoffritz for Cutlery, Inc. v. Amajac, Ltd., 763
F.2d 55, 58 (2d Cir.1985).  “[A] corporation is ‘doing business' and is therefore ‘present’ in New
York and subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to any cause of action, related or unrelated
to the New York contacts, if it does business in New York ‘not occasionally or casually, but with
a fair measure of permanence and continuity.’ ”  Id. (quoting Tauza v. Susquehanna Coal Co.,
220 N.Y. 259, 267, 115 N.E. 915 (1917)).   In order to establish that this standard is met, a
plaintiff must show that a defendant engaged in “continuous, permanent, and substantial activity
in New York.” Landoil Resources Corp. v. Alexander & Alexander Servs., Inc., 918 F.2d 1039,
1043 (2d Cir.1990).

 The continuous presence and substantial activities that satisfy the requirement of doing
business do not necessarily need to be conducted by the foreign corporation itself.   In certain
circumstances, jurisdiction has been predicated upon activities performed in New York for a
foreign corporation by an agent.   Under well-established New York law, a court of New York
may assert jurisdiction over a foreign corporation when it affiliates itself with a New York
representative entity and that New York representative renders services on behalf of the foreign
corporation that go beyond mere solicitation and are sufficiently important to the foreign entity
that the corporation itself would perform equivalent services if no agent were available.   See,
e.g., Frummer v. Hilton Hotels Int'l Inc., 19 N.Y.2d 533, 537, 281 N.Y.S.2d 41, 227 N.E.2d 851
(1967) (finding jurisdiction over foreign hotel chain based on the activities of affiliated
reservations service);  Gelfand v. Tanner Motor Tours, Ltd., 385 F.2d 116, 120-21 (2d Cir.1967)
(applying Frummer to find jurisdiction over tour operator based on the activities of affiliated
travel agent).   To come within the rule, a plaintiff need demonstrate neither a formal agency
agreement, see, e.g., New York Marine Managers, Inc. v. M.V. “Topor-1”, 716 F.Supp. 783, 785
(S.D.N.Y.1989), nor that the defendant exercised direct control over its putative agent, see, e.g.,
Palmieri v. Estefan, 793 F.Supp. 1182, 1194 (S.D.N.Y.1992).   The agent must be primarily
employed by the defendant and not engaged in similar services for other clients.   See, e.g.,
Miller v. Surf Properties, Inc., 4 N.Y.2d 475, 481, 176 N.Y.S.2d 318, 151 N.E.2d 874 (1958)
(holding that independent contractors with many clients are not considered agents of their
individual clients for jurisdictional purposes).

 Both Magistrate Judge Pitman and Judge Wood found that Grapsi and the Investor Relations
Office were agents of the defendants for jurisdictional purposes.   We agree.   While nominally
a part of Shell Oil, Grapsi and the Investor Relations Office devoted one hundred percent of their
time to the defendants' business.   Their sole business function was to perform investor relations
services on the defendants' behalf.   The defendants fully funded the expenses of the Investor
Relations Office (including salary, rent, electricity, mailing costs, etc.), and Grapsi sought the
defendants' approval on important decisions.

The defendants nonetheless argue that the relationship does not meet the Frummer /Gelfand test.
  They contend the services of the Investor Relations Office were not sufficiently important that
the defendants would have performed them if an agent had been unavailable.   We do not find
this argument persuasive.   While it is true that the Investor Relations Office was not directly
involved with the core functions of the defendant's business-the operation of an integrated
international oil business, its work was of meaningful importance to the defendants.   The
defendants are huge publicly-traded companies with a need for access to capital markets.   The
importance of their need to maintain good relationships with existing investors and potential
investors is illustrated by the fact that they pay over half a million dollars per year to maintain
the Investors Relations office.   In our view, the amount invested by the defendants in the U.S.
investor relations activity substantially establishes the importance of that activity to the
defendants.

Defendants also contend that, if they were to perform the Investor Relations services themselves,
it would not necessarily be in New York. The argument is extremely weak.   While of course it is
true, especially given technological advances in communication, that such an office could
conceivably be located anywhere in the world, the strongest indications are that the defendants
selected New York as the locus of the present office because that is the most logical place for it.  
Insofar as the office concerns itself with investors in the U.S. capital markets, it makes better
sense to have the office in the United States, rather than in another country.   New York is widely
regarded as the capital of U.S. capital markets.   It seems most likely that the Investor Relations
Office established by Shell Oil for the benefit of its parents and at their insistence was
established in New York City because that was the best place for such an office, and that it would
most likely be located in New York City regardless whether operated directly by the defendants,
by Shell Oil, or by any other agent.5  Cf. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475,
105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (describing as “essential” element in jurisdictional
inquiry the question whether “there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself
of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and
protections of its laws”);  Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283
(1958) (same);  LiButti v. United States, 178 F.3d 114, 122 (2d Cir.1999) (same).

The defendants' argument is also difficult to square with the facts of the seminal agency
jurisdiction cases, Frummer and Gelfand.   In those cases, the foreign corporations were not
absolutely required to choose New York as the locus of their reservations services.   See
generally Frummer, 19 N.Y.2d 533, 281 N.Y.S.2d 41, 227 N.E.2d 851 (involving booking agent
that took reservations and performed public relations services for a foreign hotel chain);  
Gelfand, 385 F.2d 116 (involving sales representative that took reservations and performed other
services for out-of-state tour operator).   They could have located those operations elsewhere,
either foregoing the New York market entirely or arranging to service New York customers more
circuitously.   However, in both those cases the defendants chose to locate offices in Manhattan
to establish easy access to New York's rich market of potential customers, see Gelfand, 385 F.2d
at 121, thereby better serving their own interests.   The circumstances of the present case support
the inference that the defendants made a similar calculation when they chose to locate their
Investor Relations Office in New York.

(2) The Nature of the Activities of the Investor Relations Office.

The defendants contend their Investor Relations Office is an activity that is “incidental” to their
listing on the New York Stock Exchange.   They cite to a long stream of caselaw reaching back
over a century that they argue precludes courts from considering activity “incidental” to stock
market listings when evaluating whether a corporation is doing business in the state of New
York. We agree that the prevailing caselaw accords foreign corporations substantial latitude to
list their securities on New York-based stock exchanges and to take the steps necessary to
facilitate those listings (such as making SEC filings and designating a depository for their shares)
without thereby subjecting themselves to New York jurisdiction for unrelated occurrences.   See,
e.g., Celi v. Canadian Occidental Petroleum Ltd., 804 F.Supp. 465, 468 (E.D.N.Y.1992);  Fowble
v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 16 F.2d 504, 505 (S.D.N.Y.1926);  Clews v. Woodstock Iron Co.,
44 F. 31, 32 (S.D.N.Y.1890);  Freeman v. Bean, 266 N.Y. 657, 657-58, 195 N.E. 368 (1935).  
However, defendants misread the scope of the existing caselaw when they argue that all contacts
related to stock exchange listings are stripped of jurisdictional significance.

 To begin with, it is not that activities necessary to maintain a stock exchange listing do not
count, but rather that, without more, they are insufficient to confer jurisdiction.   See, e.g.,
Pomeroy v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co., 218 N.Y. 530, 536, 113 N.E. 504 (1916) (“The payment,
too, of dividends and the transfer of stock while perhaps not sufficient of themselves to constitute
the transaction of business ․, doubtless are of some importance in connection with other facts.”);
 Fowble, 16 F.2d at 505 (such contacts are “of some importance in determining whether the
corporation [i]s doing business in the state, although such facts may not be sufficient in itself to
constitute such doing of business”).   Other cases in this line imply a similar result when they
suggest that jurisdiction is not available over a corporation whose only contacts with the forum
are listings on the New York stock exchanges and ancillary arrangements involving the
distribution of their shares.   See, e.g., Grossman v. Sapphire Petroleums Ltd., 195 N.Y.S.2d 851,
852-53 (N.Y.Sup.1959).

 The Investor Relations Office conducts a broader range of activities on the defendants' behalf
than those described in the cited cases as merely “incidental” to the stock exchange listing.  
These activities, which range from fielding inquiries from investors and potential investors to
organizing meetings between defendants' officials and investors, potential investors, and
financial analysts, do not properly come within the rule upon which the defendants rely.   The
defendants' Investor Relations program results not from legal or logistical requirements
incumbent upon corporations that list their shares on the New York Stock Exchange, but from the
defendants' discretionary determination to invest substantial sums of money in cultivating their
relationship with the New York capital markets.   It appears the location of the office in New
York City has far more to do with the importance of New York as a center of capital markets than
with the proximity of the New York Stock Exchange.   A company can perfectly well maintain a
listing on the New York (or any other) Stock Exchange without maintaining an office nearby to
cultivate relations with investors.

In summary, the large body of caselaw the defendants point to at most stands for the proposition
that, absent other substantial contacts, a company is not “doing business” in New York merely by
taking ancillary steps in support of its listing on a New York exchange.   The activities
chargeable to the defendants go well beyond this minimum.   We conclude that the activities of
the Investor Relations Office go beyond the range of activities that have been held insufficient to
subject foreign corporations to the jurisdiction of New York courts.
(3) The Sufficiency of Contacts

 The defendants further contend that the activities of the Investor Relations Office are
quantitatively insufficient to confer jurisdiction.   See Landoil, 918 F.2d at 1043 (requiring
“continuous, permanent and substantial activity”) (quoting Weinstein, Korn & Miller, New York
Civil Practice, ¶ 301.16, at 3-32).   We find no merit to this contention.   Where, as here,
plaintiffs' claim is not related to defendants' contacts with New York, so that jurisdiction is
properly characterized as “general,” plaintiffs must demonstrate “the defendant's ‘continuous and
systematic general business contacts.’ ”  Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84
F.3d 560, 568 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466
U.S. 408, 416, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984)).   Defendants' contacts constitute “a
continuous and systematic general business” presence in New York and therefore satisfy the
minimum contacts portion of a due process analysis.

 Citing to a string of cases holding that solicitation of business plus minimal additional contacts
satisfies Section 301, Judge Wood characterized the activities of the Investor Relations Office as
satisfying the test of “solicitation plus.”   The defendants dispute this characterization, arguing
that Grapsi did not perform “solicitation” because he did not offer to buy or sell any stock in the
corporation.   As Judge Wood noted, however, a finding of “solicitation” in the jurisdictional
context does not necessarily require “solicitation” in the sense of an offer of contract.   Rather,
the central question is whether the defendant (or its agent) behaved in such a way so as to
encourage others to spend money (or otherwise act) in a manner that would benefit the
defendant.   Cf., e.g., Landoil, 918 F.2d at 1044 (trips to New York to service existing accounts
constitutes “solicitation”).   Judge Wood's characterization of the Investor Relations Office's
activities as “solicitation” appears to be a sound interpolation of pre-existing precedent into a
new factual context.

  However, we need not rely upon such a characterization to support general jurisdiction in this
case, because even without relying on the “solicitation plus” formulation, the activities of the
Investor Relations Office meet the “doing business” standard.   In assessing whether jurisdiction
lies against a foreign corporation, both this court and the New York courts have focused on a
traditional set of indicia:  for example, whether the company has an office in the state, whether it
has any bank accounts or other property in the state, whether it has a phone listing in the state,
whether it does public relations work there, and whether it has individuals permanently located
in the state to promote its interests.   See, e.g., Hoffritz for Cutlery, 763 F.2d at 58;  Frummer, 19
N.Y.2d at 537, 281 N.Y.S.2d 41, 227 N.E.2d 851.   The Investor Relations Office, whose
activities are attributable to the defendants under the Frummer analysis, meets each of these tests.
  It constitutes a substantial “physical corporate presence” in the State, permanently dedicated to
promoting the defendants' interests.  Artemide SpA v. Grandlite Design & Mfg. Co., 672 F.Supp.
698, 703 (S.D.N.Y.1987);  see also, e.g., Lane v. Vacation Charters, Ltd., 750 F.Supp. 120, 125
(S.D.N.Y.1990) ( “Perhaps the most important factor needed for a finding of jurisdiction under
CPLR § 301 is the in-state presence of employees engaged in business activity.”);   cf.  Landoil,
918 F.2d at 1045 n. 10 (noting that while periodic business trips to New York to solicit business
did not confer jurisdiction, “renting a hotel room ․ on a systematic and regular basis might be the
functional equivalent of an office in New York and therefore might be sufficient to establish
presence within the state”).   We agree with Judge Wood that the continuous presence of the
Investor Relations program in New York City is sufficient to confer jurisdiction.

(4) Fairness

Finally, the defendants argue that it would violate the fairness requirement of the Due Process
Clause for a New York court to exercise jurisdiction over them.   Again, we disagree.

 Personal jurisdiction may be exercised only when (1) the State's laws authorize service of
process upon the defendant and (2) an assertion of jurisdiction under the circumstances of the
case comports with the requirements of due process.   See, e.g., Kernan v. Kurz-Hastings, Inc.,
175 F.3d 236, 240 (2d Cir.1999).   The required due process inquiry itself has two parts:  
whether a defendant has “minimum contacts” with the forum state and whether the assertion of
jurisdiction comports with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice-that is whether
․ [the exercise of jurisdiction] is reasonable under the circumstances of a particular case.”  
Chaiken v. VV Publ'g Corp., 119 F.3d 1018, 1027 (2d Cir.1997) (internal quotations omitted).

 As noted above, the defendants' contacts go well beyond the minimal.   As a general rule, in
making the constitutional analysis once a plaintiff has made a “threshold showing” of minimum
contacts, the defendant must come forward with a “compelling case that the presence of some
other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.”  Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d at
568 (internal quotations omitted).   The defendants have not made any such compelling showing
here.

 While it is true that certain factors normally used to assess the reasonableness of subjection to
jurisdiction do favor the defendants (they are foreign corporations that face something of a
burden if they litigate here, and the events in question did not occur in New York), litigation in
New York City would not represent any great inconvenience to the defendants.   The defendants
control a vast, wealthy, and far-flung business empire which operates in most parts of the globe.
  They have a physical presence in the forum state, have access to enormous resources, face little
or no language barrier, have litigated in this country on previous occasions, have a four-decade
long relationship with one of the nation's leading law firms, and are the parent companies of one
of America's largest corporations, which has a very significant presence in New York. New York
City, furthermore, where the trial would be held, is a major world capital which offers central
location, easy access, and extensive facilities of all kinds.   We conclude that the inconvenience
to the defendants involved in litigating in New York City would not be great and that nothing in
the Due Process Clause precludes New York from exercising jurisdiction over the defendants.

B. Forum Non Conveniens

  Plaintiffs appeal from the decision of the district court to dismiss for forum non conveniens.  
The grant or denial of a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens is generally committed to
the district court's discretion.   See, e.g., Peregrine Myanmar Ltd. v. Segal, 89 F.3d 41, 46 (2d
Cir.1996).   The deference accorded to a district court's discretion, however, presupposes that the
court used the correct standards prescribed by the governing rule of law.   See Guidi v. Inter-
Continental Hotels Corp., 224 F.3d 142, 144-45 (2d Cir.2000) (quoting R. Maganlal & Co. v.
M.G. Chem. Co., 942 F.2d 164, 167 (2d Cir.1991)).   We believe that, as a matter of law, in
balancing the competing interests, the district court did not accord proper significance to a choice
of forum by lawful U.S. resident plaintiffs or to the policy interest implicit in our federal
statutory law in providing a forum for adjudication of claims of violations of the law of nations.

 In 1947, the Supreme Court handed down a pair of decisions laying out the framework for
forum non conveniens analysis that the federal courts follow to this day.  Gulf Oil Corp. v.
Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947);  Koster v. American Lumbermens
Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947).   Under these cases, forum
non conveniens is a discretionary device permitting a court in rare instances to “dismiss a claim
even if the court is a permissible venue with proper jurisdiction over the claim.”  PT United Can
Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 138 F.3d 65, 73 (2d Cir.1998);  see also Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 507,
67 S.Ct. 839.   In assessing whether forum non conveniens dismissal is appropriate, courts
engage in a two-step process:  The first step is to determine if an adequate alternative forum
exists.   See, e.g., Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 254 n. 22, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70
L.Ed.2d 419 (1981);  Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 506-07, 67 S.Ct. 839.   If so, courts must then balance
a series of factors involving the private interests of the parties in maintaining the litigation in the
competing fora and any public interests at stake.   See, e.g., id. at 508-09, 67 S.Ct. 839.   The
defendant has the burden to establish that an adequate alternative forum exists and then to show
that the pertinent factors “tilt[ ] strongly in favor of trial in the foreign forum.”  R. Maganlal &
Co., 942 F.2d at 167.  “[T]he plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.”  Gilbert,
330 U.S. at 508, 67 S.Ct. 839.

On appeal, plaintiffs challenge both prongs of the district court's finding.   As to the first prong,
they dispute the adequacy of a British forum, because three doctrines of English law-double
actionability, transmissibility, and the act of state doctrine-would potentially bar a British court
from reaching the subject matter of this dispute.   As the parties' experts describe the British law,
the doctrine of double accountability states that, with limited exceptions, torts committed in other
countries are actionable in England only if they would be actionable under both English law and
the law of the country in which the act was committed.6  The doctrine of transmissibility holds
that the question whether a decedent's claims transfer to his survivors is determined by the law of
the decedent's nation.7  The act of state doctrine bars, on comity grounds, the consideration of
certain claims arising out of the official actions of foreign governments.8

At oral argument in this court, the defendants undertook not to invoke either double actionability
or transmissibility to block the plaintiffs' claims in a British court.   The defendant made no such
undertaking concerning the act of state doctrine.   It is not clear in any event what significance to
accord to such undertakings.   As the policies underlying the act of state doctrine are grounded
not in the rights of the parties but in comity among nations, a court may well follow the doctrine
regardless whether it was advanced by the party to be benefitted.   Also, as to double
actionability and transmissibility, the British courts might well follow British law to determine
whether an action lies and whether the plaintiff has standing to bring it, regardless whether the
defendant raised an argument based on these doctrines.
As to the act of state doctrine, the parties vigorously dispute whether the doctrine has broader
contours in the British courts than in the United States.   The defendants argue, furthermore, that
availability of an adequate alternative forum focuses on the quality of the forum and its
commitment to the rule of law and not on differences in substantive or procedural law between
the competing fora that might influence the outcome of the trial.   See Piper, 454 U.S. at 254 &
n. 22, 102 S.Ct. 252 (noting that rules of law less favorable to the plaintiff rarely affect the
threshold inquiry into whether alternative forum is “adequate”);  PT United Can, 138 F.3d at 74
(foreign forum still “adequate” alternative forum for RICO action despite absence of similar
conspiracy statute).

We need not resolve these issues.   We regard the British courts as exemplary in their fairness
and commitment to the rule of law.   Furthermore, we assume arguendo that there are no rules of
British law that would prevent a British court from reaching the merits.   We believe the order of
dismissal must nonetheless be reversed as the defendants have not established as Gilbert requires
that the pertinent factors tilt sufficiently strongly in favor of trial in the foreign forum.

In our view, the district court failed to give weight to three significant considerations that favor
retaining jurisdiction for trial:  (1) a United States resident plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) the
interests of the United States in furnishing a forum to litigate claims of violations of the
international standards of the law of human rights, and (3) the factors that led the district court to
dismiss in favor of a British forum were not particularly compelling.   For the reasons developed
below, we believe that they are outweighed by the considerations favoring exercise of the court's
jurisdiction.

(1) Deference to the Choice of a United States Forum by a Lawful United States Resident
Plaintiff

  By definition, the doctrine of forum non conveniens contemplates the dismissal of lawsuits
brought by plaintiffs in their favored forum in favor of adjudication in a foreign court.  
Nonetheless, a plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to substantial deference and should only be
disturbed if the factors favoring the alternative forum are compelling.   See, e.g., Gilbert, 330
U.S at 508, 67 S.Ct. 839 (“[A] plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.”);  Allstate
Life Ins. Co. v. Linter Group Ltd., 994 F.2d 996, 1001 (2d Cir.1993) (“[T]here is ․ a strong
presumption in favor of a plaintiff's choice of forum.”);  R. Maganlal & Co., 942 F.2d at 167 (as
plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to deference, forum non conveniens dismissal is only
permissible where the relevant considerations “tilt[ ] strongly in favor of trial in the foreign
forum”);  cf.  Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 681, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946) (plaintiff is
“master” of his or her own lawsuit).

 While any plaintiff's selection of a forum is entitled to deference, that deference increases as
the plaintiff's ties to the forum increase.   See, e.g., Murray v. British Broad. Corp., 81 F.3d 287,
290 (2d Cir.1996) (holding that a domestic plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to more
deference than a foreign plaintiff's);  see also Piper, 454 U.S. at 255 n. 23, 102 S.Ct. 252 (noting
that the choice of a forum by its citizens and residents is entitled to greater deference than a
stranger's choice);  Koster, 330 U.S. at 524, 67 S.Ct. 828 (“[A] real showing of convenience by a
plaintiff who has sued in his home forum will normally outweigh the inconvenience the
defendant may have shown.”).   In a decision handed down since oral argument in this case, we
overturned a forum non conveniens dismissal in a case brought by a United States citizen
involving events occurring outside the United States where the defendant was unable to
“ ‘establish such oppressiveness and vexation ․ as to be out of all proportion to plaintiff's
convenience’ ” and where there were no compelling public interest considerations favoring
litigation in the alterative foreign forum.  Guidi, 224 F.3d at 145-46 (quoting Koster, 330 U.S. at
524, 67 S.Ct. 828).

 These cases do not reflect a rigid rule of decision protecting U.S. citizen or resident plaintiffs
from dismissal for forum non conveniens.   Rather, they illustrate the manner in which a court
must take into account the hardship dismissal would cause to a resident plaintiff when evaluating
the Gilbert factors;  in the words of this court the cited cases represent a “consistent, pragmatic
application” of the Gilbert factors to actions in which a plaintiff has particular ties to the forum
state.  Alcoa S.S. Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d 147, 152 (2d Cir.1980) (in banc).   The
Gilbert test requires a balancing of factors, and a plaintiff's lawful U.S. residence can be a
meaningful factor supporting the plaintiff's choice of a U.S. forum.   Cf. Alcoa, 654 F.2d at 155
(forum non conveniens should not be conditioned solely upon residence, but “ ‘residence is, of
course, an important factor to be considered’ ”) (quoting Silver v. Great American Insurance Co.,
29 N.Y.2d 356, 361, 328 N.Y.S.2d 398, 278 N.E.2d 619 (1972)).

That is the case not because of chauvinism or bias in favor of U.S. residents.   It is rather
because the greater the plaintiff's ties to the plaintiff's chosen forum, the more likely it is that the
plaintiff would be inconvenienced by a requirement to bring the claim in a foreign jurisdiction.  
Also, while our courts are of course required to offer equal justice to all litigants, see id., 654
F.2d at 152-53 (noting existence of treaties requiring “no less favorable” treatment of foreign
nationals), a neutral rule that compares the convenience of the parties should properly consider
each party's residence as a factor that bears on the inconvenience that party might suffer if
required to sue in a foreign nation.

During the last two decades, our caselaw and that of the Supreme Court has clearly and
unambiguously established that courts should offer greater deference to the selection of a U.S.
forum by U.S. resident plaintiffs when evaluating a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.
  See, e.g., Murray, 81 F.3d at 290;  Piper, 454 U.S. at 255 n. 23, 102 S.Ct. 252. Our earlier in-
banc decision in Alcoa, 654 F.2d 147, is not to the contrary.   In that case, we rejected the
proposition that courts must accord “a talismanic significance to the citizenship or residence of
the parties,” id. at 154, and held that “citizenship [and] residence no longer are absolutely
determinative factors,” id. at 157, in the forum non conveniens analysis.   Alcoa requires that we
apply the Gilbert factors in evaluating a forum non conveniens motion, even when the plaintiff is
a U.S. citizen or resident;  Murray and Piper point to the important role the plaintiff's residence
and citizenship potentially play in the Gilbert analysis;  and Guidi illustrates that a plaintiff's U.S.
citizenship and residence is entitled to consideration in favor of retaining jurisdiction, such that
the Gilbert factors will favor dismissal (in the absence of strong public interest factors favoring
dismissal) only if the defendant can establish “ ‘such oppressiveness and vexation ․ as to be out
of all proportion to plaintiff's convenience.’ ”  Guidi, 224 F.3d at 146 (quoting Koster, 330 U.S.
at 524, 67 S.Ct. 828).9

  In this case, the district court weighed against the plaintiffs that none of them were residents
of the Southern District of New York but did not count in favor of their choice of a U.S. forum
that two of them were residents of the United States.   This was error.   See, e.g., Piper, 454 U.S.
at 255 n. 23, 102 S.Ct. 252;  In re Union Carbide Corp. Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal, India, 809
F.2d 195, 198 (2d Cir.1987).   The benefit for a U.S. resident plaintiff of suing in a U.S. forum is
not limited to suits in the very district where the plaintiff resides, especially considering that the
defendant may not be amenable to suit in the plaintiff's district of residence.   See, e.g., Guidi,
224 F.3d at 146-47 (the “home forum” of an American citizen for forum non conveniens
purposes is any “United States court”);  see also Piper, 454 U.S. at 255 n. 23, 102 S.Ct. 252
(distinguishing between “foreign” and “American” plaintiffs in explaining why greater deference
is due to the forum choice of “citizens” and “residents”);  cf. Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania
Colombiana Del Caribe, 339 U.S. 684, 697, 70 S.Ct. 861, 94 L.Ed. 1206 (1950) (“[A] suit by a
United States citizen against a foreign respondent brings into force considerations very different
from those in suits between foreigners.”).   In deciding whether to dismiss a case brought by a
lawful U.S. resident plaintiff for forum non conveniens, the district should consider whether, in
view of the plaintiff's U.S. residence, such a dismissal would cause plaintiff significant hardship.

In all of our cases in which we have deemed a plaintiff “foreign” and accorded that plaintiff's
choice of forum less deference, the plaintiffs involved were foreign corporations or foreign-
national individuals residing abroad.   See, e.g., Capital Currency Exch. N.V. v. National
Westminster Bank, P.L.C., 155 F.3d 603, 611-12 (2d Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1067, 119
S.Ct. 1459, 143 L.Ed.2d 545 (1999) (real parties in interest were English corporations);  PT
United Can, 138 F.3d at 74 (plaintiff was an Indonesian corporation);  In re Union Carbide, 809
F.2d at 198 (plaintiffs were Indian citizens and residents).   We have never accorded less
deference to a foreign plaintiff's choice of a United States forum where that plaintiff was a U.S.
resident.

In short, the district court applied an incorrect standard of law when it failed to credit the fact
that two of the plaintiffs were United States residents as a consideration favoring plaintiff's
choice of a U.S. forum.

(2) The Application of Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine to ATCA Cases

  The plaintiffs also argue that the ATCA, as supplemented by the Torture Victim Prevention
Act (TVPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1350 App., in 1991, reflects a United States policy interest in
providing a forum for the adjudication of international human rights abuses, and that this policy
interest should have a role in the balancing of the Gilbert factors.

The Alien Tort Claims Act was adopted in 1789 as part of the original Judiciary Act. In its
original form, it made no assertion about legal rights;  it simply asserted that “[t]he district courts
shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in
violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.”  28 U.S.C. § 1350.   For almost
two centuries, the statute lay relatively dormant, supporting jurisdiction in only a handful of
cases.   See, e.g., Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, 887 & n. 21 (2d Cir.1980) (identifying
only two previous cases that had relied upon the ATCA for jurisdiction).   As the result of
increasing international concern with human rights issues, however, litigants have recently begun
to seek redress more frequently under the ATCA. See, e.g., Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844
(11th Cir.1996) (alleging torture of Ethiopian prisoners);  Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d
Cir.1995) (alleging torture, rape, and other abuses orchestrated by Serbian military leader);  In re
Estate of Ferdinand Marcos, 25 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir.1994) (alleging torture and other abuses by
former President of Phillippines);  Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774
(D.C.Cir.1984) (alleging claims against Libya based on armed attack upon civilian bus in Israel);
 Filartiga, 630 F.2d 876 (alleging torture by Paraguayan officials);  Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886
F.Supp. 162 (D.Mass.1995) (alleging abuses by Guatemalan military forces).

These suits produced several important decisions interpreting the meaning and scope of the 1789
Act. For example, in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d at 880, 884-86, this court held that
deliberate torture perpetrated under the color of official authority violates universally accepted
norms of international human rights law, and that such a violation of international law constitutes
a violation of the domestic law of the United States, giving rise to a claim under the ATCA
whenever the perpetrator is properly served within the borders of the United States.   More
recently, we held in Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d at 239-40, 245, that the ATCA reaches the
conduct of private parties provided that their conduct is undertaken under the color of state
authority or violates a norm of international law that is recognized as extending to the conduct of
private parties.

In passing the Torture Victim Prevention Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 App., in 1991, Congress
expressly ratified our holding in Filartiga that the United States courts have jurisdiction over
suits by aliens alleging torture under color of law of a foreign nation, and carried it significantly
further.   While the 1789 Act expressed itself in terms of a grant of jurisdiction to the district
courts,10 the 1991 Act (a) makes clear that it creates liability under U.S. law where under “color
of law, of any foreign nation” an individual is subject to torture or “extra judicial killing,” 11 and
(b) extends its remedy not only to aliens but to any “individual,” thus covering citizens of the
United States as well.  28 U.S.C. § 1350 App. The TVPA thus recognizes explicitly what was
perhaps implicit in the Act of 1789-that the law of nations is incorporated into the law of the
United States and that a violation of the international law of human rights is (at least with regard
to torture) ipso facto a violation of U.S. domestic law.   See H.R.Rep. No. 102-367, at 4 (1991),
reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 84, 86 (noting that purposes of TVPA are to codify Filartiga, to
alleviate separation of powers concerns, and to expand remedy to include U.S. citizens).

Whatever may have been the case prior to passage of the TVPA, we believe plaintiffs make a
strong argument in contending that the present law, in addition to merely permitting U.S. District
Courts to entertain suits alleging violation of the law of nations, expresses a policy favoring
receptivity by our courts to such suits.   Two changes of statutory wording seem to indicate such
an intention.   First is the change from addressing the courts' “jurisdiction” to addressing
substantive rights;  second is the change from the ATCA's description of the claim as one for
“tort ․ committed in violation of the law of nations ․” to the new Act's assertion of the
substantive right to damages under U.S. law.   This evolution of statutory language seems to
represent a more direct recognition that the interests of the United States are involved in the
eradication of torture committed under color of law in foreign nations.12

In Jota v. Texaco, Inc., 157 F.3d 153, 159 (2d Cir.1998), we recognized the plaintiff's argument
that “to dismiss ․ [a claim pursuant to the ATCA under forum non conveniens ] would frustrate
Congress's intent to provide a federal forum for aliens suing domestic entities for violation of the
law of nations.”   We expressed “no view” on the question but directed the District Court to
consider the issue on remand.  Id. In this case, the issue is again advanced (in slightly different
form, as Jota did not involve torture and the defendants in this case are not domestic entities).

Dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens can represent a huge setback in a plaintiff's
efforts to seek reparations for acts of torture.   Although a forum non conveniens dismissal by
definition presupposes the existence of another forum where the suit may be brought, see Jota,
157 F.3d at 158-59, dismissal nonetheless requires the plaintiff to start over in the courts of
another nation, which will generally at least require the plaintiff to obtain new counsel, as well as
perhaps a new residence.

One of the difficulties that confront victims of torture under color of a nation's law is the
enormous difficulty of bringing suits to vindicate such abuses.   Most likely, the victims cannot
sue in the place where the torture occurred.   Indeed, in many instances, the victim would be
endangered merely by returning to that place.   It is not easy to bring such suits in the courts of
another nation.   Courts are often inhospitable.   Such suits are generally time consuming,
burdensome, and difficult to administer.   In addition, because they assert outrageous conduct on
the part of another nation, such suits may embarrass the government of the nation in whose
courts they are brought.   Finally, because characteristically neither the plaintiffs nor the
defendants are ostensibly either protected or governed by the domestic law of the forum nation,
courts often regard such suits as “not our business.”

The new formulations of the Torture Victim Protection Act convey the message that torture
committed under color of law of a foreign nation in violation of international law is “our
business,” as such conduct not only violates the standards of international law but also as a
consequence violates our domestic law.   In the legislative history of the TVPA, Congress noted
that universal condemnation of human rights abuses “provide[s] scant comfort” to the numerous
victims of gross violations if they are without a forum to remedy the wrong.   House Report at 3,
1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 85.   This passage supports plaintiffs' contention that in passing the
Torture Victim Prevention Act, Congress has expressed a policy of U.S. law favoring the
adjudication of such suits in U.S. courts.   If in cases of torture in violation of international law
our courts exercise their jurisdiction conferred by the 1789 Act only for as long as it takes to
dismiss the case for forum non conveniens, we will have done little to enforce the standards of
the law of nations.

This is not to suggest that the TVPA has nullified, or even significantly diminished, the doctrine
of forum non conveniens.   The statute has, however, communicated a policy that such suits
should not be facilely dismissed on the assumption that the ostensibly foreign controversy is not
our business.   The TVPA in our view expresses a policy favoring our courts' exercise of the
jurisdiction conferred by the ATCA in cases of torture unless the defendant has fully met the
burden of showing that the Gilbert factors “tilt[ ] strongly in favor of trial in the foreign forum.”
 R. Maganlal & Co., 942 F.2d at 167.

(3) The Forum Non Conveniens Analysis in this Case

  We turn to the analysis of the forum non conveniens factors in their application to this case.  
We believe the rule of law applied by the district court was faulty, as noted above, in the
following respects:  (a) The district court counted against retention of jurisdiction that the
plaintiffs were not residents of the Southern District of New York while failing to count in favor
of retention that two of the plaintiffs were residents of the United States, and (b) the court failed
to count in favor of retention the interest of the United States, as expressed in the TVPA, in
providing a forum for the adjudication of claims of torture in violation of the standards of
international law.   Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge, whose findings were adopted by the
district court, gave no consideration to the very substantial expense and inconvenience (perhaps
fatal to the suit) that would be imposed on the impecunious plaintiffs by dismissal in favor of a
British forum, and the inconvenience to the defendants that ultimately justified the dismissal
seems to us to have been minimal.

Ordinarily, the conclusions of the district court in deciding whether to dismiss for forum non
conveniens are given substantial deference and are not overturned except on a finding of abuse
of discretion.   See, e.g., Peregrine Myanmar Ltd., 89 F.3d at 46.   On the other hand, where the
district court has not applied the correct rule of law, the same deference does not apply.   See,
e.g., Guidi, 224 F.3d at 145 (appellate review encompasses “ ‘whether the district court reached
an erroneous conclusion on ․ the law’ ”) (quoting R. Maganlal & Co., 942 F.2d at 167).

The issue of forum non conveniens is not settled by adding to the mix the considerations
favoring retention arising from the U.S. residence of two of the plaintiffs and the policy
expressed in the TVPA favoring adjudication of claims of torture in violation of international
law.   If the defendants advanced substantial interests supporting dismissal in favor of a British
forum we would either remand to the district court for reconsideration or, if the defendants
interests were sufficiently substantial, sustain the dismissal notwithstanding our identification of
interests in favor of retention that the district court did not consider.

In our view, however, the defendants have offered only minimal considerations in support of an
English forum.   This is not a case like Piper where there is an obviously better suited foreign
forum for the adjudication of the dispute.   See Piper, 454 U.S. at 238-39, 102 S.Ct. 252
(dismissal of case so that it could be litigated in Scotland, site of plane crash).   Nor does it
involve substantial physical evidence that is difficult or expensive to transport.   Cf., e.g., id. at
242-43, 102 S.Ct. 252 (plane crash in Scotland);  In re Union Carbide, 809 F.2d 195
(environmental disaster in India).   For any nonparty witnesses, the inconvenience of a trial in
New York is not significantly more pronounced than the inconvenience of a trial in England.
In arguing that England is a more appropriate forum, defendants rely upon arguments such as the
inconvenience of shipping documents from England to the United States and the additional cost
for a Nigerian witness of flying to New York rather than London.   These considerations are
indeed a legitimate part of the forum non conveniens analysis, but (a) the defendants have not
demonstrated that these costs are excessively burdensome, especially in view of the defendants'
vast resources, cf.  Calavo Growers of California v. Generali Belgium, 632 F.2d 963, 969 (2d
Cir.1980) (Newman, J., concurring) (“It will often be quicker and less expensive to transfer a
witness or a document than to transfer a lawsuit.”), and (b) the additional cost and inconvenience
to the defendants of litigating in New York is fully counterbalanced by the cost and
inconvenience to the plaintiffs of requiring them to reinstitute the litigation in England-especially
given the plaintiffs' minimal resources in comparison to the vast resources of the defendants.  
These considerations cannot justify overriding the plaintiffs' choice of forum.

Defendants argue that England has a public interest in adjudicating this action.   In particular,
they argue that (1) Shell Transport is a British corporation whose liability for the actions of its
subsidiary is likely to be governed by British law;  and (2) Nigeria was at the time of the actions
in question a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.   Although these factors do bear
consideration, they are not overriding.   To the same extent that England may have an interest in
adjudicating matters affecting a British corporation, the United States courts have an interest in
adjudicating matters affecting its residents.   Also, while one defendant is a British corporation
whose actions are governed by British law, the second defendant is not British, but Dutch.   The
fact that Nigeria was at the time a member of the voluntary consortium of nations constituting
the Commonwealth is of no particular significance.

In order to be granted dismissal based on forum non conveniens, the defendants bear the burden
of establishing that the Gilbert factors “tilt[ ] strongly in favor of trial in the foreign forum.”  R.
Maganlal & Co., 942 F.2d at 167.   We believe they have failed as a matter of law to meet this
burden.   The factors weighing against dismissal include (1) the substantial deference courts are
required to give to the plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) the enormous burden, expense, and
difficulty the plaintiffs would suffer if required to begin the litigation anew in England,13 (3) the
policy favoring our court's retention of such suits brought by plaintiffs who are residents of the
United States, and (4) the policy expressed in the TVPA favoring adjudication of claims of
violations of international prohibitions on torture.   These factors are more than sufficient to
overcome the defendants' weak claim for dismissal based on forum non conveniens.14

We therefore remand to the district court for further proceedings.   Because the district court
dismissed for forum non conveniens, it never considered the defendants' motion to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.15  We remand for
consideration of that motion.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court dismissing for forum non
conveniens is REVERSED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
FOOTNOTES

1.  For purposes of this opinion relating to jurisdiction and forum non conveniens, we assume
the truth of the allegations (while implying no views on the truth or falsity of the allegations).

2.  Shares of Royal Dutch are traded directly on the New York Stock Exchange.   Shell
Transport's shares are traded indirectly in the United States;  investors may purchase American
Depository Receipts (ADR's) for shares of Shell, rather than shares themselves.

3.  Owens Wiwa has since moved to Canada.

4.  Because we hold that jurisdiction is properly exercised over the defendants on the basis of
the activities of the Investor Relations Office, we do not reach any of the other jurisdictional
issues raised by the plaintiffs.   We express no views on the merits of any of their alternative
arguments.

5.  Grapsi testified that 100 of the 140 attendees at a December 1996 investor relations
meeting for financial writers and members of the international community came from New York
and only five came from other locations in the United States.

6.  On the doctrine of double actionability, the parties refer primarily to Phillips v. Eyre, 1870
L.R. 6 Q.B. 1, and Dicey & Morris, Conflict of Laws 1480 et seq. (12th ed.1993).

7.  On transmissibility, the parties refer to Dicey & Morris, supra note 6, at 1521.

8.  The parties cite to numerous sources discussing the contours of the act of state doctrine.  
See, e.g., Luthor v. Sagor 1921 3 K.B. 532, 548;  Buttes Gas and Oil Co. v. Hammer (Nos. 2 &
3), 1981 3 All ER 616;  Dicey & Morris, supra note 6, at 108-11, 996-97;  Dame Rosalyn
Higgins, Problems & Process 212 (1994).   Subsequent to the briefing in this case, the House of
Lords decided the twin appeals arising out of the arrest of Chilean Senator and former General
Augusto Pinochet.   The parties submitted a copy of that decision and letter briefs debating its
meaning.   See generally Regina v. Bartle and the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
and Others Ex Parte Pinochet and Regina v. Evans and Another and the Commissioner of Police
for the Metropolis and Others Ex Parte Pinochet (House of Lords Mar. 24, 1999) (appeals from
divisional courts of the Queen's Bench Division).

9.  We read Guidi as allowing for the possibility that, under certain circumstances, the public
interest factors favoring dismissal might (by themselves or in combination with inconvenience to
the defendant not quite rising to the level of “oppressiveness and vexation”) be strong enough to
justify dismissal, notwithstanding the absence of “oppressiveness and vexation.”   See Guidi,
224 F.3d at 146 (stating the forum non conveniens dismissal against a U.S. citizen seeking to
invoke a U.S. forum may be appropriate if defendant presents a “clear showing of facts which ․
make trial in the chosen forum inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court's own
administrative and legal problems” (quoting Koster, 330 U.S. at 524, 67 S.Ct. 828)).  
Furthermore, Guidi's focus on the balancing of defendant's inconvenience against plaintiff's
implicitly recognizes that, depending on the particular circumstances, the degree of
inconvenience that dismissal would impose on a U.S. resident will vary.

10.  The original purposes of the ATCA remain the subject of some controversy.   The Act has
no formal legislative history.   In the most learned exposition of the statute's original purposes,
Judge Edwards suggested that the statute was originally motivated by a desire to insure that
claims by an alien against U.S. citizens or for incidents occurring in the United States were
litigated in federal court rather than state court, so as to prevent the states from mishandling such
cases and creating international incidents.   See Tel-Oren, 726 F.2d at 782-83 (Edwards, J.,
concurring).   Some scholars have suggested that the Act's original purpose may have been even
narrower.   For example, one 1995 article suggests that the statute was intended to remedy a
single problem:  torts committed by the crews of vessels in the course of stopping and boarding
ships suspected of aiding the enemy in a time of war.   See Joseph Modeste Sweeney, A Tort
Only in Violation of the Law of Nations, 18 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L.Rev. 445 (1995).  
Whatever the intent of the original legislators (a matter that is forever hidden from our view by
the scarcity of relevant evidence), the text of the Act seems to reach claims for international
human rights abuses occurring abroad.   We reached the conclusion that such claims are properly
brought under the Act in Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 880;  Congress ratified our conclusion by passing
the Torture Victim Protection Act, see H.R.Rep. No. 102-367, at 4 (1991);  reprinted in 1992
U.S.C.C.A.N. 84, 86;  and we have since reaffirmed our conclusion, see, e.g., Kadic v. Karadzic,
74 F.3d 377, 378 (2d Cir.1996) (opinion denying rehearing) (rejecting argument that new
scholarly evidence precludes broad interpretation of ATCA).  Filartiga remains the leading case
interpreting the ATCA. As Judge Newman stated four years ago, “[w]e have neither the authority
nor the inclination to retreat from that ruling.”  Id.

11.  “Extra judicial killing” is defined as “a deliberated killing” not authorized by the
judgment of a court “affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable
by civilized peoples.”   28 U.S.C. § 1350 App. In this opinion, we use the word “torture” to
include both torture and “extra judicial killing,” except where the context makes clear the more
limited meaning is intended.

12.  Plaintiffs argue that these statutes also raise a related but distinct U.S. policy interest in
insuring that claims arising out of human rights abuses are adjudicated according to the standards
of international law.   In arguing for this principle, they assume that the law of nations
necessarily provides the substantive standards for evaluating claims brought under the ATCA in
situations where the underlying claims involve human rights abuses.   While they may well be
right that such a principle is implicit in the ATCA, the federal courts have never definitively
resolved this choice-of-law question.   Compare Xuncax, 886 F.Supp. at 180-83 (holding that
international law provides substantive law for ATCA cases) with Tel-Oren, 726 F.2d at 777, 781-
82 (Edwards, J., concurring) (suggesting that, while international law triggers jurisdiction under
ATCA, tort laws of forum state might provide substantive causes of action), and In re Estate of
Ferdinand Marcos, 978 F.2d at 503 (9th Cir.1992) (approving district court procedure that based
jurisdiction on international law but applied tort law of state where underlying events occurred);  
see also Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 889 (holding that ATCA establishes cause of action for violations
of international law but requiring the district court to perform a traditional choice-of-law analysis
to determine whether international law, law of forum state, or law of state where events occurred
should provide substantive law in such an action).   Because our decision regarding the forum
non conveniens dismissal is based on other grounds, we need not reach this question.

13.  As the Magistrate Judge noted in his report, the plaintiffs lack meaningful financial
resources and will be substantially burdened by the expense of bringing this litigation in
England.   Nonetheless, he concluded that the plaintiffs' lack of resources is a “neutral factor”
because the plaintiffs have not established that it will be less expensive to try the case in New
York than in England.   The record, however, contains substantial evidence that trial in New
York will be less expensive and burdensome for the plaintiffs.   The plaintiffs have already
obtained excellent pro bono counsel to litigate this matter in the courts of the United States;  
there is no guarantee that they will be able to obtain equivalent representation in England without
incurring substantial expenses.   Two of the plaintiffs lived in the United States when the action
was brought.   The cost and difficulties of relocating themselves to England for the duration of
the litigation is likely to be onerous.   Finally, the plaintiffs and their attorneys have already
made substantial investments of time, money, and energy in pursuing this litigation in the U.S.
courts.   Requiring the plaintiffs to replicate them in the British courts would substantially
increase their burden.   For these reasons, we believe that the Magistrate Judge should have
given greater consideration to the burden on the impecunious plaintiffs, rather than focusing his
consideration of the convenience factors almost entirely on the convenience of the defendants.

14.  The other considerations favoring retention of jurisdiction sufficiently outweigh the
defendants' claim for dismissal that we would reach the same result without consideration of the
policy interest we have found to be expressed by the TVPA.

15.  Defendants also urged below that the Netherlands was an adequate alternative forum and
more convenient than the United States.   Although the district court did not rule on the
defendants' request for dismissal in favor of a Dutch forum, we need not remand for
consideration of this question, because dismissal in favor of trial in the Netherlands would share
the disadvantages that have led us to reject the dismissal in favor of trial in England.