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.

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.

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.

Article 13. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and résidence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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 dig nity, 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.

Article 24. Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and 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.

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 freedoins. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. WACHHOLZ. Even legal norms applicable to the protection of civilians in time of conflict under the Geneva Conventions require a higher standard of responsibility than that shown here by the South African Government. South Africa's recent actions have resulted in flagrant violations of the basic human rights of the people of Namibia as measured by all these international standards.

In his letter to the Lawyer's Committee, Chairman Diggs has asked for comment on possible U.S. Government and United Nations courses of action. Considering the seriousness of South Africa's breaches of its obligation under international law, the Lawyer's Committee considers that all concerned must pursue courses of action that promote the legal rights of Namibians, including their right to reject apartheid and to achieve self-determination on their own terms. The Committee is aware of the many forceful protests to the Government of South Africa made by the United States, by other governments, and the U.N. It would clearly support further such protests at this time. It is crucial to the well-being of the Namibians now being held incommunicado to get the facts about them on the record. This is not only a matter of legal obligation for the South African Government. What is involved is also a simple issue of humane treatment. Both our Government and the U.N. might seek to test whether the South African Government shares in acknowledging the common humanity of those people of Namibia who are in police custody.

There is an urgent need to know the answers to the important questions which that country's most recent actions have provoked: Where are David Meroro and the other SWAPO leaders? Why are they being held? Are they in need of medical treatment, of food, of simple necessities? Are there any charges against them? When will they be

given a chance to answer the charges? If there are no charges, by what legal procedures are they being held? Have they been permitted to communicate with their families? Why can't lawyers see or speak to them? Are they denied access to the ministers or priests of their own faith? How many others are being held as a result of the recent actions by South African police? What are their names? Why and by what procedures are they being held? And whatever other questions are necessary to begin to deal with the problems of the well-being and rights of these people of Namibia.

The United Nations Security Council is expected to return in its deliberations to the question of Namibia of which it is seized. Should it do so, one useful outcome would be a Security Council resolution requesting the Secretary General of the U.N., with the assistance of the Commissioner for Namibia, to ask the Representative of the Republic of South Africa to the U.N. to come in so that he might be formally requested to furnish all the important facts relating to the situation as outlined.

The Lawyers' Committee considers that the United States should continue to uphold the 1971 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. Failure of the South African Government to respect the human rights of Namibians must remain a matter of pressing concern to the U.N. and all its members. The United States, having been in the forefront in establishing the mandate over 50 years ago, in laying the serious questions raised by South Africa's conduct before the World Court for several advisory opinions and in urging use of peaceful persuasion and humanitarian assistance must naturally wish to get at all the facts. Without facts the legal community and all that might have a concern for the welfare of these human beings cannot respond appropriately, helpfully, and humanely.

Mr. DIGGS. The subcommittee now will hear from Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab, representative of SWAPO.

STATEMENT OF THEO-BEN GURIRAB, SWAPO CHIEF REPRESENTATIVE AT THE UNITED NATIONS AND TO THE AMERICAS

Mr. GURIRAB. Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the committee,. friends, ladies, and gentlemen:

Allow us at the outset, Mr. Chairman, to express our appreciation and pleasure at the opportunity created by this committee for all of us to examine the recent critical developments in Namibia. First, we wish to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that we are most gratified and pleased with your personal involvement in the cause of Africa, both as a public official and private citizen; the cause of Africa means on the one hand the total liberation of all the remaining colonial territories and on the other real economic independence and social and cultural progress of the rest of the continent.

Second, we are equally gratified and pleased to note the genuine interest that many members of this committee and similar committees of the Senate demonstrate concerning Africa. Today, more than everbefore, there is a dire need for better understanding between and among the peoples of the world; particularly there is need for such an understanding between this country and Africa for so many obvious reasons. In this connection, we sincerely hope that the new spirit of détente, rapprochement and negotiations currently prevailing will

have a spillover effect in southern Africa and will thus bring to an end the decadent colonial era there. For peace without justice is hollow.

The discussion of the recent critical developments in Namibia should be put in its proper perspective.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION

In this connection, the correct starting point must be the complementary political and legal decisions of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. The General Assembly adopted Resolution 2145 (XXI), on October 27, 1966, by 114 votes to 2 (Portugal and South Africa), terminating South Africa's mandate over Namibia; and thereafter adopted another Resolution 2248 (S-V) on May 19, 1967, establishing the United Nations Council for Namibia (composed of 11 original members: Chile, Colombia, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Yugoslavia, and Zambia; and 7 additional members since last year: Burundi, China, Liberia, Mexico, Poland, Romania, and the Soviet Union. SWAPO also participates in the work of the Council in an observer capacity), as the interim administering authority on Namibia.

The Security Council in its subsequent resolutions, inter alia, 264 (1969), 276 (1970), 282 (1970), 283 (1970), 284 (1970), 301 (1971), 310 (1972), and 342 (1973) gave full legal effect to these resolutions of the General Assembly.

The historic advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice delivered on June 21, 1971 stands out as the milestone in this regard. In reply to the question put to it by the Security Council,

What are the legal consequences for States of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia, notwithstanding Security Council resolution 276 (1970) ?

The Court concluded by 13 votes to 2:

** that the continued presence of South Africa being illegal, South Africa is under obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to its occupation of the Territory.

Furthermore, by 11 votes, to 4, the World Court urged States,

***to recognize the illegality of South Africa's presence in Namibia and the invalidity of its acts on behalf of or concerning Namibia, and to refrain from any acts in particular any dealings with the Government of South Africa implying recognition of the legality of, or lending support or assistance to, such presence and administration;

The International Court of Justice thus cleared the legal ground for the United Nations, the Security Council, in particular, to take all the appropriate measures within the meaning of the U.N. Charter to compel the racist-colonialists in Namibia to quit.

To us the advisory opinion was significant for many reasons. For one, it reinstituted integrity and magnanimity to the Court, which it had lost after its devastating ruling in 1966, particularly among the Namibians who had put so much trust and confidence in the international rule of law.

Mr. Chairman, it is important to note here the fact that your Government's legal position on Namibia has been positive. For example, on May 20, 1970, Mr. Charles Yes, then the Permanent Repre

sentative of the United States to the United Nations announced a series of peaceful and practical steps so as to demonstrate more coneretely to South Africa the strength of our opposition to their policy in Namibia. The proposed steps were:

1. The United States will henceforth officially discourage investment by U.S. nationals in Namibia.

2. Export-Import Bank credit guarantees will not be made available for trade with Namibia.

3. U.S. nationals who invest in Namibia on the basis of rights acquired through the South African Government since adoption of General Assembly resolution of October 27, 1966 will not receive U.S. Government assistance in protection of such investments against claims of a future lawful government of Namibia.

4. The United States will encourage other nations to take similar actions.

Then, on October 4, 1971, after the ruling of the International Court of Justice, William Rogers, then Secretary of State, stated in the General Assembly chamber that consistent with the U.S. support for "practical and peaceful means to achieve self-determination and end racial discrimination" in Africa, the U.S. Government would "accept the advisory opinion of the International Court of Jus tice ***"

This is indeed an exemplary stance for a powerful and influential country like yours. The honorable members of the committee would, however, be better placed to know the extent to which these and similar pronouncements have been put into practical terms. For we sincerely believe that Western countries, particularly this country, occupy a very crucial position for the future of southern Africa in general and for Namibia in particular. Sixty-one percent of the mining and manufacturing capital is supplied by companies from the United States, Canada, Britain, France, West Germany, and other European countries. About 33 percent of Namibia's GNP is removed by the country each year by investors. The book value of that U.S. investment in Namibia is about $50 million according to the Commerce Department estimates. Actual value is considerably higher. Probably 90 percent of this capital is represented by the shares of Tsumeb Corp. owned by Newmont Mining and American Metal Climax. Mr. Chairman, I got this information from a research study by three Americans entitled "Tsumeb: A Profile of United States Contribution to Underdevelopment in Namibia" and request this study be put in my statement.

Mr. DIGGS. Without objection, it is so ordered.3

Mr. GURIRAB. We propose to discuss the recent political development in Namibia against this background. As a matter of fact, much of the current militancy and political protests by our people can be traced back partly to summer of 1971. Shortly after the advisory opinion was given, Namibians from all walks of life jubilantly welcomed the Court's opinion, except for a few puppet-chiefs and some politically naive individuals. The ecclesiastical community under the directorship of two brave black clergymen rose in an open protest. The two church leaders went to the extent of writing an open letter to the racist Prime Minister of South Africa. They are Bishop Leonard Auala and

3 The report appears in the appendix at p. 137.