E/CN.4/2000/9/Add.5
page 3
Introduction
1.
The present document contains all government replies received by the Special Rapporteur
between 15 December 1999 and 15 February 2000. It is being issued on an exceptional basis to
remedy the fact that, owing to the late dispatch of several regular communications, mainly in
English, Governments did not have sufficient time to respond to allegations. The Governments
concerned were informed of the intention to issue the present addendum by letter dated
24 January 2000, in which they were requested to send outstanding replies by 15 February 2000
in one of the three working languages of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights. The purpose of this exceptional request was to ensure that they could be
circulated during the Commission session in an informal document, the present addendum in the
six official languages of the United Nations only being issued after the session, because of the
lateness of submission. Replies to communications sent earlier by the Special Rapporteur that
were received after the completion of the main report have also been included in this addendum.
Australia
2.
The Government reported that the case of the Libyan asylum-seeker and his family (see
E/CN.4/2000/9, para. 31) was currently under consideration by the Department of Immigration
and Multicultural Affairs and that it would inform the Special Rapporteur of the outcome of the
process.
Azerbaijan
3.
By letter dated 5 January 2000, the Government responded positively to the request of the
Special Rapporteur to undertake a fact-finding mission to the country.
Chile
4.
By letter dated 10 January 2000, the Government responded to one of the cases
transmitted by the Special Rapporteur on 8 October 1999 (see E/CN.4/2000/9, para. 182).
5.
The Government stated that in February 1999 the inmates of the Colina I high security
prison had been transferred elsewhere temporarily so that the damage they had done to the prison
could be repaired; in the course of the preparatory arrangements and actual transfer process
members of the Gendarmería, owing to the resistance of the inmates, used deterrents such as
handcuffs and tear gas, injuring some of them. Marcelo Gaete Mancilla’s head injury was the
result of his detention by members of the Carabineros de Chile. As for Guillermo Ossandón
Cañas, it is stated that, like the other inmates, his injuries were the result of his resistance. The
relatives of the inmates lodged a complaint with the sixth civil court of major jurisdiction of
Santiago against the National Director of the Gendarmería de Chile and the Chief of Security;
proceedings were suspended for want of evidence. They then initiated amparo and protection
proceedings before the Santiago Court of Appeal, but their appeal was rejected. An in-house
administrative investigation concluded that the staff had acted in accordance with established
procedures.

Select target paragraph3