The Monaco Intelligencer: A Scholarly Journal of Monegasque Law, Diplomacy & Human Rights

The Royal American Institute for the Study of Monaco & American Friends of Monaco Launch Website

2009-10-31T13:01:00.001-07:00

The Royal American Institute for the Study of Monaco (aka: "The Monaco Institute") and American Friends of Monaco have a new website at: http://americanfriendsofmonaco.webs.com.

US counterparts to the Association Monaco-USA in Monaco established by Princess Grace, the two entities serve to promote a scholarly understanding and greater in-depth knowledge about Monegasque international and diplomatic affairs through Monegasque Studies in English both in the United States and abroad. The Monaco Institute and AFM complement information provided by the Embassy of Monaco in the USA's website and the Principality of Monaco's government website.

Upcoming Monegasque events include:

-The November 12th 80th Birthday of the late Princess Grace of Monaco

-The celebration of Monaco's National Day on November 19th

-Prince Albert II's keynote address on November 30, 2009 on the first day of the four-day Antarctica 50th Anniversary Treaty Summit in Washington DC extending from Monday, November 30 to Thursday, December 3, 2009. Prince Albert II conducted a month-long excursion to Antarctica in January of 2009 and Monaco is the 46th and newest sovereign nation to become a signatory to the Antarctica Treaty signed in 1959 in Washington, D.C. To register to attend the Antarctica Treaty's 50th Anniversary Summit see the Summit website at: www.atsummit50.aq

For special events to be held by the The Monaco Institute and American Friends of Monaco to honor Prince Albert II's Antarctica Treaty Summit keynote on November 30 watch the American Friends of Monaco webpage at http://americanfriendsofmonaco.webs.com.

Monaco Marks 5th Anniversary as a Member of the Council of Europe--President Costa of the COE's European Court of Human Rights Visits Monaco

2009-10-31T05:49:00.000-07:00

On 1 October, the Council of Europe's European Court of Human Rights President, Jean-Paul Costa, visited Monaco, where he was received in audience by H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco. He was accompanied by Isabelle Berro-Lefevre, the sole judge on the European Court of Human Rights from the Principality of Monaco. During the visit they presented a lecture on the current challenges facing the ECHR and attended the traditional hearings and ceremonial marking the opening of the judicial year in Monaco. The 5th of October marked the fifth anniversary of the accession of Monaco to the Council of Europe on 5 October 2004.

Review their remarks in French at the ECHR website at: www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/The+Court/The+President/Events/The_President_Events.htm

To Review the Council of Europe Profile of Monaco see the Council of Europe website: www.coe.int/T/E/Com/About_Coe/Member_states/e_Monaco.asp

Pope Benedict XVI Meets with Prince Albert II of Monaco

2009-10-22T13:01:00.001-07:00

(Photo from WireImage at: http://www.wireimage.com/gallerylisting.asp?navtyp=gls====398179&source=rss&nbc=1)

VATICAN CITY, OCT. 16, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Defending the right to life and the need for moral education were two key topics today at a meeting between Benedict XVI and Prince Albert II of Monaco, the Vatican reported.The Vatican press office reported after the audience that in the course of the discussions, "attention turned to themes of mutual interest including the importance of a solid cultural and moral formation of the young and the defense of life in all its phases."According to the note, the Holy Father and Albert II also touched on "certain aspects of the current international situation, such as the integral development of peoples and the protection of natural resources and the environment."

The prince also met with the Pope's secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone and the secretary for relations with states, Archbishop Dominique Mamberti.

Albert II is patron of the 2nd International Congress on Responsible Stem Cell Research, which will be held next month in Monaco. The congress, organized by the World Federation of the Catholic Medical Associations, will take place Nov. 26-28. The Pontifical Academy for Life, the Bioethical Consultative Committee of Monaco, and the Foundation Jérôme Lejeune are co-organizers.The theme of the congress is "Adult Somatic Stem Cells: New Perspectives."The first congress took place in Rome in 2006, and gathered more than 400 participants to discuss cell therapy research from adult and cord blood stem cells.

Prince Albert II's visit to Rome coincided with the official opening Thursday, October 15, of the exposition "The Grace Kelly Years: Princess of Monaco."The exposition, featuring the prince's mother, opened for the public today, and will be in Rome through Feb. 28 at the Palazzo Ruspoli. Kelly was a Hollywood actress who retired from filmmaking at the age of 26 to marry Prince Rainier III of Monaco. She died in 1982 at the age of 52.

ZE09101610 - 2009-10-16Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-27234?l=english

(A ZENIT Report)

Prince Albert II of Monaco to Present Keynote Address for 2009 Antarctica Summit

2009-10-19T09:12:00.000-07:00

Prince Albert II of Monaco to Present Keynote Address for 2009 Antarctica Summit: An International Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty

Prince Albert II, the sovereign head of state of the Principality of Monaco, who has made environmental and climate change diplomacy a key factor of his global leadership, executed a month-long visit to Antarctica in January of this year to critically examine the impact of global warming on the South Pole, and founded the Prince Albert II Foundation in 2006 to promote “ sustainable and equitable management of natural resources”=2 0and to encourage “the implementation of innovative and ethical solutions via research and studies, technological innovation and socially responsible investment tools with respect to climate change, biodiversity and water issues,” has been confirmed as the keynote speaker for the “Antarctic Treaty Summit:Science-Policy Interactions in International Governance” (“Antarctica Summit 2009”).

The international Antarctica Summit 2009 will commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Antarctic Treaty by the twelve original signatories in 1959, inWashington, D.C. Antarctica Summit 2009 willbe convened at the Smithsonian Institution, and held at the National Museum of Natural History, from 30 November to 3 December, 2009 to, in accordance with the Smithsonian Institution’s website, “ highlight lessons learned about international governance "with the interests of science and the progress of all mankind." Prince Albert received the UN Environment Program’s (UNEP) prestigious Champion of the Earth Award in 2008, and on October 23, 2009, will receive the second Roger Revelle Prize from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, located at the University of California San Diego (UCSD), for his efforts to support and communicate the crucial need to protect the environment on a global scale.” Prince Albert II’s keynote address will be delivered the first day of the summit, Monday, November 30th, after opening ceremonies chaired by Professor Paul Berkman, Chair of the International Board for the Antarctic Treaty Summit, and in collaboration with the day’s events will explore the “origin, evolution and resilience of the Antarctic Treaty System that emerged from the success of the International Geophysical Year” under the theme of “Science as a Tool of Diplomacy in the Antarctic Treaty System.”

Since its signing on December 1, 1959 by the twelve original signatories and its entry into force on June 23, 1961, the Antarctic Treaty has provided an international political tool for the diplomatic management of ten percent of the Earth “for peaceful purposes” and to assist in the arbitration and adjudication of issues related to national claims of sovereignty. The Treaty is one of a number of international agreements which are often referred to as the “Antarctic Treaty System.” The other agreements comprising the “System” are, 1) The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty (Madrid, 1991), 2) the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals (CCAS, London, 1972); and 3) the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR, Canberra, 1980). The latter two agreements, though independent, contain provisions committing their Parties to essential parts of the Antarctic Treaty.

According to the Treaty’s Preamble, “The main purpose of the Antarctic Treaty, … is to ensure "in the interest of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord." According to the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat’s website, the number of signatory nations to the Treaty has grown from the twelve original signatory nations of Argentina, Australia, Belg ium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Russia, the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the United States to forty-seven. As of December 2007 the other thirty-four treaty signatories included, Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Colombia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Italy, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay and Venezuela. Monaco is the newest addition to the list of signatory nations. It became a signatory last year on 31 May 2008. The UK was the first sovereign state to ratify the Antarctic Treaty.

According to the Antarctic Treaty Summit website: “the Antarctic Treaty Summit: Science-Policy Interactions in International Governance will provide an unique international, interdisciplinary and inclusive forum for scientists, legislators, administrators, lawyers, historians, educators, executives, students and other members of civil society to openly:

Assess lessons learned from the Antarctic Treaty System during the past five decades that have legacy value for international governance in general;
Reveal precedents for cooperative planetary-scale governance from one our civilization’s international spaces (i.e., outer space, deep sea and Antarctica); andEstablish broad public awareness around the world about the visionary goals, strategies and achievements that have emerged20from the Antarctic Treaty “in the interest of all mankind.”

As observed by the eminent polar explorer and scientist, Prof. Laurence Gould, during the Antarctic Treaty ratifications hearings in the United States Senate on 14 June 1960:

“The Antarctic Treaty is indispensable to the world of science which knows no national or other political boundaries, but it is much more than that… it is a document unique in history which may take its place alongside the Magna Carta and other great symbols of man's quest for enlightenment and order.”

The host sponsors of the Antarctic Treaty Summit include the Smithsonian Institution, the the University of California Santa Barbara (Bren School of Environmental Science & Management) and the University of Cambridge (Scott Polar Research Institute) in the United Kingdom. The Summit agenda includes participation by the world’s top U.S. and international experts on Antarctica, including: Ambassador R. Tucker Scully, Former Director, Office of Ocean Affairs, Department of State, and Chair of the 32nd Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, United States; Dr. Susan Solomon, Senior Scientist, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States and winner of the 2009 Volvo Environment Prize, one of the scientific world’s most respected environmental for mapping the mechanisms underlying the hole in the ozone layer, Professor Mahlon Kennicutt II, President, Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), United States, Dr. Karl Erb, Director, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, United States, Mr. Jan Huber, Current Executive Secretary, Antarctic Treaty Secretariat, Argentina, Ambassador Jorge Berguño, Council for Antarctic Policy, M inistry of Foreign Affairs, Chile; and Dr. Maj DePoorter, Chair, Antarctic Advisory Committee, International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), New Zealand

The Summit will also include a banquet dinner and the presentation of the 2009 Martha Muse Prize for Antarctic Policy and Research by Ms. Renate Rennie, Chairman and President, Tinker Foundation. For more information about the Antarctic Treaty Summit 2009 see the Summit’s website at http://www.atsummit50.aq/ which also includes a section dedicated to the background, history and text of the Antarctic Treaty.

Other websites of interest on the Antarctica Treaty and Antarctica include:
Antarctica Treaty Secretariat
(http://www.ats.aq/)
UNEP/Antarctica (http://www.unep.org/dewa/assessments/EcoSystems/Polar/Antarctica/
British Antarctic Survey
(http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/)
The Antarctican Society (http://www.antarctican.org/), U.S.A.

Prince Albert to Receive Revelle Prize for Environmental Diplomacy October 23, 2009

2009-09-25T12:23:00.000-07:00

Scripps to Honor Prince Albert II of Monaco for his Environmental Efforts--
Prince Albert II of Monaco to receive the Roger Revelle Prize at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego in October 2009

The Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego will present the Roger Revelle Prize at Scripps to His Serene Highness Prince Albert II of Monaco for his efforts to advance and communicate protection of the environment on a global scale. Prince Albert will officially accept the award at Scripps in October.The Roger Revelle Prize at Scripps, named for late, former Scripps Director and UC San Diego founder Roger Revelle, recognizes leaders in the public or private sectors whose outstanding contributions advance or promote research in ocean, climate and earth sciences. These international leaders, such as Revelle, ask the big questions, recognize the interrelationships of global systems and think on a planetary scale. Their pioneering work and courage in pursuing scientific questions of critical importance to our world evoke Revelle's leadership and vision.

H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco and Scripps Director Tony Haymet. Prince Albert's award is the second Roger Revelle Prize at Scripps. The inaugural prize was presented on March 6 to former Vice President Al Gore in conjunction with the Roger Revelle 100th Birthday Celebration. In a videotaped message presented at Gore's award ceremony, Prince Albert highlighted his upcoming visit to La Jolla to receive the Revelle Prize and to celebrate a developing partnership between Monaco and Scripps on ocean acidification. Prince Albert will receive the Revelle Prize in October at a special reception and dinner hosted by Scripps in his honor. The events are likely to take place at the Scripps campus' new Robert Paine Scripps Forum for Science, Society, and the Environment (Scripps Seaside Forum). Proceeds from the Revelle Prize events support the Roger Revelle Leadership Fund at Scripps to help recruit and retain the most outstanding students, faculty and researchers to the institution - an objective that was always paramount to Revelle when he was Scripps director. Al Gore's visit in March generated more than $150,000 from guests and Scripps supporters to establish this fund in Revelle's name.

LIMITED SEATS/SPONSORSHIPS AVAILABLE
Celebrating the Roger Revelle Prize
Friday, October 23, 2009
Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego will award the second Roger Revelle Prize to His Serene Highness Prince Albert II of Monaco for his efforts to support and communicate the crucial need to protect the environment on a global scale.
In accepting the prize, Prince Albert will present a lecture touching on some of the latest developments in the science of climate change and related impacts. In the evening, Scripps will host a special reception and dinner gala in Prince Albert’s honor.
The Roger Revelle Prize is named for the UC San Diego founder and former Scripps director who was a world-renowned scientist and is considered one of the true pioneers of climate change research.

The Events (tentative schedule)
5 p.m. (doors open at 4:30 p.m.)
Prince Albert will present a lecture to event attendees and other guests touching on some of the latest developments in the science of climate change and related impacts. 6 p.m.Roger Revelle Prize reception and dinner gala where Prince Albert will accept the second Roger Revelle Prize. See dinner underwriting opportunities below for ticket and table pricing.Location: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San DiegoLa Jolla, California

Monegasque Cultural Diplomacy 2009: Grace Kelly Years Exhibit--From Monaco to Rome

2009-09-14T13:55:00.000-07:00

"The Grace Kelly Years" … From Monaco to Rome

(October 16, 2009 - February 28, 2010)

The next stop for the exposition entitled "The Grace Kelly Years, Princess of Monaco" will be Rome, between October 16th 2009 and February 28th 2010.

After its enormous initial success at the Grimaldi Forum Monaco during the summer of 2007 (135,000 visitors), and having followed a course leading through the Hôtel de Ville in Paris (75,000 visitors in the summer of 2008) and the Ekaterina Foundation in Moscow (65,000 visitors between October and December of 2008), the "Grace Kelly Years, Princess of Monaco" exposition will make its next stop in Rome.

This outstanding exposition featuring Monaco's iconic Princess will take up quarters in the Palazzo Ruspoli from October 16th 2009 to February 28th 2010. This prestigious venue in the heart of the Eternal City operates under the auspices of the Memmo Foundation.

The exposition will occupy several floors, giving visitors ample opportunity to relive the years during which an exceptional woman reached myth status while living out her extraordinary destiny, that of a Hollywood actress become Princess of Monaco.

This homage was conceived and organized by Frédéric Mitterand, recently named France's Minister of Culture and Communication. It includes pictures by some of the world's foremost photographers (Howell Conant, Cecil Beaton, Irving Penn…), Grace Kelly's correspondence with famous figures of her time (Jackie Kennedy, la Callas, Alfred Hitchcock, Cary Grant…), numerous personal belongings, her wardrobe and jewels as well as other fashion accessories such as the famous Kelly bag designed by the Hermès firm.

Motion picture clips edited by Nathalie Crinière form a major part of the exposition. They include excerpts from Grace Kelly's most famous films as well as amateur film strips shot by the Princess herself that offer a close look at the Grimaldi family's personal life.

The official inauguration of the exposition will be held on October 15th at 6 P.M., in the presence of HSH Prince Albert II. A press conference followed by a visit to the exposition is scheduled on October 14th at noon.

9/2/2009

As Extracted From the Visit Monaco Website:http://news.visitmonaco.com

3rd Geneva Lecture--Prince Albert II Foundation Official Sponsor of UN Geneva Lecture Series

2009-09-14T07:35:00.000-07:00

UN GENEVA TO HOST 3RD GENEVA LECTURE ON 5 OCTOBER 2009: GUEST SPEAKER IS FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE SOVIET UNION, MIKHAIL GORBACHEV--THE PRINCE ALBERT II FOUNDATION ESTABLISHED BY H.S.H. PRINCE ALBERT II IS AN OFFICIAL SPONSOR OF THE UN GENEVA LECTURE SERIES

The United Nations Office at Geneva is the sponsor of the annual Geneva Lecture Series. One of the objectives pursued by the Geneva Lecture Series initiative is to raise public awareness on global challenges. In addition to the opportunity to listen to and to engage in a debate with prominent speakers during the lecture, the initiative provides the interested audience with the occasion to access key background documents with respect to the Lecture topic.

Experts from Geneva with different professional backgrounds ranging from academic researchers to UN officials and civil society practitioners are invited by the Geneva Lecture Series team to share background references and papers on this occasion. A selected list of recommended readings is made available for each lecture. Please note that the opinions expressed in those documents are solely of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the United Nations Institute for Training and Research neither of the organizers or sponsors of the Geneva Lecture Series. The purpose of the selection is to introduce the interested persons to a variety of existing intellectual positions and an academic debate on the topic of each lecture.

The UN Geneva's inaugural lecture was held on 29 April 2008, followed by the second lecture on the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights on Human Rights Day, 10 December 2008, titled, "Are Human Rights Universal?" The final remarks of the second lecture in December 2008 (see unofficial text of remarks below) were made by H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco, which Foundation is an official sponsor of the Geneva Lecture Series. His Highness reiterated the main statement of the speakers by calling for “new forms of solidarity” in the age of globalization and a “scrupulous and universal insistence on human rights” in all countries around the world.

THIRD LECTURE: The third lecture will be delivered by Mr. Mikhail Gorbachev, Former President of the Soviet Union and Founding President of Green Cross International, on the topic “Resetting the Nuclear Disarmament Agenda”, will take place on 5 October 2009 from 4:30 p.m. to 6:20 p.m. at the Palais des Nations in Geneva.

United Nations Secretary-General BAN Ki-moon will deliver an introductory statement, to be followed by Mr. Gorbachev. After the lecture, the public will be invited to participate in a debate moderated by a well-known journalist. Simultaneous interpretation in English and French will be available for the duration of the whole event.

Information extracted from the UN Geneva Website. See: http://www.unitar.org/gls/home

— check against delivery —
Remarks by H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco
on the occasion of the second edition of the Geneva Lecture Series
Geneva, 10 December 2008Monsieur le Directeur Général

Monsieur le Secrétaire général adjoint,
Chère Shirin Ebadi,
Cher Wole Soyinka,
Excellence
Mesdames et Messieurs,

Les interventions que nous venons d’entendre et le débat ont posé les
questions essentielles. Et il est évidemment difficile, en quelques minutes, de
parler d’un sujet aussi vaste.
Mais, puisque j’ai le privilège de proposer une conclusion à ces échanges
passionnants, je voudrais faire quelques remarques.
…/…
Ce soixantième anniversaire est, à l’échelle planétaire, un temps de doute
pour les droits de l’Homme. Après l’euphorie des années 1990, ces dernières
années ont vu surgir un nouveau débat, un nouvel ennemi : le relativisme.
Dans toutes les enceintes, y compris celle de l’ONU, fleurissent désormais
des conceptions culturelles, religieuses ou ethniques des droits de l’Homme, qui
vont à l’encontre de leur universalité.
Cette universalité n’est pourtant pas une qualité parmi d’autres des droits
de l’Homme ; c’est leur principe même.
…/…
Prétendre que les droits de l’Homme ne seraient pas universels, c’est en
effet nier ce qui fait leur grandeur, cet idéal éternellement inachevé : « tous les
êtres humains naissent libres et égaux en dignité et en droits. »
Mais c’est aussi insinuer que la barbarie, le viol, la torture ou la tyrannie
seraient plus supportables sous certaines latitudes. C’est renoncer à l’unité du
genre humain.
Comment l’accepterions-nous ?
Nous sommes nous-mêmes, je l’ai dit, dans une période de doute.
Personne n’est irréprochable et nos propres manquements, passés ou présents,
sont exploités par les tenants du relativisme et de la confusion morale.
…/…
Not an official record 2
Ces doutes, Mesdames et Messieurs, ne doivent pas nous arrêter. Au
contraire.
C’est parce qu’il nous revient de faire la preuve des droits de l’Homme que
notre responsabilité est plus grande que jamais.
Car notre monde de doute est aussi un monde de fraternités réinventées,
un monde où les cris des victimes se font entendre de plus en plus fort. D’un
pays, d’un continent à l’autre, des voix nous disent que les maux sont les
mêmes, comme sont identiques les dangers nés d’une gestion irresponsable de la
nature ou les malheurs causés par une économie oublieuse des hommes et des
femmes.
…/…
Il nous faut y répondre avec la même application, en sachant que toutes
ces menaces nous concernent. Quand les droits de l’Homme sont attaqués, c’est
l’humanité tout entière qui souffre. Quand nous laissons commettre des crimes
contre les droits de l’Homme, c’est notre propre avenir que nous fragilisons.
Mesdames et Messieurs,
Notre époque mondialisée appelle des solidarités nouvelles. La seule
manière de faire face aux risques de ce monde, c’est de ne chercher à distinguer
ni entre les victimes, ni entre les malheurs. C’est d’être mus par une même
exigence scrupuleuse et universelle au nom des droits de l’Homme, dans chacun
de nos pays.
…/…
C’est ainsi, soixante ans après la Déclaration de 1948, que nous
continuerons à faire la preuve concrète de l’universalité des droits de l’Homme.
Je vous remercie.

Advisory: Sept. 23, 2009 UN to Review Monaco Univ. Periodic Review Reports

2009-09-05T10:15:00.000-07:00

During the 12th Session of the Human Rights Council (Geneva, 14 September – 2 October 2009) of the UN High Commission for Human Rights, on September 23, 2009, the UN Human Rights Council will conduct a review of Monaco's Universal Periodic Review Report executed in May 2009.

MAY 2009 POPE BENEDICT XVI AFFIRMS HUMAN RIGHTS DURING ADDRESS TO PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES-

2009-09-04T07:57:00.000-07:00

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO PARTICIPANTS IN THE FIFTEENTH PLENARY SESSION OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES Consistory Hall Monday, 4 May 2009

Dear Brothers in the Episcopate and the Priesthood,Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

As you gather for the fifteenth Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, I am pleased to have this occasion to meet with you and to express my encouragement for your mission of expounding and furthering the Church’s social doctrine in the areas of law, economy, politics and the various other social sciences. Thanking Professor Mary Ann Glendon for her cordial words of greeting, I assure you of my prayers that the fruit of your deliberations will continue to attest to the enduring pertinence of Catholic social teaching in a rapidly changing world.

After studying work, democracy, globalisation, solidarity and subsidiarity in relation to the social teaching of the Church, your Academy has chosen to return to the central question of the dignity of the human person and human rights, a point of encounter between the doctrine of the Church and contemporary society.

The world’s great religions and philosophies have illuminated some aspects of these human rights, which are concisely expressed in “the golden rule” found in the Gospel: “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Lk 6:31; cf. Mt 7:12). The Church has always affirmed that fundamental rights, above and beyond the different ways in which they are formulated and the different degrees of importance they may have in various cultural contexts, are to be upheld and accorded universal recognition because they are inherent in the very nature of man, who is created in the image and likeness of God. If all human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, then they share a common nature that binds them together and calls for universal respect. The Church, assimilating the teaching of Christ, considers the person as “the worthiest of nature” (St. Thomas Aquinas, De potentia, 9, 3) and has taught that the ethical and political order that governs relationships between persons finds its origin in the very structure of man’s being. The discovery of America and the ensuing anthropological debate in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe led to a heightened awareness of human rights as such and of their universality (ius gentium). The modern period helped shape the idea that the message of Christ – because it proclaims that God loves every man and woman and that every human being is called to love God freely – demonstrates that everyone, independently of his or her social and cultural condition, by nature deserves freedom. At the same time, we must always remember that “freedom itself needs to be set free. It is Christ who sets it free” (Veritatis Splendor, 86).

In the middle of the last century, after the vast suffering caused by two terrible world wars and the unspeakable crimes perpetrated by totalitarian ideologies, the international community acquired a new system of international law based on human rights. In this, it appears to have acted in conformity with the message that my predecessor Benedict XV proclaimed when he called on the belligerents of the First World War to “transform the material force of arms into the moral force of law” (“Note to the Heads of the Belligerent Peoples”, 1 August 1917).

Human rights became the reference point of a shared universal ethos – at least at the level of aspiration – for most of humankind. These rights have been ratified by almost every State in the world. The Second Vatican Council, in the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, as well as my predecessors Paul VI and John Paul II, forcefully referred to the right to life and the right to freedom of conscience and religion as being at the centre of those rights that spring from human nature itself.

Strictly speaking, these human rights are not truths of faith, even though they are discoverable – and indeed come to full light – in the message of Christ who “reveals man to man himself” Gaudium et Spes, 22). They receive further confirmation from faith. Yet it stands to reason that, living and acting in the physical world as spiritual beings, men and women ascertain the pervading presence of a logos which enables them to distinguish not only between true and false, but also good and evil, better and worse, and justice and injustice. This ability to discern – this radical agency – renders every person capable of grasping the “natural law”, which is nothing other than a participation in the eternal law: “unde…lex naturalis nihil aliud est quam participatio legis aeternae in rationali creatura” (St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I-II, 91, 2). The natural law is a universal guide recognizable to everyone, on the basis of which all people can reciprocally understand and love each other. Human rights, therefore, are ultimately rooted in a participation of God, who has created each human person with intelligence and freedom. If this solid ethical and political basis is ignored, human rights remain fragile since they are deprived of their sound foundation.

The Church’s action in promoting human rights is therefore supported by rational reflection, in such a way that these rights can be presented to all people of good will, independently of any religious affiliation they may have. Nevertheless, as I have observed in my Encyclicals, on the one hand, human reason must undergo constant purification by faith, insofar as it is always in danger of a certain ethical blindness caused by disordered passions and sin; and, on the other hand, insofar as human rights need to be re-appropriated by every generation and by each individual, and insofar as human freedom – which proceeds by a succession of free choices – is always fragile, the human person needs the unconditional hope and love that can only be found in God and that lead to participation in the justice and generosity of God towards others (cf. Deus Caritas Est, 18, and Spe Salvi, 24).

This perspective draws attention to some of the most critical social problems of recent decades, such as the growing awareness – which has in part arisen with globalisation and the present economic crisis – of a flagrant contrast between the equal attribution of rights and the unequal access to the means of attaining those rights. For Christians who regularly ask God to “give us this day our daily bread”, it is a shameful tragedy that one-fifth of humanity still goes hungry. Assuring an adequate food supply, like the protection of vital resources such as water and energy, requires all international leaders to collaborate in showing a readiness to work in good faith, respecting the natural law and promoting solidarity and subsidiarity with the weakest regions and peoples of the planet as the most effective strategy for eliminating social inequalities between countries and societies and for increasing global security.

Dear friends, dear Academicians, in exhorting you in your research and deliberations to be credible and consistent witnesses to the defence and promotion of these non-negotiable human rights which are founded in divine law, I most willingly impart to you my Apostolic Blessing.

© Copyright 2009 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
SOURCE: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2009/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20090504_social-sciences_en.html

UN HIGH COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS MAY 2009 REPORT ON MONACO

2009-09-04T07:49:00.000-07:00

Link to UNHCHR Web Page on Monaco: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/ENACARegion/Pages/MCIndex.aspx

SOURCE: http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session5/MC/A_HRC_WG6_5_MCO_2_F.pdf

NATIONS
UNIES A

Assemblée générale

Distr.
GÉNÉRALE

A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/2
6 mars 2009
FRANÇAIS
Original: ANGLAIS

CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L’HOMME
Groupe de travail sur l’Examen périodique universel
Cinquième session
Genève, 4-15 mai 2009

COMPILATION ÉTABLIE PAR LE HAUT-COMMISSARIAT AUX DROITS
DE L’HOMME, CONFORMÉMENT AU PARAGRAPHE 15 b) DE L’ANNEXE
À LA RÉSOLUTION 5/1 DU CONSEIL DES DROITS DE L’HOMME

MONACO

Le présent rapport est une compilation des renseignements figurant dans les rapports des organes conventionnels, des procédures spéciales, y compris les observations et les commentaires de l’État intéressé, et d ’autres documents officiels des Nations Unies. Il ne contient pas d’opinions, de vues ou de suggestions de la part du Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies aux droits de l’homme, autres que celles figurant dans les rapports publics
diffusés par celui-ci. Il suit la structure des directives générales adoptées par le Conseil des droits de l’homme. Les sources des renseignements figurant dans la compilation sont systématiquement indiquées dans les notes. Le rapport a été établi en tenant compte de la périodicité du premier cycle de l’Examen, qui est de quatre ans. En l’absence d’informations récentes, les derniers rapports et documents disponibles ont également été pris en
considération, à moins qu’ils ne soient dépassés. Comme le présent rapport ne rassemble que des informations figurant dans des documents officiels des Nations Unies, l’absence de renseignements concernant des questions spécifiques ou le traitement succinct de celles-ci tient peut-être au fait que l’État n’a pas ratifié tel ou tel instrument ou que l’interaction ou la coopération avec les mécanismes internationaux relatifs aux droits de l’homme a été faible.
A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/2

page 2

I. RENSEIGNEMENTS D’ORDRE GÉNÉRAL ET CADRE
A. Étendue des obligations internationales1
Principaux instruments
universels relatifs aux droits
de l’homme2
Date de la
ratification,
de l’adhésion
ou de la
succession
Déclarations/
réserves
Reconnaissance des compétences particulières
des organes conventionnels
Convention internationale sur
l’élimination de toutes les formes
de discrimination raciale
27 sept. 1995 Oui (art. 2 1),
4 et 14)
Plaintes émanant de particuliers (art. 14): Oui
Convention internationale sur
l’élimination de toutes les formes
de discrimination raciale
27 sept. 1995 Oui (art. 2 1),
4 et 14)
Plaintes émanant de particuliers (art. 14): Oui
Pacte international relatif
aux droits économiques,
sociaux et culturels
28 août 1997 Oui (art. 2 2),
6, 8 1) et 2),
9, 11, et 13)
−
Pacte international relatif
aux droits civils et politiques
28 août 1997 Oui (art. 2 1)
et 2), 3, 13, 14
5), 19, 21, 22,
25, et 26)
Plaintes inter-États (art. 41): Non
Pacte international relatif
aux droits civils et politiques
− deuxième Protocole facultatif
28 mars 2000 − −
Comité sur l’élimination de
toutes les formes de
discrimination à l’égard des
femmes
18 mars 2005 − −
Convention contre la torture 6 déc. 1991 Oui (art. 21,
22 et 30)
Plaintes inter-États (art. 21): Oui
Plaintes émanant de particuliers (art. 22): Oui
Procédure d’enquête (art. 20): Oui
Convention relative aux droits
de l’enfant
21 juin 1993 Oui (art. 7 et
40 2) b) v))
−
Convention relative aux droits
de l’enfant − Protocole facultatif
concernant l’implication
d’enfants dans les conflits armés
12 nov. 2001 Déclaration
contraignante
au titre de
l’article 3:
21 ans
−
Convention relative aux droits
de l’enfant − Protocole facultatif
concernant la vente d’enfants,
la prostitution des enfants et la
pornographie mettant en scène
des enfants
24 sept. 2008 − −
Instruments fondamentaux auxquels Monaco n’est pas partie: Pacte international relatif aux droits économiques,
sociaux et culturels − Protocole facultatif3, Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques − premier Protocole
facultatif, Convention sur l’élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination à l’égard des femmes − Protocole
facultatif, Convention contre la torture − Protocole facultatif, Convention relative aux droits de tous les travailleurs
migrants et des membres de leur famille, Convention relative aux droits des personnes handicapées, Convention
relative aux droits des personnes handicapées − Protocole facultatif, Convention internationale pour la protection de
toutes les personnes contre les disparitions forcées (signature seulement, 2007).
A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/2

page 3
Autres principaux instruments internationaux pertinents [facultatif] Ratification, adhésion ou succession
Convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide Oui
Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale Non
Protocole de Palerme4 (Protocole se rapportant à la Convention
des Nations Unies contre la criminalité transnationale organisée)
Oui
Convention et Protocole relatifs au statut des réfugiés; Convention
relative au statut des apatrides et Convention sur la réduction des cas
d’apatridie5
Non, excepté la Convention de 1951
Conventions de Genève du 12 août 1949 et Protocoles additionnels6 Oui
Conventions fondamentales de l’Organisation internationale
du Travail7
Non
Convention de l’UNESCO concernant la lutte contre
la discrimination dans le domaine de l’enseignement
Non
1. Le Comité des droits de l’homme a encouragé l’État partie à adhérer au premier Protocole
facultatif se rapportant au Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques dans les meilleurs
délais8. Le Comité contre la torture a recommandé à l’État partie d’envisager de ratifier le Protocole
facultatif à la Convention contre la torture9. Le Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels
a encouragé l’État partie à devenir membre de l’Organisation internationale du Travail (OIT) et à
signer et ratifier les conventions de l’OIT ayant trait aux dispositions du Pacte10. Le Comité des
droits de l’enfant a recommandé à l’État partie d’envisager de devenir partie à la Convention no 182
de l’OIT concernant l’interdiction des pires formes de travail des enfants et l’action immédiate en
vue de leur élimination11. Le Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels a également
encouragé l’État partie à adhérer à la Convention de l’UNESCO concernant la lutte contre la
discrimination dans le domaine de l’enseignement12. Le Comité des droits de l’enfant a recommandé
à l’État partie de ratifier le Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale13.
2. En 2006, le Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels s’est dit préoccupé par les
déclarations interprétatives et les réserves émises par l’État partie lors de la ratification du Pacte et
a encouragé l’État partie à les réexaminer, en particulier celles qui sont devenues ou sont en passe
de devenir obsolètes, notamment celles qui ont trait au paragraphe 2 de l’article 2 et aux articles 6, 9
et 13 du Pacte, à la lumière de l’évolution qu’a connue l’État partie14. En 2008, le Comité des droits
de l’homme a également recommandé à l’État partie de réexaminer et de réduire le nombre de ses
déclarations interprétatives, qui étaient devenues obsolètes suite aux changements intervenus dans
l’État partie, notamment celles relatives aux articles 13, 14 5), 19 et 25 c) du Pacte15.
B. Cadre constitutionnel et législatif
3. Dans son rapport de 2005 au Conseil économique et social, le Secrétaire général a noté,
comme l’a signalé l’État partie, qu’une série de lois relatives à la question de la nationalité étaient
en vigueur. L’article 18 de la Constitution du 17 décembre 1962, modifiée par la loi no 1249
du 2 avril 2002, prévoit que la nationalité ne peut être acquise ou perdue qu’en application
d’instruments juridiques16.
4. Le Comité des droits de l’homme a accueilli avec satisfaction l’amendement à la Constitution
de 1962 apporté par la loi no 1249 de 2002 établissant le principe de l’indépendance du pouvoir
judiciaire et de la vérification par le Tribunal suprême de la légalité des décisions administratives17.
5. Le Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels a pris note avec satisfaction de
l’adoption de la loi du 15 juillet 2005 sur la liberté d’expression, qui pénalise les insultes à caractère
A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/2

page 4
racial, ethnique ou religieux ainsi que les insultes fondées sur l’orientation sexuelle réelle ou
supposée18.
6. Le Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels a recommandé à l’État partie de
mettre sa législation ayant trait plus spécifiquement aux droits économiques, sociaux et culturels
en conformité avec le Code civil amendé19.
C. Cadre institutionnel et infrastructures des droits de l’homme
7. Le Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels et le Comité des droits de l’homme
ont encouragé l’État partie à créer une institution nationale des droits de l’homme indépendante20
conformément aux Principes de Paris21. Selon le Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et
culturels, une telle institution doit avoir pour mandat de protéger et promouvoir tous les droits de
l’homme, notamment les droits économiques, sociaux et culturels22.
8. Le Comité des droits de l’homme s’est félicité de l’institution d’un «juge des libertés»23.
D. Mesures de politique générale
9. Le Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels a encouragé l’État partie à veiller à ce
que les droits de l’homme soient enseignés dans les écoles à tous les niveaux d’éducation, ce qu’a
également recommandé le Comité des droits de l’enfant24, et de sensibiliser fonctionnaires et
magistrats aux droits de l’homme, en particulier aux droits économiques, sociaux et culturels25.
10. Le Comité contre la torture a recommandé à l’État partie d’adopter des réglementations
concernant l’utilisation des registres dans les locaux de police conformément, en particulier,
à l’Ensemble des principes pour la protection de toutes les personnes soumises à une forme
quelconque de détention ou d’emprisonnement26.
11. Le Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels a encouragé l’État partie à augmenter
son niveau de financement de l’aide jusqu’au seuil recommandé par les Nations Unies, soit de
0,7 % du produit intérieur brut (PIB)27.
12. Le Comité des droits de l’enfant a recommandé à l’État partie de diffuser des informations
consacrées plus précisément aux dispositions du Protocole facultatif concernant l’implication
d’enfants dans les conflits armés28.
II. PROMOTION ET PROTECTION DES DROITS DE L’HOMME
DANS LE PAYS
A. Coopération avec les mécanismes relatifs aux droits de l’homme
1. Coopération avec les organes conventionnels
Organe
conventionnel29
Dernier
rapport soumis
et examiné
Observations
finales les plus
récentes
Réponse suite
aux observations
finales État de la soumission des rapports
CERD 2008 − − −
Comité des droits
économiques,
sociaux et culturels
2004 Juin 2006 − Deuxième et troisième rapports devant être
soumis en un seul document en 2009
A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/2
page 5
Organe
conventionnel29
Dernier
rapport soumis
et examiné
Observations
finales les plus
récentes
Réponse suite
aux observations
finales État de la soumission des rapports
Comité des droits
de l’homme
2007 Oct. 2008 Devant être
soumis en 2009
Troisième rapport devant être soumis
en 2013
CEDAW − Rapport initial attendu depuis 2006
Comité contre
la torture
2002 Mai 2004 Avril 2006 Quatrième et cinquième rapports devant
être soumis en un seul document en 2009
Comité des droits de
l’enfant
1999 Juin 2001 − Deuxième et troisième rapports attendus
depuis 2000 et 2005 respectivement
Comité des droits de
l’enfant − Protocole
facultatif-Conflits
armés
2005 Juin 2007 − −
2. Coopération avec les titulaires de mandat au titre des procédures spéciales
Invitation permanente
à se rendre dans le pays
Oui
Visites ou rapports
de mission les plus récents
Aucun
Accord de principe
pour une visite
Non
Visite demandée et
non encore accordée
Aucune
Coopération/moyens mis
à disposition pour faciliter
les missions
−
Suite donnée aux visites −
Réponses aux lettres
d’allégations et aux
appels urgents
Aucune communication n’a été adressée à Monaco pendant la période considérée.
Réponses aux questionnaires
sur des questions
thématiques30
Monaco a répondu à deux des 13 questionnaires envoyés par des titulaires de mandat
au titre des procédures spéciales31 pendant la période considérée, dans les délais
prescrits32.
3. Coopération avec le Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies
aux droits de l’homme
13. Monaco a versé des contributions au titre des activités menées par le Haut-Commissariat des
Nations Unies aux droits de l’homme en 2005, 2006, 2007 et 200833. Le Comité contre la torture a
pris note avec satisfaction des contributions versées chaque année depuis 1994 au Fonds de
contributions volontaires des Nations Unies pour les victimes de la torture34.
B. Respect des obligations internationales en matière de droits de l’homme
1. Égalité et non-discrimination
14. En 2006, tout en prenant note des amendements apportés au Code civil, le Comité des droits
économiques, sociaux et culturels s’est dit préoccupé par l’existence de conditions juridiques
différentes pour l’homme et pour la femme pour l’acquisition de la nationalité monégasque et a
donc recommandé que les règlements concernant l’acquisition de la nationalité soient les mêmes
pour l’homme et pour la femme35.
A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/2
page 6
15. En 2006, le Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels, tout en saluant l’adoption de
la loi no 1296 du 12 mai 2005 relative à la transmission de la nationalité monégasque des mères à
leurs enfants, est néanmoins resté préoccupé par l’existence de certaines restrictions qui empêchent
les femmes naturalisées de transmettre la nationalité à leurs enfants en cas de divorce. Le Comité
des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels a encouragé l’État partie à adopter une législation
consacrant l’égalité de droit à la transmission de la nationalité aux enfants par les femmes
monégasques quel que soit le mode d’acquisition de la nationalité36.
16. En 2008, le Comité des droits de l’homme a noté avec satisfaction les progrès législatifs
réalisés en matière d’égalité entre l’homme et la femme et en particulier l’adoption de la loi no 1278
du 29 décembre 2003 qui modifie certaines dispositions du Code civil de façon à établir: a) l’égalité
entre l’homme et la femme au sein du foyer et le fait que le choix du lieu de résidence est désormais
subordonné à l’accord commun des deux époux; et b) l’égalité entre les droits des enfants nés dans
le mariage et de ceux nés hors du mariage37. En 2006, le Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et
culturels a constaté avec satisfaction les efforts importants faits par l’État partie pour moderniser sa
législation, notamment les réformes du Code civil conduisant à abolir toute discrimination entre les
enfants légitimes, naturels, adultérins ou incestueux, et a accueilli favorablement que le Code civil
ne mentionne plus que les termes «enfants» ou «descendants», ainsi que le remplacement dans le
Code de la notion d’autorité paternelle par celle d’autorité parentale38.
2. Droit à la vie, à la liberté et à la sécurité de la personne
17. En 2004, le Comité contre la torture a noté avec satisfaction la réforme du Code pénal et du
Code de procédure pénale en vue d’une harmonisation avec les normes européennes relatives aux
droits de l’homme39. Il s’est néanmoins dit préoccupé par le champ d’application réduit des
articles 228 et 278 du Code pénal, qui ne répondent pas pleinement aux prescriptions de l’article 4
de la Convention, en ce qu’ils concernent uniquement les assassinats commis au moyen de torture
ou accompagnés d’actes de cruauté, et les tortures commises dans le cadre d’arrestations illégales
ou de séquestration de personnes40. Le Comité contre la torture a recommandé à l’État partie
d’introduire en droit pénal interne une définition de la torture pleinement conforme à l’article
premier de la Convention41. Il a également recommandé à Monaco d’introduire dans son droit
interne une disposition interdisant d’invoquer des circonstances exceptionnelles ou l’ordre d’un
supérieur ou d’une autorité publique pour justifier la torture42.
18. Le Comité contre la torture s’est dit préoccupé par la faiblesse des garanties entourant
l’expulsion et le refoulement d’étrangers, dans la mesure où aucune clause de non-refoulement
répondant aux prescriptions de l’article 3 de la Convention ne semble exister pour ces situations en
droit interne, et où les recours auprès du Tribunal suprême n’ont pas de caractère suspensif
automatique43. Le Comité contre la torture a formulé des recommandations à cet égard. Notant que
l’expulsion et le refoulement sont exclusivement opérés vers la France, le Comité contre la torture a
rappelé que l’État partie doit s’assurer qu’aucun renvoi ne soit opéré vers un pays tiers où des
risques de torture sont encourus44. Dans ses observations concernant les conclusions du Comité,
l’État partie a déclaré que, en l’état des normes internationales et des normes de droit interne, les
mesures d’expulsion ou de refoulement décidées par les autorités monégasques ne sont pas
susceptibles d’exposer les personnes concernées à des traitements de la nature de ceux que la
Convention prohibe45.
19. Préoccupé par l’absence d’un mécanisme à cet effet, le Comité contre la torture a
recommandé à l’État partie d’assurer le suivi du traitement et des conditions matérielles de
détention des prisonniers dans les établissements pénitentiaires français46. Dans ses observations
concernant les conclusions du Comité, l’État partie a déclaré que les autorités monégasques ont
A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/2
page 7
engagé une réflexion destinée à concilier la souveraineté des deux États et la finalité préconisée par
le Comité47.
20. En 2006, le Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels s’est dit préoccupé par
l’absence de législation spécifique sur la violence familiale à l’égard des femmes et a recommandé
à l’État partie d’envisager l’adoption d’une législation spécifique érigeant la violence familiale en
infraction pénale, et à mettre en place un mécanisme juridique visant à protéger les femmes
victimes de violence familiale48. En 2008, le Comité des droits de l’homme, tout en prenant note de
la procédure en cours au sujet de la proposition de loi relative à la lutte contre les violences
domestiques, a encouragé l’État partie à adopter une législation spécifique concernant les violences
domestiques. Il a recommandé à l’État partie de renforcer les campagnes de sensibilisation,
d’informer les femmes de leurs droits et d’apporter une assistance matérielle et psychologique aux
victimes, ainsi que de dispenser à la police une formation spécifique sur le sujet49.
21. En 2001, le Comité des droits de l’enfant a constaté avec préoccupation que les châtiments
corporels n’étaient pas interdits par la loi et a recommandé à l’État partie d’interdire la pratique des
châtiments corporels dans la famille et de mener des campagnes d’information destinées, entre
autres, aux parents, aux enfants, aux responsables de la police et de la justice et aux enseignants,
pour expliquer les droits des enfants à cet égard et encourager le recours à d’autres moyens de
discipline compatibles avec la dignité humaine de l’enfant et conformes à la Convention, en
particulier aux articles 19 et 28, paragraphe 250.
22. Le Comité des droits de l’enfant, afin de renforcer les mesures internationales de prévention
de l’enrôlement d’enfants dans les forces armées et de leur participation à des hostilités, a
recommandé à l’État partie, conformément aux normes minima prescrites par la Convention relative
aux droits de l’enfant et par les instruments pertinents du droit international humanitaire,
d’envisager d’établir sa compétence extraterritoriale pour les crimes de guerre tels que le fait de
procéder à la conscription ou à l’enrôlement d’enfants de moins de 15 ans dans les forces armées ou
de les faire participer activement aux hostilités, lorsqu’un ressortissant monégasque ou une
personne ayant un lien étroit avec l’État partie est l’auteur ou la victime d’un crime de ce type51.
23. Le Comité des droits de l’homme a pris note des assurances de l’État partie au sujet de la
suppression du bannissement lors de la réforme du Code pénal en cours d’examen, mais est resté
préoccupé par le maintien de dispositions législatives obsolètes et en contradiction avec le Pacte.
Il a donc recommandé à l’État partie d’abroger ces dispositions législatives obsolètes et en
contradiction avec le Pacte, telles que les dispositions pénales consacrant le bannissement, qui sont
en totale contradiction avec le paragraphe 4 de l’article 12 du Pacte52.
3. Administration de la justice et primauté du droit
24. Le Comité des droits de l’enfant a noté avec satisfaction que les Carabiniers du Prince et les
Sapeurs-Pompiers, qui sont les seuls corps ayant un statut militaire dans la Principauté, doivent être
âgés de 21 ans au moins53.
25. Le Comité contre la torture s’est dit préoccupé par le fait que les personnes gardées à vue
n’ont pas droit à l’assistance d’un avocat, cette assistance n’étant prévue qu’à compter de la
première comparution devant le juge d’instruction, et qu’elles ne peuvent informer leurs proches de
leur détention que sur autorisation de ce juge; il a donc recommandé à l’État partie de garantir le
droit des personnes gardées à vue d’accéder à un avocat de leur choix et d’informer leurs proches
dans les premières heures de la détention54. Dans ses observations concernant les conclusions du
Comité, l’État partie a déclaré que les autorités monégasques étaient conscientes que les
A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/2
page 8
dispositions du Code de procédure pénale n’étaient pas conformes aux exigences des normes
internationales et indiqué qu’une révision dudit code était en cours55. En 2008, le Comité des droits
de l’homme a salué l’adoption de la loi «justice et liberté» no 1343 du 26 décembre 2007 portant
modification du Code de procédure pénale et introduisant le nouvel article 60-4, qui traite des droits
des personnes soumises à la garde à vue et prévoit de nombreuses garanties respectueuses des droits
de l’homme, notamment le droit de s’entretenir avec un avocat de leur choix56.
4. Liberté d’association et de réunion pacifique
26. Le Comité des droits de l’homme a pris note du projet de loi sur le principe de liberté de
création des personnes morales par simple déclaration, mais s’est toutefois dit préoccupé par le
pouvoir laissé à l’administration de décider de la nature éventuellement sectaire de la personne
morale en cours de constitution. Il a donc recommandé à l’État partie de définir plus précisément les
conditions requises pour la création de personnes morales et de clarifier ce qu’il entend par «objet
de caractère sectaire»57.
5. Droit à la sécurité sociale et droit à un niveau de vie suffisant
27. Le Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels a pris note de l’existence d’un régime
efficace de sécurité sociale pour les salariés, mais il a regretté que les prestations familiales ne
fassent pas partie du régime de sécurité sociale des travailleurs indépendants. Il a recommandé à
l’État partie de faire en sorte que le système de la sécurité sociale assure une protection adéquate à
toutes les catégories de travailleurs et à leur famille58.
28. Le Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels s’est dit préoccupé par le maintien de
l’obligation faite aux non-Monégasques de résider cinq ans dans la Principauté avant de bénéficier
du droit au logement et de l’assistance sociale et médicale et a recommandé à l’État partie de
réduire ce délai59. En 2001, le Comité des droits de l’enfant a constaté avec préoccupation que si les
enfants monégasques ont droit à la gratuité des soins de santé, la législation et la pratique internes
ne garantissent pas expressément le même droit à tous les enfants dans l’État partie, s’agissant en
particulier d’enfants de milieux défavorisés et de ceux qui ne sont ni ressortissants ni résidents de
l’État partie, et a donc recommandé à l’État partie de veiller à ce que tous les enfants relevant de sa
juridiction bénéficient d’un droit aux soins de santé60.
29. En 2006, le Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels a constaté avec
préoccupation les problèmes de santé chez les adolescents, qui découlent en particulier de la
toxicomanie et de la consommation de drogues et a recommandé à l’État partie de redoubler
d’efforts pour prévenir et combattre la toxicomanie, notamment chez les jeunes, et d’adopter une
législation spécifique à cet égard61. Le Comité des droits de l’enfant, en 2001, a exprimé la même
préoccupation et a recommandé à l’État partie d’instituer une aide à la réadaptation aux enfants
ayant été sujets à la toxicomanie62.
30. Le Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels a noté avec préoccupation que
l’avortement est illégal en toutes circonstances dans l’ordre juridique de l’État partie et a
recommandé à celui-ci de réviser sa législation relative à l’avortement et d’envisager des
dérogations à l’interdiction générale de l’avortement pour des considérations d’ordre thérapeutique
et dans les cas où la grossesse résulte d’un viol ou d’un inceste63. En 2008, le Comité des droits de
l’homme, prenant note du projet de loi concernant l’interruption médicale de grossesse qui vise à
modifier l’article 248 du Code pénal et ainsi dépénaliser l’interruption médicale de grossesse
lorsque celle-ci présente, entre autres, un risque pour la vie ou la santé physique de la femme, a
également constaté avec préoccupation que l’avortement est encore illégal en toutes circonstances
A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/2
page 9
dans la législation de l’État partie64. Il a recommandé à Monaco de rendre sa législation relative à
l’avortement conforme au Pacte et de prendre des mesures pour aider les femmes à éviter une
grossesse non désirée de sorte qu’elles n’aient pas à recourir à un avortement illégal ou dans des
conditions peu sûres qui peuvent mettre leur vie en danger ou à aller avorter à l’étranger65.
6. Droits de l’homme et lutte antiterroriste
31. Tout en comprenant les exigences de sécurité liées à la lutte contre le terrorisme, le Comité
des droits de l’homme s’est dit préoccupé par le caractère large et peu précis de la définition des
actes terroristes contenue dans le titre III du Livre III du Code pénal consacré aux crimes et délits
contre la chose publique, et plus particulièrement par le manque de clarté de la définition du
terrorisme dit «écologique»66. Le Comité des droits de l’homme a donc recommandé à l’État partie
de veiller à ce que les mesures prises au titre de la lutte contre le terrorisme soient conformes aux
dispositions du Pacte, d’élaborer et d’adopter une définition plus précise des actes terroristes, et de
lui fournir de plus amples informations sur la définition et la portée du terrorisme dit
«écologique»67.
III. PROGRÈS, MEILLEURES PRATIQUES,
DIFFICULTÉS ET CONTRAINTES
32. Le Comité des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels a noté avec satisfaction que le
chômage reste pratiquement inexistant dans l’État partie68.
IV. PRIORITÉS, INITIATIVES ET ENGAGEMENTS
NATIONAUX ESSENTIELS
A. Obligations souscrites par l’État considéré
n.d.
B. Recommandations spécifiques pour le suivi
33. En 2004, le Comité contre la torture a demandé à l’État partie de lui fournir d’ici un an des
renseignements sur la suite donnée par celui-ci à ses recommandations relatives au respect du
principe de non-refoulement, de la garantie du droit des personnes gardées à vue d’accéder à un
avocat de leur choix, et du suivi du traitement et des conditions matérielles de détention des
prisonniers dans les établissements pénitentiaires français69. Monaco a répondu au Comité le
30 mars 200670.
V. RENFORCEMENT DES CAPACITÉS ET ASSISTANCE TECHNIQUE
34. Le Comité des droits de l’enfant a pris note avec satisfaction des activités de l’État partie en
matière de coopération internationale, y compris le soutien financier qu’il apporte aux actions en
faveur de la protection des droits des enfants dans les conflits armés et a encouragé l’État partie à
poursuivre ces activités71.
A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/2
page 10
Notes
1 Unless indicated otherwise, the status of ratifications of instruments listed in the table may be found in Multilateral
Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General: Status as at 31 December 2006 (ST/LEG/SER.E.25), supplemented by
the official website of the United Nations Treaty Collection database, Office of Legal Affairs of the United Nations
Secretariat, http://treaties.un.org/.
2 The following abbreviations have been used for this document:
ICERD International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
OP-ICESCR Optional Protocol to ICESCR
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICCPR-OP 1 Optional Protocol to ICCPR
ICCPR-OP 2 Second Optional Protocol to ICCPR, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
OP-CEDAW Optional Protocol to CEDAW
CAT Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
OP-CAT Optional Protocol to CAT
CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child
OP-CRC-AC Optional Protocol to CRC on the involvement of children in armed conflict
OP-CRC-SC Optional Protocol to CRC on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography
ICRMW International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of
Their Families
CRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
OP-CRPD Optional Protocol to Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
CED International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
3 Adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 63/117 of 10 December 2008, in which the General Assembly
recommandé that a signing ceremony be organized in 2009. Article 17, para. 1, of OP-ICESCR states that “The present
Protocol is open for signature by any State that has signed, ratified or acceded to the Covenant”.
4 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the
United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.
5 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, 1954 Convention relating to the status of
Stateless Persons and 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
6 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field
(First Convention); Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked
Members of Armed Forces at Sea (Second Convention); Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
(Third Convention); Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Convention);
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of
International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I); Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II); Protocol additional to the
Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem
(Protocol III). For the official status of ratifications, see Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland, at
www.eda.admin.ch/eda/fr/home/topics/intla/intrea/chdep/warvic.html.
7 International Labour Organization Convention No. 29 concerning Forced or Compulsory Labour; Convention No.105
concerning the Abolition of Forced Labour, Convention No. 87 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of
the Right to Organize; Convention No. 98 concerning the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organize and to
Bargain Collectively; Convention No. 100 concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of
Equal Value; Convention No. 111 concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation; Convention
No. 138 concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment; Convention No. 182 concerning the Prohibition and
Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour.
8 Concluding observation of the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/MCO/CO/2), para. 7.
9 Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture (CAT/C/CR/32/1), para. 5(g).
10 Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/C.12/MCO/CO/1), para. 26.
11 Concluding observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC/C/OPAC/MCO/CO/1), para. 9(b).
12 E/C.12/MCO/CO/1, para. 28.
A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/2
page 11
13 CRC/C/OPAC/MCO/CO/1, para. 9(b).
14 E/C.12/MCO/CO/1, paras. 8 and 16.
15 CCPR/C/MCO/CO/2, para. 6.
16 E/CN.4/2006/88, p. 5.
17 CCPR/C/MCO/CO/2, para. 3.
18 E/C.12/MCO/CO/1, para. 3.
19 Ibid., para. 25.
20 For the list of national human rights institutions with accreditation status granted by the International Coordinating
Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (ICC), see A/HRC/10/55,
annex 1.
21 E/C.12/MCO/CO/1 para. 24; CCPR/C/MCO/CO/2 para. 8.
22 Ibid., para. 24.
23 CCPR/C/MCO/CO/2, para. 5.
24 CRC/C/15/Add.158, para. 37.
25 E/C.12/MCO/CO/1, para. 27.
26 CAT/C/CR/32/1, para. 5.
27 E/C.12/MCO/CO/1, para. 29.
28 CRC/C/OPAC/MCO/CO/1, para. 7.
29 The following abbreviations have been used for this document:
CERD Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
CESCR Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
HR Committee Human Rights Committee
CEDAW Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
CAT Committee against Torture
CRC Committee on the Rights of the Child
30 The questionnaires included in this section are those which have been reflected in an official report by a special
procedure mandate holder.
31 See (a) report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education (A/HRC/4/29), questionnaire on the right to
education of persons with disabilities sent in 2006; (b) report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants
(A/HRC/4/24), questionnaire on the impact of certain laws and administrative measures on migrants sent in 2006;
(c) report of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children (A/HRC/4/23),
questionnaire on issues related to forced marriages and trafficking in persons sent in 2006; (d) report of the Special
Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders (E/CN.4/2006/95 and Add.5), questionnaire on the
implementation of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to
Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms sent in June 2005; (e) report of
the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people (A/HRC/6/15),
questionnaire on the human rights of indigenous people sent in August 2007; (f) report of the Special Rapporteur on
trafficking in persons, especially in women and children (E/CN.4/2006/62) and the Special Rapporteur on the sale of
children, child prostitution and child pornography (E/CN.4/2006/67), joint questionnaire on the relationship between
trafficking and the demand for commercial sexual exploitation sent in July 2005; (g) report of the Special Rapporteur on
the right to education (E/CN.4/2006/45), questionnaire on the right to education for girls sent in 2005; (h) report of the
Working Group on mercenaries (A/61/341), questionnaire concerning its mandate and activities sent in November
2005; (i) report of the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography
(A/HRC/4/31), questionnaire on the sale of children's organs sent on July 2006; (j) report of the Special Rapporteur on
the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (E/CN.4/2005/78), questionnaire on child pornography on
the Internet sent in July 2004; (k) report of the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child
pornography (A/HRC/7/8), questionnaire on assistance and rehabilitation programmes for child victims of sexual
exploitation sent in July 2007; (l) report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human
rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises (A/HRC/4/35/Add.3), questionnaire on human
A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/2
page 12
rights policies and management practices; (m) report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education (A/HRC/8/10),
questionnaire on the right to education in emergency situations sent in 2007.
32 The questionnaire on the right to education for girls, and the questionnaire on the right to education in emergency
situations.
33 OHCHR Annual Report 2005, p. 15; OHCHR Annual Report 2006, p. 158; OHCHR 2007 Report on Activities and
Results, p. 167; OHCHR 2008 Report on Activities and Results..
34 CAT/C/CR/32/1, para. 3.
35 E/C.12/MCO/CO/1, paras. 11 and 19.
36 Ibid., paras. 9 and 17.
37 CCPR/C/MCO/CO/2, para. 4.
38 E/C.12/MCO/CO/1, para. 6.
39 CAT/C/CR/32/1, para. 3.
40 Ibid., para. 4(d).
41 Ibid., para.5(a).
42 Ibid, para. 5(b).
43 Ibid., para. 4.
44 Ibid., para. 5(c).
45 CAT/C/MCO/CO/4/Add.1, para. 14.
46 CAT/C/CR/32/1, para.5.
47 CAT/C/MCO/CO/4/Add.1, para. 27.
48 E/C.12/MCO/CO/1, paras. 14 and 22.
49 CCPR/C/MCO/CO/2, para. 9.
50 CRC/C/15/Add.158, paras. 26-27.
51 CRC/C/OPAC/MCO/CO/1, para. 9.
52 CCPR/C/MCO/CO/2, para. 12.
53 CRC/C/OPAC/MCO/CO/1, para. 4.
54 CAT/C/CR/32/1, paras. 4-5.
55 CAT/C/MCO/CO/4/Add.1, paras. 16-17.
56 CCPR/C/MCO/CO/2, para. 5.
57 Ibid., para. 13.
58 E/C.12/MCO/CO/1, paras. 12 and 20.
59 Ibid., paras. 10 and 18.
60 CRC/C/15/Add.158, paras. 34-35.
61 E/C.12/MCO/CO/1, paras. 13 and 21.
62 CRC/C/15/Add.158, paras. 40-41.
63 E/C.12/MCO/CO/1, paras. 15 and 23.
64 CCPR/C/MCO/CO/2, para. 10.
65 Ibid..
66 Ibid., para. 11.
67 Ibid.
A/HRC/WG.6/5/MCO/2
page 13
68 E/C.12/MCO/CO/1, para. 5.
69 CAT/C/CR/32/1, para. 7.
70 CAT/C/MCO/CO/4/Add.1.
71 CRC/C/OPAC/MCO/CO/1, paras. 5 and 10.
-----

L'Eglise condamne le projet de loi sur l'avortement thérapeutique

2009-09-04T07:31:00.000-07:00

L'Eglise condamne le projet de loi sur l'avortement thérapeutique
Paru le mardi 31 mars 2009 1 commentaire(s)

Photo : Marc Mehran
Mgr Bernard Barsi, archevêque de Monaco : « Quand on dit que ce projet ne concerne que les cas extrêmes visés par le texte, on ne dit pas la vérité et on cache la réalité...».Une telle confrontation entre les autorités monégasques et l'Eglise de Monaco n'était pas arrivée en Principauté « depuis le règne d'Albert 1er », explique-t-on à l'archevêché à propos du projet de loi sur l'interruption médicale de grossesse (IMG), que le Conseil national doit voter demain soir en séance publique.

Sur ce sujet éminemment polémique, surtout dans un pays où la religion catholique est religion d'Etat, Mgr Bernard Barsi, archevêque de Monaco a des mots très durs :

« Dans ce projet de loi, c'est surtout un symbole qui semble visé. Mais d'aucuns, ici ou ailleurs, ne supportaient plus cette exception monégasque dont un long travail de sape idéologique avec ses relais médiatiques a pu venir à bout avec le texte qui nous est proposé. »

« Il est navrant qu'à une période de son histoire politique et constitutionnelle où la Principauté de Monaco acquiert une plus grande indépendance et insiste sur sa spécificité culturelle, on choisisse délibérément de s'aligner sur d'autres pays pour y rechercher de prétendus modèles de société. »

« Si bien qu'il est désormais facile de prévoir la suite si ce projet venait à être voté car il est à craindre qu'il ne soit que la première étape d'un processus qui a suivi partout ailleurs le même scénario qui ne fait que commencer. »

« Quand on dit que ce projet ne concerne que les cas extrêmes visés par le texte, on ne dit pas la vérité et on cache la réalité. Tout le reste risque de suivre et le pire est à redouter parce qu'on n'aura de cesse de prétendre mettre Monaco au diapason du minimum de standard éthique. On ne peut pas appeler progrès ce qui constitue une régression dans la considération due à la dignité et à l'intangibilité intrinsèques de l'être humain ».

Un projet de loi contraire à la Constitution ?

« A ce titre, on pourrait s'interroger sur la compatibilité de ce projet de loi avec notre Constitution. Ce texte inspire des réserves quant au respect de la liberté de chacun eu égard aux insuffisances de la clause de conscience telle qu'elle est prévue à l'article 5 II in fine.

Les dispositions générales et particulières de ce même article 5 paraissent faire peu de cas de l'article 20 alinéa 2 de notre Constitution quant au « respect de la personnalité et de la dignité humaine », à l'interdiction de « traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants » au regard du droit de l'enfant à naître.

D'une manière générale, on ne peut pas faire non plus l'économie d'une mise en perspective de ce texte avec l'article 9 de la Constitution : quelle signification peut bien avoir le maintien de l'attachement réaffirmé à notre religion catholique comme religion d'Etat si, par ailleurs, on propose des législations qui sont notoirement incompatibles avec des principes que cette religion a toujours qualifiés de « non négociables » ?

La foi catholique n'est pas seulement un corpus de traditions et de rites ;

elle est aussi vie, cohérence de vie, et elle est pour la vie ».

From: NiceMatin.com

URL: http://www.nicematin.com/ra/monaco/180237/monaco-l-eglise-condamne-le-projet-de-loi-sur-l-avortement-therapeutique?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&xtor=RSS-120&

Biography of New U.S. Ambassador to France & Monaco

2009-08-20T07:12:00.001-07:00

Biography of the New U.S. Ambassador to France & Monaco

Charles H. Rivkin

Charles H. Rivkin was nominated the Ambassador of the United States ofAmerica to France on June 1, 2009 by President Obama and was sworn into officeon August 3, 2009.Charles Rivkin recently served as the President and CEO of Wildbrain, anaward-winning entertainment company, from 2005-2009. Prior to joiningWildbrain, Mr. Rivkin worked for the Jim Henson Company. He served as thePresident and Chief Executive Officer from 2000-2003 and as the President andChief Operating Officer from 1995-2000. Mr. Rivkin was the Executive VicePresident and Chief Operating Officer from 1994-1995, Senior Vice President andChief Operating Officer from 1991-1994, Vice President from 1990-1991, andDirector of Planning from 1988-1990. Mr. Rivkin served on the Jim HensonCompany’s Board of Directors from 1990-2005. Other work experiences includeserving as a financial analyst with Salomon Brothers from 1984-1986 andinternships with Renault and Columbia Pictures.

Mr. Rivkin was recently involved with a number of outside organizationsincluding: Member, Pacific Council on International Policy, since 2007; Member,Homeland Security Advisory Council, Business Executives for National Security,2008-2009; Member, Young Presidents’ Organization, 1996-2009; Chairman, Bel-Air, 2004-2005; Director, Save the Children, 1997-2003; Director, Chrysalis-Changing Lives through Jobs, 1996-2002. Mr. Rivkin is the recipient of an awardfrom the British Academy of Film and Television Arts for the Best InternationalChildren’s Television Show and is also a recipient of the Spirit of ChrysalisAward.

Since 1968, Mr. Rivkin and his family have presented the U.S. StateDepartment’s “Rivkin Award,” honoring “intellectual courage and constructivedissent” in the American Foreign Service. Mr. Rivkin received his M.B.A. fromHarvard University and his B.A. in political science with distinction ininternational relations from Yale College.

Juy 2009 Testimony of Ambassador-Designate to France & Monaco, Charles H. Rivkin Before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee

2009-08-20T06:22:00.000-07:00

Testimony of Charles H. Rivkin
Ambassador-Designate to France and Monaco
July 7, 2009
Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee. I‟d also like to thank my Congressman, Henry Waxman, for his kind words.

I‟m very pleased to have with me today my lifelong friend and brother, Robert Rivkin, whom I‟d like to introduce to the Committee. I also want to acknowledge my wife Susan Tolson and my children Elias and Lily Rivkin. Although they are unable to attend this hearing, I wouldn‟t be here without their endless support.

Madam Chairwoman, it is a tremendous honor for me to appear before you today as President Obama‟s nominee to serve as the United States Ambassador to France and Monaco. I am deeply grateful to both President Obama and Secretary Clinton for the trust they have placed in me to serve as Chief of Mission to our oldest friend and ally.

France has always shared our nation‟s core values and has been a tireless champion of democracy, freedom and human rights. Today, our partnership is stronger than ever, and as President Sarkozy recently observed “...never in the history of our two countries have the United States and France been so close to one another on major issues, major questions.” Both our countries understand that when America is united with a strong Europe, no issue is too great for us to solve together. To underscore this resolve, President Obama made a point of visiting France twice during his first five months in office. If confirmed by the United States Senate, I intend to build on the existing, positive momentum between the United States and France and use this unique moment in time to further strengthen and deepen our already strong relationship.

If confirmed, I hope to bring an energy and fresh perspective to one of America‟s most important partnerships. We are at the beginning of a new and historic era in French-American relations that was recently highlighted by France‟s decision to rejoin NATO‟s integrated military command structure after a 43 year absence. Today, France stands by our side and is an indispensable ally on almost every major issue. France is fighting against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda with our troops in Afghanistan and has provided critical financial support for counter-insurgency efforts in Pakistan. As a leader in the EU, France has worked closely with us to advance a two-state solution in the Middle East and continues to play a central role in maintaining coordinated, international pressure on Iran. France is a leading voice on climate change and a strong ally in energy and security matters. Monaco is also a good partner for our country in environmental protection, international development and other important global issues.

As a former CEO with international experience, I‟m pleased to note that over $1.3 billion in commercial transactions take place every day between the United States and France. French subsidiaries in the U.S. provide nearly 500,000 American jobs and the U.S. is the largest foreign investor in France employing over 600,000 French citizens. If confirmed, I will work with the French government to ensure continued free and open trade between our two countries.

I also hope to build on the successful efforts of my predecessors in making public diplomacy one of the top priorities for our mission to France and Monaco. I believe my history and media background have prepared me well to engage Europe‟s young generation of first time voters by helping to create a sense of common values and purpose with the United States. Following Secretary Clinton‟s vision of 21st century statecraft, I hope to engage Europe‟s future leaders through digital technology and „smart power‟ initiatives which will open doors and create new opportunities for dialogue.Finally, if confirmed I would hope to use the skills I‟ve acquired as an MBA and CEO to lead the large and complex embassy operation in Paris. I have spent my career building and managing organizations and look forward to helping maximize the effectiveness of our Mission to France and Monaco.

Members of the Committee, I also want you to know that having the chance to represent our country‟s interests in France would be deeply personal for me. My father, William Rivkin, marched in Patton‟s army and was awarded the French Chevalier-Publique for his role in the liberation of France. He then went on to serve as Chief of Mission in French speaking countries where I lived as a young boy; Luxembourg under President Kennedy and then Senegal and The Gambia under President Johnson. Although my father died while serving his country in 1967, he instilled in me the belief that public service is not only an obligation, but the highest possible honor. I always dreamed of following in his footsteps, but never imagined that I might have the opportunity to serve in a country that I admire as much as France.

When I was a young man, I had the wonderful experience of living with a French family in Rennes while studying at the Institut Franco-Américain and had the chance to explore the countryside in Brittany, Normandy, Burgundy and Franche-Comté during my stay. I worked as a “stagiaire” for Renault in Paris and have taken countless business trips to France over the last twenty years. These experiences have given me a deep appreciation for France as well as the French people and culture.I have always been active in public service, but I am particularly fortunate to have been connected to the U.S. State Department for most of my life through the American Foreign Service Association. My family and I have proudly presented the William R. Rivkin award at the State Department for the last 42 years, honoring mid-level Foreign Service Officers who exhibit “intellectual courage and constructive dissent” in the line of duty. I have had the chance to witness how the brilliant, hard working and often under-appreciated men and women of the U.S. Foreign Service change the world through their tireless efforts on behalf of our country. President Obama once served as a judge for this award, which was founded on the belief that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

Madame Chairwoman and members of the Committee, if confirmed by the United States Senate, I will do everything in my power to strengthen and deepen the ties that have bound France and America together since the birth of our great country. I look forward to this extraordinary challenge and hope to have the chance to serve the United States of America at this important moment in history. Thank you, and I look forward to any questions you might have.

L'Avortement Thérapeutique Devient Légal en Principauté

2009-08-19T12:30:00.000-07:00

From: http://www.monaco.maprincipaute.com/actu/actudet_--L-avortement-therapeutique-devient-legal-en-Principaute-_loc-881925_actu.Htm

L'Avortement Thérapeutique Devient Légal en Principauté
A 21 h 30, hier soir, les conseillers ont légalisé l'avortement thérapeutique. : Photo Marc Mehran
jeudi 02 avril 2009

Les conseillers nationaux de la majorité et de l'opposition ont voté, hier soir, en bloc, pour la dépénalisation de l'interruption médicale de grossesse

La boîte trônait sur le bureau en arc de cercle de l'hémicycle. Une boîte bleue, toute simple, contenant... des préservatifs. Un objet incongru au coeur d'un parlement et pourtant... Cette boîte prenait tout son sens, hier soir, en plein débat sur le projet de loi visant à légaliser l'interruption médicale de grossesse. Laquelle a été validée à l'unanimité peu avant 21 h 30. Sous des applaudissements nourris. Cette boîte de préservatifs, amenée par Jean-François Robillon, conseiller national, de surcroît médecin, sonnait comme un défi. Une boîte pour rappeler, à l'évidence, les propos du pape sur les préservatifs.

Préservatifs dans l'hémicycle
Mais surtout une boîte pour fustiger les propos tenus par Monseigneur Barsi, l'archevêque de Monaco, dans notre édition de mardi. Et Jean-François Robillon de s'élever « contre les bien-pensants dogmatiques ».
Traits graves, verbe soigneusement choisi, l'assemblée a offert hier soir un visage déterminé. Tant dans les rangs de la majorité que de l'opposition. Des élus déterminés à se débarrasser « d'un archaïsme d'un autre temps », selon Anne-Poyard Vatrican. Jusqu'à hier soir, selon la loi monégasque, une femme violée méritait encore dix ans de prison si elle avortait en Principauté.

Il est peu d'écrire que les conseillers nationaux ont été choqués par les propos tenus avant-hier dans notre journal par Monseigneur Barsi. Tous l'ont exprimé. Choqués également par les propos du comité de bioéthique diocésain, dans notre édition d'hier. « Le point de vue de l'église catholique, sur la question de l'avortement, si j'ai du mal à le comprendre, je le respecte », a souligné Catherine Fautrier. « Mais pourquoi attendre la veille du vote du texte pour s'exprimer sur le sujet de manière aussi sévère et provocatrice, sinon pour jeter le trouble une dernière fois ! (...) La réalité, c'est qu'il y a un monde qui évolue et une église catholique qui reste malheureusement en marge de cette évolution, et je le regrette. » Et Catherine Fautrier de souligner : « Personne ne peut se mettre à la place de la femme enceinte confrontée avec son conjoint à un choix douloureux, qu'il soit celui de mettre fin à une grossesse désirée, ou celui d'élever un enfant lourdement affecté et handicapé. »

Peu avant, Stéphane Valeri, président du Conseil national, avait lui aussi évoqué un texte « singulièrement assombri par des expressions de dernière minute ». Le président a ensuite exhorté les conseillers : « Rassurez nos compatriotes sur notre dignité et notre capacité à ne pas tomber dans le piège qui nous est tendu. Nous pouvons être fiers de la méthode qui nous a permis d'arriver à ce texte. Elle répond en tout point à la volonté exprimée par notre prince souverain de mettre en place un groupe de travail en charge d'arriver de manière pondérée et équilibrée à ce résultat. Cette loi n'imposera rien aux femmes, mais leur donnera simplement le droit de choisir. »

Dans les gradins fournis du public, Monseigneur Fabrice Gallo, le curé de Sainte-Dévote, prenait consciencieusement des notes. Le ministre d'Etat, Jean-Paul Proust, avait en préambule souligné « que ces dispositions n'ont pas un objectif moral. Cela relève de la conscience de chacun et j'écoute à ce sujet avec beaucoup de respect le message de notre archevêque qui s'adresse à la conscience de chacun. Notre projet de loi a un objectif plus modeste... Il se contente de supprimer des sanctions pénales infligées par la société à la maman et au médecin dans des situations douloureuses bien précises. »

A 21 h 30, la messe était dite.
Grégory Leclerc
Monaco-Matin

French Article on Church's Protest of Monaco's Effort to Legalize Abortion

2009-08-19T12:09:00.000-07:00

Projet de légalisation de l'IMG a Monaco : l'Eglise proteste
Posté le 31 mars, 2009 - 01:00

Une telle confrontation entre les autorités monégasques et l'Eglise de Monaco n'était pas arrivée en Principauté « depuis le règne d'Albert 1er », explique-t-on à l'archevêché à propos du projet de loi sur l'interruption médicale de grossesse (IMG), que le Conseil national doit voter demain soir en séance publique.

Sur ce sujet éminemment polémique, surtout dans un pays où la religion catholique est religion d'Etat, Mgr Bernard Barsi, archevêque de Monaco a des mots très durs :
« Dans ce projet de loi, c'est surtout un symbole qui semble visé. Mais d'aucuns, ici ou ailleurs, ne supportaient plus cette exception monégasque dont un long travail de sape idéologique avec ses relais médiatiques a pu venir à bout avec le texte qui nous est proposé. »

« Il est navrant qu'à une période de son histoire politique et constitutionnelle où la Principauté de Monaco acquiert une plus grande indépendance et insiste sur sa spécificité culturelle, on choisisse délibérément de s'aligner sur d'autres pays pour y rechercher de prétendus modèles de société. »

« Si bien qu'il est désormais facile de prévoir la suite si ce projet venait à être voté car il est à craindre qu'il ne soit que la première étape d'un processus qui a suivi partout ailleurs le même scénario qui ne fait que commencer. »

« Quand on dit que ce projet ne concerne que les cas extrêmes visés par le texte, on ne dit pas la vérité et on cache la réalité. Tout le reste risque de suivre et le pire est à redouter parce qu'on n'aura de cesse de prétendre mettre Monaco au diapason du minimum de standard éthique. On ne peut pas appeler progrès ce qui constitue une régression dans la considération due à la dignité et à l'intangibilité intrinsèques de l'être humain ».

Un projet de loi contraire à la Constitution ?
« A ce titre, on pourrait s'interroger sur la compatibilité de ce projet de loi avec notre Constitution. Ce texte inspire des réserves quant au respect de la liberté de chacun eu égard aux insuffisances de la clause de conscience telle qu'elle est prévue à l'article 5 II in fine.

Les dispositions générales et particulières de ce même article 5 paraissent faire peu de cas de l'article 20 alinéa 2 de notre Constitution quant au « respect de la personnalité et de la dignité humaine », à l'interdiction de « traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants » au regard du droit de l'enfant à naître.

D'une manière générale, on ne peut pas faire non plus l'économie d'une mise en perspective de ce texte avec l'article 9 de la Constitution : quelle signification peut bien avoir le maintien de l'attachement réaffirmé à notre religion catholique comme religion d'Etat si, par ailleurs, on propose des législations qui sont notoirement incompatibles avec des principes que cette religion a toujours qualifiés de « non négociables » ?

La foi catholique n'est pas seulement un corpus de traditions et de rites ;
elle est aussi vie, cohérence de vie, et elle est pour la vie ».

Source : Nice Matin

See: http://www.avortementivg.com/article-29683255.html

Archbishop Barsi's 2006 Statement Re Monaco's Aborton Vote

2009-08-19T11:56:00.000-07:00

See: http://www.eglise-catholique.mc/quoideneuf/communiqueeveque.htm

COMMUNIQUÉ DE
DE MONSEIGNEUR L’ARCHEVÊQUE
DE MONACO
À PROPOS D'UNE PROPOSITION DE LOI

Une proposition de loi vient d'être déposée devant le Conseil National en vue d'une éventuelle légalisation de certains types d'avortements. Avant même de connaître l'issue de la procédure qui vient de s'ouvrir et des débats contradictoires auxquels elle donnera lieu, je tiens à rappeler quelques principes fondamentaux qui relèvent non pas d'une morale religieuse mais de la loi naturelle elle-même qui s'applique à toute société civilisée moderne :Les progrès de la science nous apprennent que la vie commence dès la conception. Ce que l'on appelle "interruption de grossesse" - quel qu'en soit le motif - reste donc un avortement, c'est-à-dire la suppression d'une vie.Un des fondements premiers des droits de l'homme est l'intégrité de sa personne à tous les stades de sa vie.La loi civile ne peut jamais faire l'économie de la loi morale. Ce n'est pas en légalisant "l'interruption de grossesse pour motif médical ou viol" que l'on aidera vraiment les femmes, les couples et les familles, mais plutôt en les accompagnant, dans nos institutions, par la mise en place de mesures de solidarité concrète.Instruit par l'expérience de tous les autres pays, je crains par ailleurs des excès. Je crains en effet que l'interruption de grossesse pour motif médical n'aboutisse, tôt ou tard, à la libéralisation totale de l'avortement (IVG).Je souhaite qu'avec le courage de la vérité, sans démagogie et dans le respect des convictions de chacun, nous cherchions ensemble à construire un pays modèle où la vie de son commencement à son terme naturel sera toujours respectée.

A Monaco, le 12 octobre 2006† Bernard BARSI
Archevêque de Monaco

Christian Telegraph on Monaco's Decision to Legalize Abortion

2009-08-19T11:03:00.000-07:00

See Original Article Date 4/9/09 on the internet at:
http://www.christiantelegraph.com/issue5454.html

Catholic Monaco Made Decision to Legalize Abortion

The Catholic nation of Monaco, one of the last holdouts against the tide of abortion legalization in the European continent, has approved a new law permitting abortion for "hard cases," including rape, fetal deformity, fetal illness, or danger to the life of the mother, reports Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, LifeSiteNews.com.

The law was passed unanimously by Monaco's National Council, its parliament, in a 26-0 vote, despite the fact that 90% of its population is formally Catholic. The legislation had been in process for five years.
Archbishop Pernard Barsi of Monaco reportedly blasted the measure as being "incompatible" with the constitution of Monaco, which recognizes the Catholic faith as the state religion.

"When they say that the text [of the law] only concerns extreme cases, they are not saying the truth," said Barsi. "There is a risk that all of the rest will follow and the worst is to be feared because they will not stop trying to conform Monaco to the lowest ethical standards."

Members of the council denounced Barsi for his criticisms, claiming they were made at the last minute. However, as LifeSiteNews has reported, Barsi has been denouncing the measure since at least 2006.

Monaco was one of the last three nations in Europe where abortion is illegal. The other two countries are Ireland and Malta.

**A report of Monaco's legalization of abortion was also reported on the "Catholic Family" website of the National Association of Catholic Families in the UK under "International News" at the URL cited below:
http://www.cfnews.org.uk/CF_News_1533.htm#26

Anti-Catholic Article on Monaco's Unconstitutional Liberalized Abortion Law

2009-08-19T10:00:00.000-07:00

ARTICLE REPORTING THE LIBERALIZATION OF MONACO'S LAW ON ABORTION AND SUPPORTING THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL DECISION PROMULGATED BY AN OFFICIAL CATHOLIC COUNTRY

**CENSORED: THE VIEWPOINTS CITED BELOW ARE CONTRARY TO OFFICIAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE ON THE SANCTITY OF LIFE AND ARE NOT IN FIDELITY WITH THE OFFICIAL DOCTRINE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH--THE MONACO INTELLIGENCER IS A CATHOLIC BLOG LOYAL TO THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH OF ROME"

Abortion Law Liberalized in Catholic Monaco
Thu, 06/11/2009 - 11:33 — Wendy
By Anna Wilkowska-Landowska, RH Reality Check, Eastern Europe

Last month, after five years of advocacy, Monaco approved a new law, which legalizes medically necessary abortions. Monaco was one of the last three states in Europe where abortion was illegal. The other two countries are Ireland and Malta.
The law was passed unanimously by the National Council, Monaco's parliament, in a 26-0 vote. This is significant because 90 percent of Monaco's population is formally Catholic. As generally known, the Roman Catholic Church believes that life begins at conception and opposes abortion under all circumstances. However, the modern Catholic position states a medical procedure needed to save the life of the mother, but that may result in the death of the "pre-born child" as a secondary effect, is morally acceptable.

Until now, Monaco has had one of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe. Under Monaco's Criminal Code, there were no stated exceptions to a general prohibition of abortion. Nonetheless, under general criminal law principles of necessity, an abortion could be performed to save the life of a pregnant woman. Any person performing an illegal abortion was subject to one to five years imprisonment and a fine. A woman who induced her own abortion or consented to its being induced was subject to six months to three years imprisonment and a fine. Physicians, surgeons, midwives and pharmacists who performed abortions were liable to harsher penalties including suspension from their profession.

The process of adopting a new bill calling for increased abortion access took years of struggling against religious beliefs. Like many other Catholic Church representatives, Archbishop Pernard Barsi of Monaco said there are a few fundamental principles that come not from religious morality, but from the natural law itself, that applies to all modern civilized societies: Life begins at conception. "What we term ‘interruption of pregnancy,' no matter what the motive is, remains an abortion. One of the most fundamental human rights is the integrity of the person at all stages of life. Civil law must never abridge the moral law," he said.

The Catholic Church in Monaco continuously claimed that permitting deliberate abortion for medical reasons or rape would inevitably lead to abortion on demand, and sooner or later, to the total liberalization of abortion. Barsi was pointing to the progression of laws permitting abortion in countries with no restrictions on the procedure. Instead of focusing on termination of pregnancies, he suggested looking closer at the problems faced by women and families dealing with difficult pregnancies, and called for increased support in society for them. "It's not by legalizing the 'interruption of pregnancies for medical motives or rape' that we will help women, couples and families. We must in fact accompany women by putting in place concrete measures within our institutions to foster solidarity," he said.

The new law permits abortion for "hard cases" including rape, fetal deformity, fetal illness or danger to the life of the mother. Catholic authorities argue that new regulations on termination of pregnancy are "incompatible" with the constitution of Monaco, which recognizes the Catholic faith as the state religion. They fear, for example, that there will be further attempts to conform Monaco to what they consider lowest ethical standards.

Adoption of the new bill on abortion in Monaco should be regarded as an important step on the way to providing sufficient guarantees for women within the area of reproductive rights. The fact that currently there are only two states in Europe where abortion is illegal and therefore totally prohibited, is a genuine proof that societies can change mentality, despite religious constraints that very often constitute serious obstacles when discussing controversial matters, especially abortion. Monaco serves as a perfect example.

**Extracted from: http://www.choiceireland.org/content/abortion-law-liberalized-catholic-monaco

UN Human Rights Council Review of Monaco May 2009

2009-08-19T09:15:00.000-07:00

Human Rights Council Fifth Universal Periodic Review
4 - 15 May 2009
at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland

Live Webcast:
See: http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/archive.asp?go=090504

Includes Periodic Review of Human Rights
in Monaco
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/PAGES/MCSession5.aspx

Human Rights Council – Universal Periodic Review
4 May 2009 (afternoon)
For use of information media; not an official record

The Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review Working Group reviewed the fulfillment of human rights obligations by Monaco this afternoon, during which 28 Council members and observers raised a number of issues pertaining to the human rights situation in the country.

· Presenting the national report of Monaco was FRANCK BIANCHERI, Minister Plenipotentiary, and Counsellor of the Government for Foreign Affairs and for International Economic and Financial Affairs, noted that the Principality of Monaco had become party to a large number of international instruments which covered a wide variety of human rights since becoming a member of the United Nations in 1993. However, the interpretation and involvement of international standards had to be assessed and appreciated given the specificities of the State.

Monaco was a Constitutional Monarchy governed by the Constitution of 17 December 1962. The rule of law was recognized in all national institutions and the separation of powers was also recognized per law. The Judiciary reported directly to the Head of State – the Prince. There were a number of bilateral agreements between the Principality of Monaco and France which did not compromise the integrity or sovereignty of Monaco. There were some 35,000 people living in Monaco and more than 120 nationalities represented. It was noted that there were no reported acts of xenophobia in Monaco. Ironically Monegasques were a minority in Monaco as they only number 7,634 in the country, out of a total population of over 35,000.

As regards gender equality, the law on Family provided equal rights to men and women. Moreover, freedom of expression was guaranteed as were freedom of religion and belief and association, the head of delegation added. The death penalty was not practiced in Monaco and a person in police custody could not be held for more than 24 hours. The right to access to lawyer was guaranteed as was the independence of the judiciary. Furthermore, the Constitution guaranteed the right to work for all in the Principality of Monaco; on a daily basis an average of 45,000 people crossed into Monaco from France and Italy to work. Monegasque citizens had free access to primary and secondary education and there was no discrimination, per law, in terms of access to education. Among other legislative measures enacted was a law on disabilities, allowing equal opportunities for disabled persons in the Principality.

The Principality of Monaco had extended a standing invitation to the Special Procedures of the United Nations, Mr. Biancheri noted. The Monegasque legal system had been supplemented by a number of legal provisions, among them a law on combating money laundering. Other legislative steps had been taken as regards the fight against terrorism which also covered the criminal sanctions for financing acts of terrorism and compensation for victims of terrorism. The Principality of Monaco was committed to combating corruption.

It was recalled that the State recently drafted a report, in December 2008, focusing on efforts to combat money laundering. The Government had also been involved in international cooperation to assist populations who were suffering from poverty and malnutrition and had been responsible for initiating more than 60 projects in Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America. Between now and 2015, the Government was committed to increasing its Overseas Development Aid to 0.7%.

· During the three-hour interactive discussion delegations noted a number of positive achievements of the State under review. These included the accession of the Principality of Monaco to most international human rights instruments; policies to promote gender equality; financial support and programmes aimed at assisting children in armed conflict; the active engagement of Monaco in international discussions on combating violence against children, combating poverty, assisting persons with disabilities and promoting an environment of freedom of expression and association, religion and belief; the establishment of the principle of the independence of the judiciary; the adoption of a law on combating racist acts in 2005; measures taken to combat domestic violence; the recent revisions to the Criminal Code, which guaranteed the rights of persons in police custody, particularly the right of such people to consult a lawyer of their choice; efforts to educate public officials and school children about the principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms; and the recent amendments to civil law which enabled the establishment of associations within the Principality.

· Issues and questions raised by the Working Group, comprised of the 47 members of the Council, and Observers participating in the interactive discussion related to, among other things, the status of establishing a national human rights institution in compliance with the Paris Principles; practical measures being taken to update labour legislation in Monaco; the status of ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; whether Monaco would review domestic laws as regards legal requirements for men and women wishing to acquire Monegasque nationality; the actions being undertaken or envisaged in favour of the most vulnerable and specifically older persons; and how the Government evaluated the initial implementation of legal measures against inciting hatred or violence.
Other issues pertained to specific measures to safeguard the right of the children when they were arrested and held in custody in Monaco’s Maison d’Arret; steps taken to ensure that freedom of expression was protected even with respect to the royal family; plans to adopt a legislation making domestic violence a criminal offence; plans to establish judicial procedures to protect women who were victims of domestic violence; the policy guidelines and institutional mechanisms in place to protect the interests of migrant workers in Monaco; and the latest situation with the legal reforms targeting the repeal of banishment of foreigners.

· A number of delegations also posed specific recommendations. These included: To set up a national human rights institution in compliance with the Paris Principles; to join the International Labour Organization as a member and accede to its relevant conventions; to ratify the Convention on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances; to ensure that the definition of terrorist acts in Monaco was in line with its human rights obligations; to consider ratifying the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court; to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture; and to provide human rights training for State officials, judiciary and law enforcement officials.

Other recommendations included: To ensure that the provision for acquiring nationality be the same for women and men; to accede to the Optional Protocol to Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women; that the system of priorities in the employment sector did not imply discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, religion, language and ethnic and national origin; to consider steps to encourage the participation of women on the Government Council; to ensure that the social security regime should apply to all categories of workers in the State; to share experiences with other countries to prevent assaults and acts of violence based on racial discrimination; and to share best practices on its policies and programmes with respect to women, children, older persons, and persons with disabilities, as well as its educational programmes.

The Principality of Monaco was also encouraged to strengthen policies and programmatic responses to address domestic violence against women; to broaden criminal legislation regarding racist acts by considering racist motivations of criminal offences as an aggravating circumstance at the time of sentencing; to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; to ratify the Convention of the Rights of Migrant Workers and All Members of Their Families; to introduce human rights education, into the national school curricula at all levels, particularly that which focused on combating racism and racial discrimination; to amend privacy legislation to bring it in line with recommendations on video surveillance by the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe; to widen the opportunities for foreign inhabitants to participate actively in political life; and to uphold freedom of expression, including with respect to public denunciations of the royal family.

· Members States taking the floor during the interactive discussion were Brazil, the Netherlands, Italy, France, Mexico, India, Burkina Faso, Slovenia, Azerbaijan, China, Canada, the United Kingdom, Bangladesh, Germany, Argentina, Ukraine and the Philippines.

· Observer States participating in the discussion were Algeria, Sweden, the United States of America, the Republic of Congo, Turkey, Luxembourg, the Holy See, the Czech Republic, San Marino, Morocco and Singapore.

· The 13-person delegation of Monaco consisted of representatives of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Office of the Director for Judicial Services, the Department of Social Affairs and Health, the Department of the Interior and the Permanent Mission of Monaco to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

· The three Council members serving as rapporteurs – troika - for the review of Monaco are Switzerland, China and Uruguay.

· In accordance with its institution-building package, the three documents on which State reviews should be based are information prepared by the State concerned, which could be presented either orally or in writing; information contained in the reports of treaty bodies and Special Procedures, to be compiled in a report by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR); and information provided by other relevant stakeholders to the UPR including non-governmental organizations, national human rights institutions, human rights defenders, academic institutions and research institutes, regional organizations, as well as civil society representatives, also to be summarized by OHCHR in a separate document.

The reports on Monaco can be found here.
· The UPR Working Group is scheduled to adopt the report of Monaco on Wednesday, 6 May.
· When the UPR Working Group continues its work tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. it will review the fulfillment of human rights obligations by Belize.
Additional information on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism can be located at the UPR webpage - http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/UPRMain.aspx.
To access the webcast for the UPR session please visit http://www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/index.asp

US State Dept. 2008 Human Rights Report on Monaco

2009-08-19T08:36:00.000-07:00

Title: 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Monaco
Publisher:United States Department of State
Country: Monaco

Publication Date: 25 February 2009
[Cite as United States Department of State, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Monaco, 25 February 2009, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49a8f16ec.html [accessed 19 August 2009]

2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Monaco
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor February 25, 2009

The Principality of Monaco, with a population of some 35,000, is a constitutional monarchy in which the sovereign prince plays a leading role in governing the country. The prince appoints the four-member government, headed by a minister of state chosen from a list of candidates proposed by France. The other members are the counselor for the interior, the counselor for public works and social affairs, and the counselor for finance and the economy. Legislative power is shared between the prince and the popularly elected 24-member National Council. The most recent National Council election was conducted on February 3 and was considered free and fair. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces.
The government generally respected the human rights of its citizens, and the law and the judiciary provided effective means of dealing with individual instances of abuse. However, citizens did not have the right to change their government.

RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:
a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life
There were no reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings.

b. Disappearance
There were no reports of politically motivated disappearances.

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
The constitution and law prohibit such practices, and there were no reports that officials employed them.
Prison and Detention Center Conditions
Prison conditions generally met international standards. The government permitted visits by human rights monitors.

d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention
The constitution and law prohibit arbitrary arrest and detention, and the government generally observed these prohibitions.

Role of the Police and Security Apparatus
Civilian authorities maintained effective control over the national police force and the Carabiniers du Prince. The government has effective mechanisms to investigate and punish abuse and corruption. There were no reports of impunity involving the security forces during the year.

Arrest and Detention
Arrest warrants are required, except when a suspect is arrested while committing an offense. The police must bring detainees before a judge within 24 hours to be informed of the charges against them and of their rights under the law. Most detainees are released without bail, but the investigating magistrate may order detention on grounds that the suspect might flee or interfere with the investigation of the case. The magistrate may extend the initial two-month detention for additional two-month periods indefinitely. The magistrate may permit family members to see detainees, and it is customary for magistrates to do so.

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial
The constitution and law provide for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected judicial independence in practice. Under the law, the prince delegates his judicial powers to the judiciary.

Trial Procedures
The law provides the right to a fair public trial, and an independent judiciary generally enforced this right. As under French law, in criminal casesa three-judge tribunal considers the evidence collected by the investigating magistrate and hears the arguments made by the prosecuting and defense attorneys. The defendant enjoys a presumption of innocence and the right of appeal. The defendant has the right to be present and the right to counsel, at public expense if necessary. Defendants have the right to question witnesses against them and to present their own witnesses. Defendants and their attorneys have access to government-held evidence relevant to their cases. After prisoners receive a definitive sentence, they are transferred to a French prison to serve out their terms.

Political Prisoners and Detainees
There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.

Civil Judicial Procedures and Remedies
The principality has an independent and impartial judiciary for civil matters, and there is access to a court to bring lawsuits seeking damages for, or cessation of, a human rights violation. Administrative remedies are available for alleged wrongs, and are regularly used by plaintiffs.

f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence
The constitution and law prohibit such actions, and the government generally respected these prohibitions in practice.

2. Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:

a. Freedom of Speech and Press
The constitution and law provide for freedom of speech and of the press, and the government generally respected these rights. The penal code, however, prohibits public denunciations of the ruling family, a provision that the media respected in practice. The independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views without restriction.

Internet Freedom
There were no government restrictions on access to the Internet or reports that the government monitored e-mail or Internet chat rooms. Individuals and groups could engage in the peaceful expression of views via the Internet, including by electronic mail. Internet use is widespread, supported by an advanced and robust telecommunications infrastructure.

Academic Freedom and Cultural Events
There were no government restrictions on academic freedom or cultural events.

b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association
The constitution and law provide for freedom of assembly and association, and the government generally respected these rights in practice. Outdoor meetings require police authorization, but there were no reports that police withheld authorization for political or arbitrary reasons. Formal associations must be registered and authorized by the government, and there were no reports that the government withheld registration for political or arbitrary reasons.

c. Freedom of Religion
The law provides for freedom of religion, and the government generally respected this right in practice. Roman Catholicism is the state religion. The government denies permission to operate to religious organizations found on the French Interministerial Mission for Monitoring and Combating Cultic Deviances (MIVILUDES) "cult" list, but there were no reports of any registration applications being received or denied during the year.

There is no law against proselytizing by religious organizations that are formally registered by the Ministry of State; however, proselytizing was strongly discouraged and no missionaries operated in the principality.

Societal Abuses and Discrimination
There were no reports of societal violence, harassment, or discrimination against members of any religious group. The Jewish community is extremely small, and there were no reports of anti-Semitic acts.
For a more detailed discussion see the 2008 International Religious Freedom Report.

d. Freedom of Movement, Internally Displaced Persons, Protection of Refugees, and Stateless Persons
The law provides for freedom of movement within the country, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation, and the government generally respected these rights in practice. The government was committed to cooperate with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees, asylum seekers, stateless persons, and other persons of concern. All refugees would be screened by France according to standard Schengen procedures before entering the principality.
Residents moved freely across the country's open borders with France. Nationals can lose their citizenship for specified acts, including if another nationality has been voluntarily acquired or if military service was accomplished within a foreign army. Only the prince can grant or restore nationality, but he is obliged by the constitution to consult the Crown Council on each case before doing so. The Crown Council, consisting of seven citizens appointed to serve for a three-year period, meets at least twice a year to deal with the highest state issues.
The law prohibits forced exile, and the government did not employ it.

Protection of Refugees
The law provides for the granting of refugee and asylum status in accordance with the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 protocol. The principality depends on bilateral arrangements with France to provide refugee protection. There were no reported cases of the government granting refugee status or political asylum during the year.

3. Respect for Political Rights: The Right of Citizens to Change Their Government
The sole authority to change the government and to initiate laws rests with the prince. The 1962 Constitution can be revised by common agreement between the prince and the elected National Council.

Elections and Political Participation
As head of state, the prince plays an active role in government. He names the minister of state (in effect, the prime minister) from a list of names proposed by the French government. He also names the three counselors of government (of whom the one responsible for the interior is usually a French national). Together the four constitute the government. The law prohibits public denunciations of the ruling family.
Only the prince may formally initiate legislation, but the 24-member National Council may propose legislation to the government. All legislation and the adoption of the budget require the council's assent. Elections for National Council members are held every five years and are based on universal adult suffrage and secret balloting. National Council elections held on February 3 were considered free and fair. Several political parties exist, operate freely, and are active on both the national and municipal level.
There were six women in the 24-member National Council, and two women in the seven-member Crown Council.
There were no members of minorities in the government.

Government Corruption and Transparency
The law provides criminal penalties for official corruption and the government generally implemented these laws effectively. There were isolated reports of government corruption during the year, but no formal proceedings against government officials for corruption. Public officials are not subject to financial disclosure laws.
The law provides for public access to government information and the government provided access in practice for citizens and noncitizens, including foreign media.

4. Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations of Human Rights
While the government imposed no restrictions on the establishment or operation of local groups devoted to monitoring human rights, no such groups were formed, nor did foreign groups seek to investigate human rights conditions in the country.

5. Discrimination, Societal Abuses, and Trafficking in Persons
The constitution provides that all nationals are equal before the law. It differentiates between rights accorded to nationals, including preference in employment, free education, and assistance to the ill or unemployed, and those accorded to all residents, including inviolability of the home. The law prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, disability, language, or social status, and the government generally enforced it.

Women
Rape, including spousal rape, is a criminal offense. There were no prosecutions during the year.
Reported instances of violence against women were rare. Spousal abuse is prohibited by law, and victims may bring criminal charges against their spouses.
Prostitution is illegal, and overt prostitution was uncommon, although it existed to an extent in a well-hidden form. No data was available as to whether there were any arrests during the year.
Sexual harassment is illegal, and the government effectively enforced the law. There were no reports of sexual harassment during the year.
Although the country has legislated the equality of men and women in the civil code, there is no institution with a mandate to monitor gender inequalities. The law governing transmission of citizenship provides for equality of treatment between men and women who are nationals by birth.
Women were represented fairly well in the professions, but less well in business. While no data were available, observers believed that there was a small – and gradually diminishing – gender pay discrepancy.

Children
The government was committed fully to the protection of children's rights and welfare and had well-funded public education and health care programs.

Trafficking in Persons
The law does not prohibit trafficking in persons; however, there were no reports that persons were trafficked to, from, or within the country.

Persons with Disabilities
There was no reported governmental or societal discrimination against persons with disabilities. The law requires that public buildings provide access for persons with disabilities, and this goal has been largely accomplished.

Other Societal Abuses and Discrimination
There were no reports of violence or discrimination based on sexual orientation or against persons with HIV/AIDS.

6. Worker Rights
a. The Right of Association
By law, workers are free to form and join independent unions of their choice, but fewer than five percent of workers were unionized. Relatively few workers, unionized or nonunionized, resided in the principality. Unions were independent of both the government and political parties.
The constitution and law provide for the right to strike; two strikes at major companies were reported during the year. Government workers, however, may not strike.
b. The Right to Organize and Bargain Collectively
The law provides for the free exercise of union activity, and workers exercised this right in practice. Agreements on working conditions were negotiated between organizations representing employers in a given sector of the economy and the respective union. Collective bargaining is protected by law; however, it is used rarely. Antiunion discrimination is prohibited. Union representatives can be fired only with the agreement of a commission that includes two members from the employers' association and two from the labor movement. Allegations that an employee was fired for union activity may be brought before the labor court, which can order redress, such as the payment of damages with interest.
There are no export processing zones.

c. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor
The constitution and law prohibit forced or compulsory labor, including by children, and there were no reports that such practices occurred.

d. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment
The minimum age for employment is 16 years; those employing children under that age can be punished under criminal law. Special restrictions apply to the hiring, work times, and other conditions of workers 16 to 18 years old. The counselor of government for the interior is responsible for enforcing the child labor laws and regulations, and they were effectively enforced.

e. Acceptable Conditions of Work
The legal minimum wage for full-time work is the French minimum wage, 8.71 euros per hour (approximately $11.80), plus a 5 percent adjustment to compensate for the travel costs of the three-quarters of the workforce that commuted daily from France. The minimum wage provided a decent standard of living for a worker and family. Most workers received more than the minimum.
The legal work week was 39 hours. The government allows companies to reduce the work week to 35 hours if they so choose. Health and safety standards are fixed by law and government decree. These standards were enforced by health and safety committees in the workplace and by the government labor inspector.
Workers have the right to remove themselves from dangerous work situations without jeopardy to their employment, and the authorities effectively enforced this right.