22/11/2002
Press Release
GA/SHC/3730



Fifty-seventh General Assembly

Third Committee

58th Meeting (AM)


IN SERIES OF VOTES, SOCIAL COMMITTEE DEFEATS EFFORTS TO AMEND TEXTS


ON EXTRAJUDICIAL, SUMMARY OR ARBITRARY EXECUTIONS


End of Session Postponed; Action Taken on Proposed

Convention To Protect Rights of People with Disabilities


By a resolution approved this afternoon unanimously by the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, Cultural), the General Assembly would decide that the Ad Hoc Committee considering a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention to Promote and Protect the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities would hold its second meeting, within existing resources, from 16-27 June 2003, at United Nations Headquarters.


The text would also have the Assembly decide to establish a voluntary fund to support the participation on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and experts from developing countries, in particular for the least developed countries, in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee, and invite governments, civil society and the private sector to contribute to that voluntary fund. 


The Committee was to have completed its work today by taking action on two more texts, on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination, as well as on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, but since negotiations on those drafts were said to be continuing, it was stated that delegates would reconvene on Monday, 25 November, to close the session.


Action was taken on two sets of amendments to the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56), the overall text of which had been introduced last Friday.  [For background, see Press Release GA/SHC/3729 of 15 November.]  All the proposed amendments were rejected in a series of paragraph-by-paragraph votes.  Two of the defeated amendments centred on delegations' enduring concern that the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on summary executions should remain within her mandate when carrying out investigations.


Another amendment, which would have modified the reference made to “States in which the death penalty has not been abolished to comply with their obligations under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments…”, was rejected by a vote of 49 in favour to 72 against, with 29 abstentions (See Annex II).  Delegations who opposed that change felt it was necessary to recall to States that recognized the death penalty that they had a duty to respect international instruments.


Delegations also defeated -- by a vote of 44 in favour to 80 against, with 30 abstentions (Annex IV) -– a proposal to remove language from the text on the obligation of governments to ensure protection of the right to life of all persons under their jurisdiction and called on them to investigate relevant practices, including “…killings committed in the name of passion or in the name of honour or killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation, racially motivated violence or for reasons related to their peaceful activities as human rights defenders or journalists”.


The delegations proposing the amendment felt the draft resolution was about executions, not “killings”.  The term “killings” weakened the text, they said, since killings were not carried out by governments but by individuals, and to call upon governments to investigate all killings was “nonsensical”.  Several who opposed the amendment felt it would weaken the overall text, particularly as references to human rights defenders, journalists and racially motivated killings would be deleted.  Still others felt the draft did not go far enough, and that all killings needed to be investigated in order to determine whether extrajudicial executions had been committed.


The Committee meets again on Monday, 25 November, at 10 a.m., when it is expected to complete its work for the session.


Background


The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, Cultural) met this afternoon to take action on remaining draft resolutions on racism and racial discrimination and human rights questions.


Before the Committee there will be a draft resolution on the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (document A/C.3/57/L.34), which would have the Assembly call upon all States resolutely to bring to justice the perpetrators of crimes motivated by racism and xenophobia, and call upon those that have not yet done so to consider including in their legislation, racist and xenophobic motivation as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing.  States would also be called upon to review and revise, where necessary, their immigration laws and policies and practices so that they were free from racial discrimination.


Also before the Committee will be a draft on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1), which would have the Assembly express its dismay that, in a number of countries, impunity continues to prevail and often remains the main cause of continuing occurrences of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.  The Assembly would, therefore, demand that all governments ensure that those practices be brought to an end and that they take effective action to combat and eliminate the phenomenon in all forms.


The Committee also has before it the Secretary-General’s note transmitting the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on a comprehensive and integral international convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities (document A/57/357).  The report highlights the work undertaken by the Ad Hoc Committee at its first meeting, held from 29 July to 9 August at Headquarters.  It details the agenda and organization of work of the meeting and lists the Committee’s officers and documentation.


Also included in the report is a draft resolution on the Ad Hoc Committee on a comprehensive and integral international convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities, recommended for adoption by the Assembly.  That draft would have the Assembly decide that the Ad Hoc Committee should hold, within existing resources, at least one meeting in 2003 of a duration of ten working days, prior to the Assembly’s fifty-eighth session.


The Committee also had before it a text on the organization of work of the Third Committee and draft biennial programme of work of the Committee for 2003-2004 (document A/C.3/57/L.75).


During the Committee's substantive session, it had before it the Report of the Economic and Social Council for 2002 (document A/57/3) and its supplements.  The present report deals with matters calling for action by or brought to the attention of the General Assembly.  It also mentions the special high-level meeting of the Council with the Bretton Woods institutions and the World Trade Organization.  With regard to the high-level segment of the Economic and Social Council, the report focuses on the contribution of human resources development, including in areas of health and education, to the process towards development, as well as the Ministerial declaration of the high-level segment submitted by the President of the Council.  The report covers the coordination and operational activities of Economic and Social Council.

Action Taken


At the outset of its meeting this afternoon, the Committee took note of the notes of the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the United Nations High Commissioner on the human rights situation in Sierra Leone (document A/57/284) and of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/57/290 and Corr.1); and of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967 (document A/57/366 and Add.1); as well as the note of the Secretary-General on the human rights situation of Lebanese detainees in Israel (document A/57/345).


Finally, the Committee took note of the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (document A/57/36) and a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Timor-Leste (document A/57/446).


The Committee had before it a draft resolution on the Ad Hoc Committee to consider proposals on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities (document A/57/357).


The Secretary of the Committee read out the programme budget implications which stated that if the text is approved, the second session of the Ad Hoc Committee would be held from 16-27 June 2003, and expenditures of $90,000 would be required, which would be absorbed to the extent possible.  Should that not prove possible, the necessary funds would be sought in the context of the second performance report of the Assembly's fifty-eighth session.  The Assembly was further requested to clarify the conditions and modalities of the support to be provided to participants from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and experts from developing countries.


The representative of Ecuador elaborated on the work of the Ad Hoc Committee and future activities.


The representative of the United States said his Government supported the resolution; however, it was deeply disappointed with the Secretariat for receiving the programme budget implication so late.  He hoped that any cost would be absorbed by the regular budget and would be dealt with in the Fifth Committee.


The representative of Japan said he supported the substance of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee, but fully shared the opinion of the United States delegation.  On several occasions, budgetary implications had only been received on the day of action.  It was hoped this would not be repeated next year.


The representative of Canada joined its voice to the statements just delivered.  It was strange that a document that had been adopted during the summer with no financial implications now had totally different implications.


The United Kingdom also echoed the disappointment of other delegations concerning the tardiness of the programme budget implications.


The Committee then adopted the draft resolution without a vote.


The Committee then took up the resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1)


Earlier in the week, the representative of Sudan introduced a series of amendments on behalf of the member countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) containing several corrections and amendments to the draft contained in documents A/C.3/57/L.86 and L.87.


At that time, the representative of Egypt supported the introduction of amendments by the Sudan and also presented other amendments contained in document A/C.3/57/L.86.  He said this was a very contentious resolution, and no country had wanted to vote on this issue, since it was very important to stop extrajudicial killings.  His delegation had introduced amendments on preambular paragraph

3, operative paragraph 18 regarding references to the death penalty, and operative paragraph 22.  He hoped that consensus could be reached on this resolution. 


[The amendments contained in document A/C.3/57/L.86 would insert the following text into operative paragraph 18 of the text, following “Calls upon Governments of all States”:  -- “in order to prevent extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions” to replace “in which the death penalty has not been abolished”.]


[The full paragraph would then read “Calls upon Governments of all States, in order to prevent extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions to comply with their obligations under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments, keeping in mind safeguards and guarantees set out in Economic and Social Council resolutions 1984/50 and 1989/64.”]


[Further to those amendments, operative paragraph 22 would read:  “Requests the Special Rapporteur of submit her interim report, within her mandate, to the General Assembly at its fifty-ninth session on the situation worldwide in regard to extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and her recommendations for more effective action to combat that phenomenon.”]


The representative of Sudan said amendments contained in document A/C.3/57/L.87 included Sudan's concerns about the language contained in operative paragraph 6 of the text, which reaffirms the obligations of governments to ensure the protection of the right to life of all persons under their jurisdiction and calls on governments concerned to investigate promptly and thoroughly all cases of killings committed in the name of passion or in the name of honour; all killings committed for any discriminatory reasons, including sexual orientation; racially motivated violence leading to the death of the victim; killing of persons for reasons related to their peaceful activities as human rights defenders or as journalists; as well as other cases where a person's right to life has been violated and to bring those responsible to justice…”


The representative of Sudan said that as it stood, the language focused on “killings” rather that on arbitrary or summary executions, and would delete references to “killings committed in the name of passion or in the name of honour, all killings committed for any discriminatory reasons, including sexual orientation, racially motivated violence leading to the death of the victim, killing of persons for reasons related to their peaceful activities as human rights defenders or as journalists” and replace them with “extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions”.  The representative said that focusing on “killings” committed by individuals would dilute the overall text, particularly as it was targeted toward State action. 


The representative of Finland, the draft's main sponsor, updated the Committee on the negotiations, noting that several of the recommendations of delegations had been included in the revised text.  Still, he regretted that the consultations had not been enough and that a vote would have to be taken on the amendments. 


The representative of Egypt said that it was not his delegation that had opened agreed language to negotiation, but rather the co-sponsors of the original draft.


A recorded vote was requested on each element of the amendments.


Before a  ction was taken on the first proposal contained in paragraph 1 of document A/C.3/57/L.86, which would delete from the third preambular paragraph of the draft the words “and resolutions on the subject by the Commission on Human Rights, and taking note of its latest resolution 2002/36 of 22 April 2002”, several delegations took the floor to make general statements.


The representative of the Czech Republic called on delegations to seriously consider the proposals contained in the amendment, particularly that concerning the death penalty and the need to distinguish extrajudicial executions from non-legal executions, so that safeguards could be adhered to.  Perhaps the Committee could seek to further clarify the language next year.


The representative of Pakistan reiterated his country's full support for eliminating extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, including the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.  That mandate was very clear.  He said that reference to resolution 2002/36 of the Commission on Human Rights should be deleted.


The representative of Norway opposed the amendment.


The representative of Saudi Arabia said his delegations condemned arbitrary executions and supported the draft.  He said however that the text did not need to contain mention of the death penalty because that was a legal punishment.


The representative of Finland said that everyone was aware that the General Assembly had one view of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Commission on Human Rights had another, so perhaps the draft should take note of the Commission's lasted ruling on the matter.


The representative of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said her delegation had supported the original draft and its revised version.  The European Union would stress that it attached great importance to combating summary and arbitrary executions.  Still, the European Union was aware of the concerns expressed by some countries to several of the elements of the resolution and had worked to achieve consensus.  But, while her delegation would vote in favour of the resolution as a whole, it would vote against all amendments.


The representative of Canada said his delegation regretted that consensus had been broken and that a vote was being taken on the draft.  Moreover, Canada questioned the reason for the current amendments.  All delegations should at least be able to take note of the most recent relevant resolution of the Commission on Human Rights, he said of the first proposal to remove that language contained in document L.86. 


As for the other proposals, he did not understand how States could seek the removal or deletion of language which had already been agreed to in other forums.  Regarding disagreements over the mention of mandate of the Special Rapporteur, he wondered how delegations could object to such references in one part of the amendment, when they had no problem with them in other parts of the text.   


The representatives of Egypt, Malaysia and Botswana, intervened on points of order.


       The representative of Suriname said her delegation would not participate in action on the amendment.


The proposal to delete the reference was rejected by a vote of 35 in favour to 79 against, with 38 abstentions (See Annex I).


Following the vote, the representative of Nepal said his delegation had abstained.


The Committee then took up the second proposal contained in document

L.86, which would insert the following text into operative paragraph 18 of the text, following “Calls upon governments of all States”: -- “in order to prevent extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions” to replace “in which the death penalty has not been abolished.”


Before action was taken, the representative of Malaysia said that the elements of the draft should apply equally to all countries.


The representative of the Czech Republic said the Czech Republic could not accept the amendment L.86 and would vote against it. 


The representative of Sudan said the amendment in L.86 would make the resolution as a whole more inclusive.  It was important to call upon all countries, whether they had abolished the death penalty or not, to ensure that there were no summary, arbitrary or extrajudicial killings. 


In explaining his vote on amendment L.86, paragraph 18, the representative of Lebanon said that if the amendment was not accepted it would seem that countries without the death penalty were immune to extrajudicial killings.  Lebanon had not yet abolished the death penalty, and that decision must be left to governments.


The representative of Iceland said that her delegation opposed the language in the amendment since it went against language agreed upon two years ago.  The aim was not to pass a judgement of the death penalty, but to make sure that international obligations were complied with through these safeguards. 


The representative of New Zealand said he was surprised that delegations wished to amend language already agreed upon two years ago.  It was a matter of logic that States who had the death penalty had to follow international obligations or safeguards.  States that did not apply the death penalty could not follow the same safeguards since they did not apply the death penalty to begin with.  This was not a matter of judgement, but of pure logic.  He reiterated that this amendment changed previously agreed language without any justification.


The representative of Finland said agreed language was being questioned by a small group of countries.  Countries were simply being told to comply with international obligations, there was no judgement of the death penalty.  He added that in several other paragraphs of L.56 Rev.1 all governments were called upon to apply to international obligations in other fields.


The representative of Switzerland said that paragraph 18 of L.56 Rev.1 had been adopted by consensus two years ago.  This paragraph did not enter into a debate about the death penalty or finger-pointing.  The point of the paragraph was the compliance with the relevant international obligations and relevant safeguards.  Switzerland would vote against the amendment. 


The representative of Indonesia said that the paragraph in question was in the spirit of the resolution -- that governments were against extrajudicial killings.  He added that voting in favour of the amendment would send a strong message.  Therefore, Indonesia would vote against the amendment.


The amendment of paragraph 18 of L.56 Rev.1, as contained in paragraph 2 of document A/C.3/57/L.86, was rejected in a vote of 72 against to 49 in favour, with 29 abstentions (Annex II).


After the vote, the representative of Myanmar said had she been present in the room, she would have voted in favour. 


The Committee then took up the third proposal contained in the proposed amendment (document L.86) which would, after the words “to submit an interim report”, insert the words “within her mandate” in operative paragraph 22 of the document A/C.3/57/L.56.


The representative of Egypt said that in drafting this amendment, it had been his intention to ensure that the Special Rapporteur had carried out her duties strictly within her mandate.


The representative of the United States said the mandate of the Special Rapporteur did not include the abolition of the death penalty or a system of capital punishment that was carried out within judicial safeguards.


The representative of Pakistan said he was surprised that delegations had objected to inserting the language, since similar references to the Rapporteur's mandate had been mentioned elsewhere in the draft. 


The representative of Finland, in explanation of vote before the vote, said his delegation did not see the need for such an inclusion since the mandate had been addressed in other paragraphs of the main draft.  To the United States, he said that indeed the Rapporteur's mandate had requested that she continue to examine existing international standards and safeguards concerning capital punishment.


The third proposal contained in document A/C.3/57/L.86 was defeated by a recorded vote of 64 in favour to 67 against, with 22 abstentions (See Annex III).


The Committee then turned to the proposed amendments to draft resolution, contained in document A/C.3/57/L.87.  These concerned operative paragraphs

6, 11, and 12 a, b, c, d, e, f, and g of the draft (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1). 


In a general statement, the representative of Pakistan said he wanted to associate himself with the amendments, and drew the attention of the Committee to the long list of crimes committed against women, such as the killing of women in the name of honour.  There were separate mechanisms and separate Special Rapporteurs dealing with these matters, he said.  There was really no need to mention such crimes in draft resolution L.56/Rev.1 since they were already explicitly mentioned in other resolutions. 


The representative of Lebanon said he opposed operative paragraph 6 of draft resolution L.56 Rev.1.  The draft resolution was about executions, not killings.  The term “killings” weakened the resolution since killings were not carried out by governments but individuals.  To call upon governments to investigate all killings was nonsensical. 


The representative of Malaysia said his delegation associated itself with the amendments and the statement made by Lebanon.


The representative of Egypt said the co-sponsors of L.56 had amended agreed language, and he asked for clarifications.


The representative of Saudi Arabia said he supported the proposed amendments.


Before the vote, the representative of Finland said he regretted that these amendments lacked strength.  They did not mention racially motivated killings, or killings of human rights defenders.  With regard to honour killings, he stressed that the right to life of women was within the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.  All killings needed to be investigated, he said, including killings of people of different sexual orientation.  Finland would vote against the amendment. 


The representative of Canada said he regretted that a consensus had not been possible.  The operative paragraph called upon all States to investigate all killings, regardless of their nature.  If the amendment was accepted, the references to human rights defenders, journalists and racially motivated killings would be deleted.  Therefore he urged delegations to vote against the amendment.


The representative of New Zealand said that operative paragraph 6 did not pass any social judgements, but simply called upon all governments to investigate all killings.  If killings were not investigated, governments would secretly condone them.  States must not silently condone killings, he said, and New Zealand would therefore vote against the amendment.  


The representative of Iceland said that in the amendment, the reference to killings of armed groups or paramilitary groups had been deleted.  Iceland would very much like to see this reference as part of the draft resolution.  All killings needed to be investigated in order to determine whether extrajudicial executions had been committed, she said.  Iceland would be voting against the amendment. 


The amendment proposed to paragraph 6 of A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1 was rejected by a vote of 80 against to 44 in favour, with 30 abstentions (See Annex IV).   

The representative of Sudan drew the Committee's attention to the second proposal contained in the amendment (document K/C.3/57/L.87) which would add to operative paragraph 11 of the main resolution (which takes note of the interim report of the Special Rapporteur to the General Assembly) the words “while being mindful that reports should remain within the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.”


The representative of Lebanon said that while the right to life was indeed sacred for all, the problem with the interim report of the Special Rapporteur was that it exceeded the bounds of her mandate.  Further, it included an entire section on sexual orientation and sexual minorities which might be considered an implicit endorsement of a particular category over another.  After all, what were sexual minorities?  Lebanon was concerned about using language haphazardly.  He said that some countries had reservations, due to religious or cultural reasons, about such references.


The representative of Iran, associating his statement with that of Lebanon and that made on behalf of the OIC, said his delegation was not prepared to accept the language of the draft as it stood.  The report of the Rapporteur contained many flaws.


In explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Finland said his delegation regretted that a vote had to be taken on this matter.  When the Interim report had been introduced, many delegations had praised the work done by the Rapporteur.  Instead of criticizing the Rapporteur, delegations should perhaps pay close attention to her findings.


The representative of Norway said that her delegation would vote against the proposal.


The second proposal contained in document A/C.3/57 was rejected by a vote of 55 in favor to 69 against, with 32 abstentions.  (See Annex V)


Continuing its action on the amendments contained in document A/C.3/57/L.87, the Committee turned to paragraph 3, relating to operative paragraph 12 of the original draft (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1). 


In a general statement, the representative of Pakistan said that if one had to pinpoint the most contentious issue in the draft resolution, it was the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, which many delegations felt, had been exceeded.  It was important that the Third Committee make a categorical statement as to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. 


The representative of Malaysia said he wished to reiterate the importance of this amendment since it would list the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, and the guidelines that States had set out for her.  This would enhance and strengthen the resolution.


In an explanation before the vote, the representative of Finland said that he would vote against the amendment since it was based on incorrect references. 


The proposed amendment was rejected with 73 votes against to 52 in favour, with 28 abstentions (See Annex VI).


(annexes follow)


ANNEX I


Vote on Paragraph 1 of Amendment to Draft on Extrajudicial Executions


The Committee failed to approve paragraph 1 of the amendment (document A/C.3/57/L.80) to the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 35 in favour to 79 against, with 38 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.


Abstaining:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Dominica, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Zimbabwe.


Absent:  Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zambia.


(END OF ANNEX I)


ANNEX II


Vote on Paragraph 2 of Amendment to Draft on Extrajudicial Executions


The Committee failed to approve paragraph 2 of the amendment (document A/C.3/57/L.86) to the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 49 in favour to

72 against, with 29 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Algeria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States, Yemen.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.


Abstaining:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belarus, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Dominica, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, India, Israel, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Absent:  Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.


(END OF ANNEX II)


ANNEX III


Vote On Paragraph 3 of Amendment to Draft on Extrajudicial Executions


The Committee failed to adopt paragraph 3 of the amendment (document A/C.3/57/L.86) to the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.50/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 64 in favour to

67 against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Algeria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.


Abstaining:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Fiji, Ghana, Grenada, Israel, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, South Africa, Sri Lanka.


Absent:  Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.


(END OF ANNEX III)


ANNEX IV


Vote on Paragraph 1 of Amendment in Document L.87 to Draft on Extrajudicial Executions


The Committee failed to approve paragraph 1 of the amendment (document A/C.3/57/L.87) to the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 44 in favour to

80 against, with 30 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.


Abstaining:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Congo, Dominica, Eritrea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Israel, Jamaica, Madagascar, Malawi, Namibia, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Saint Lucia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Absent:  Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.


(END OF ANNEX IV)


ANNEX V


Vote on Paragraph 2 of Amendment in Document L.87 to Draft on Extrajudicial Executions


The Committee failed to approve paragraph 2 of the amendment (document A/C.3/57/L.87) to the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 55 in favour to

69 against, with 32 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States, Yemen, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.


Abstaining:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Haiti, Israel, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia.


Absent:  Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.


(END OF ANNEX V)


ANNEX VI


Vote On Paragraph 3 of Amendment in Document L.87 to Draft on Extrajudicial Executions


The Committee failed to approve paragraph 3 of the amendment (document A/C.3/57/L.87) to the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 57 in favour to

73 against, with 28 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Algeria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.


Abstaining:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Congo, Dominica, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Kazakhstan, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Absent:  Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.


* *** *