RESOLUTION UNEQUIVOCALLY CONDEMNING TERRORISM APPROVED IN THIRD COMMITTEE

26 November 1997
GA/SHC/3459

RESOLUTION UNEQUIVOCALLY CONDEMNING TERRORISM APPROVED IN THIRD COMMITTEE

26 November 1997


Press Release
GA/SHC/3459


RESOLUTION UNEQUIVOCALLY CONDEMNING TERRORISM APPROVED IN THIRD COMMITTEE

19971126 Texts Also Approved on Nigeria, Human Rights Instruments, Cooperation in Human Rights, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Tenth Crime Congress

The General Assembly would condemn violations of the rights to life, liberty and security and would reiterate its unequivocal condemnation of terrorism, by the terms of one of two draft resolutions approved by recorded vote this morning in the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural). Five draft resolutions were approved without a vote.

By other provisions of the draft resolution on human rights and terrorism, approved by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to none against, with 57 abstentions, the Assembly would call on States to take all necessary and effective measures to prevent, combat and eliminate terrorism. It would also urge the international community to enhance regional and international cooperation for fighting against terrorism and condemn incitement of ethnic hatred, violence and terrorism. (For details of the vote, see Annex II.)

The second draft resolution, approved by a vote of 79 in favour to 15 against, with 56 abstentions, would have the Assembly call upon the Government of Nigeria to ensure urgently the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including by releasing all political prisoners, including those detained in connection with the 1993 presidential elections -- among them Chief M.K.O. Abiola, trade union leaders, human rights advocates and journalists currently detained. The Assembly would also call on the Nigerian Government to improve conditions of detention and guarantee freedom of the press, opinion and association. (See Annex III.)

A draft resolution on the effective implementation of human rights instruments was approved without a vote. By provisions of the text, the Assembly would decide to continue giving priority consideration to the conclusions and recommendations of the meetings of persons chairing human rights treaty bodies, in light of the deliberations of the Commission on Human Rights. The Assembly would also emphasize the need to ensure financing and adequate staff and information resources for the operations of the human rights treat bodies.

Third Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

Before the Committee approved the text, its operative paragraph 21 was approved by a vote of 97 in favour to 4 against (Cuba, Libya, Sudan, Syria), with 41 abstentions (see Annex I).

Approved without a vote was a draft resolution on the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, by which the Assembly would call upon States, intergovernmental organizations and specialized agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations, to carry out dialogue and consultations to enhance understanding, promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

A draft text on human rights in Cambodia, approved without a vote, would have the Assembly express grave concern about the serious violations of human rights during the armed violence of early July 1997 and its aftermath, and would urge the Cambodian Government to bring to justice those responsible for such serious crimes. The Assembly would express grave concern about numerous instances of violations of human rights, including extrajudicial executions, torture, rape, illegal arrest and detention, as detailed in the reports of the Special Representative and his predecessor.

The Assembly would note with deep concern the intensification of armed hostilities and the deterioration of the human rights situation in Afghanistan, by the terms of another draft text approved without a vote. It would express deep concern in particular at the frequency of arbitrary arrests, detentions and summary trials throughout the country, which have resulted in summary executions, and would demand that all Afghan parties fulfil their obligations regarding safety of international personnel.

Also approved without a vote was a draft resolution on preparation for the Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, by which the Assembly would decide that the Tenth Congress should be held in the year 2000.

Statements on the texts were made by: Turkey, Algeria, Luxembourg (on behalf of the European Union), United States, Canada, Australia, Argentina, Norway, Lebanon, Peru, Syria, Mexico, Nigeria, Niger, Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, India, Syria, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Costa Rica, India, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Kenya, Denmark, Norway and the Laos People's Democratic Republic.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. to continue taking action on a number of draft resolutions.

Committee Work Programme

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this morning to consider outstanding draft texts on human rights questions, including implementation of human rights instruments, alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives. It was also expected to take action on drafts concerning crime prevention and criminal justice, and elimination of racism and racial discrimination.

Draft Texts for Action

The draft text on preparations for the Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (document A/C.3/52/L.5) is recommended to the Assembly by the Economic and Social Council for adoption. By its terms, the Assembly would decide that the Tenth Congress should be held in the year 2000 and that the following topics should be included in its provisional agenda: promoting the rule of law and strengthening the criminal justice system; international cooperation in combating transnational crime; new challenges in the twenty-first century; effective crime prevention; keeping pace with new development; offenders and victims; accountability and fairness in the justice process.

The Assembly would also decide that four workshops on the following issues should be held within the framework of the Tenth Congress: combating corruption; crimes related to the computer network; community involvement in crime prevention; and women in the criminal justice system. It would welcome the offer by the Government of South Africa to host the Tenth Congress and requests the Secretary-General to initiate consultations with the Government and to report to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its seventh session. The Assembly would also take note with appreciation that the Austrian Government would be honoured to host the Tenth Congress in Vienna, if consensus could be reached and questions of timing could be resolved.

By the draft text, Member States would be invited to be represented at the Tenth Congress at a high political level, for example, by heads of State, government ministers and attorneys-general. The Assembly would request the Secretary-General to provide the Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Division, as the secretariat of the Tenth Congress, with the necessary resources from the 1998-1999 budget to undertake the preparatory activities, including organizing regional preparatory meetings.

A statement submitted by the Secretary-General (document A/C.3/52/L.43) provides the programme budget implications of the draft resolution on preparations for the Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offender. Should the draft resolution be adopted,

Third Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

additional requirements of $83,700 would arise under section 154 of the proposed programme budget for the 1998-1999 biennium. By operative paragraph 5 of the draft text, resources are requested for the participation of the least developed countries in the regional preparatory meetings for the Tenth Congress.

The statement notes that no provision for the request has been made in the proposed 1998-1999 programme budget. Should it not prove possible to meet the cost from the contingency fund, the implementation of the request would have to be postponed or the activities and output would have to be reprogrammed or modified.

By a draft resolution on measures to combat contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/C.3/52/L.31/Rev.1), the General Assembly would express profound concern at, and unequivocal condemnation of, all forms of racism and racial discrimination, in particular, all racist violence, including related acts of random and indiscriminate violence. It would express the same concern and condemnation for all forms of expression of racism, including propaganda, activities and organizations based on doctrines of superiority, of either one race or group of persons that attempt to justify or promote racism and racial discrimination in any form. The same concern and condemnation would apply to manifestations of intolerance against migrant workers and members of their families, as well as against gypsies, nomads or other vulnerable people.

By the draft, the Assembly would categorically condemn those who misuse some print, audio-visual and electronic media and new communication technologies, including the Internet, in inciting acts of violence motivated by racial hatred. It would call upon all governments and intergovernmental organizations, with the assistance of non-governmental organizations, to supply relevant information to the Special Rapporteur based on situations in various countries and urges all governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur.

The draft is sponsored by the United Republic of Tanzania, on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China.

By a draft resolution on the Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination and the convening of a world conference on the issue (document A/C.3/52/L.38/Rev.1), the Assembly would note with grave concern that despite efforts of the international community, the principal objectives of the two Decades to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination have not been attained and that millions of people remain victims. It would urge the Secretary-General, United Nations bodies, the specialized agencies, all governments and relevant organizations to implement the Programme of Action for the Third Decade, paying particular attention to the situation of indigenous people. It would decide to convene a world conference on racism and racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance no later than the year 2001.

Third Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

The draft resolution is sponsored by Mexico, Turkey and the United Republic of Tanzania.

A statement submitted by the Secretary-General contains the programme budget implications of the draft resolution on the Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination and the convening of a world conference on the issue (document A/C.3/52/L.74). It states that the full cost for servicing the conference and the preparatory process is tentatively estimated at $2.5 million. The additional costs of convening the conference outside Geneva would be the responsibility of the host government. Should the Assembly adopt the draft resolution, no additional appropriation would be required under the proposed 1998-1999 programme budget.

A draft resolution on the implementation of human rights instruments (document A/C.3/52/L.36/Rev.1) would have the Assembly decide to continue giving priority consideration to the conclusions and recommendations of the meetings of persons chairing human rights treaty bodies, in light of the deliberations of the Commission on Human Rights. The Assembly would also emphasize the need to ensure financing and adequate staff and information resources for the operations of the human rights treat bodies and would ask the Secretary-General to provide those resources, ensuring most efficient use of resources, administrative support and access to both technical resources and information. The Assembly would also request the Secretary-General to report on implementation of the resolution, obstacles to its implementation and a detailed explanation of the basis for payment of honorariums to members of the human rights treaty bodies and suggestions to improve coherence in this regard.

The draft is sponsored by Albania, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

By terms of a resolution on human rights and terrorism (document A/C.3/52/L.58), the Assembly would condemn violations of the right to live free from fear and of the right to life, liberty and security. It would reiterate its unequivocal condemnation of the acts, methods and practices of terrorism, and call on States to take all necessary and effective measures to prevent, combat and eliminate it. The Assembly would urge the international community to enhance regional and international cooperation for fighting against terrorism and it condemn incitement of ethnic hatred, violence and terrorism.

The draft would also have the Assembly request the Secretary-General to collect information on terrorism and to possibly establish a voluntary fund for victims of terrorism, including for their rehabilitation and reintegration

Third Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

into society. The Secretary-General would be requested to report on the matter to the Assembly's fifty-fourth session.

The resolution is sponsored by Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Georgia, India, Morocco, Pakistan, Panama, Turkey and Turkmenistan.

A draft sponsored by Colombia on enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (document A/C.3/52/L.67) would have the Assembly call upon States, intergovernmental organizations and specialized agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations, to carry out dialogue and consultations to enhance understanding, promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Assembly would invite the Commission on Human Rights to pursue the matter and continue the process during its fifty-fourth session.

By a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Cambodia (document A/C.3/52/L.68), the Assembly would express grave concern about the serious violations of human rights during the armed violence of early July 1997 and its aftermath. It would urge the Cambodian Government, as a high priority, to investigate thoroughly and impartially and bring to justice those responsible for such serious crimes. The Assembly would express grave concern about numerous instances of violations of human rights, including extrajudicial executions, torture, rape, and illegal arrest and detention, as detailed in the reports of the Special Representative and his predecessor. It would call upon the Cambodian Government to prosecute, in accordance with due process of the law and international standards relating to human rights, all those who have perpetrated human rights violations.

Other terms of the draft text would have the Assembly, noting that national elections are scheduled to be held in May 1998, strongly urge the Cambodian Government to promote and uphold the effective functioning of multi-party democracy, including the right to form political parties, stand for election, take part freely in a representative Government, and allow freedom of expression, as well as the right to information. The Assembly would emphasize the need for the legislative framework for the elections, in accordance with established international standards, to be agreed upon and adopted by the National Assembly, for the security forces to remain neutral during the election campaign, for free and equal access to the electronic and print media, for the individual vote to be confidential, for full cooperation to be given to local and international observers, and for all parties to act in a constructive manner and accept the outcome of the elections.

The Assembly would strongly urge the Cambodian Government to address the problem of corrupt practices and to increase its efforts to create a functioning and impartial system of justice, including convening the Supreme Council of Magistracy, to institute a system to guarantee the essential sustenance of prisoners and to continue its efforts to improve the physical

Third Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

environment of prisons. It would endorse the comments of the Special Representative that the most serious human rights violations in Cambodia in recent history have been committed by the Khmer Rouge and that their crimes, including the taking and killing of hostages, have continued to the present, and would note with concern that no Khmer Rouge leader has been brought to account for his crimes. The Secretary-General would be requested to examine the request by the Cambodian authorities for assistance in responding to past serious violations of Cambodian and international law, including the possibility of the appointment, by the Secretary-General, of a group of experts to evaluate the existing evidence and propose further measures, as a means of bringing about national reconciliation, strengthening democracy and addressing the issue of individual accountability.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Andorra, Australia, Austria, Canada, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Monaco, New Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom and the United States.

By the terms of a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Nigeria (document A/C.3/52/L.70), the Assembly would call upon the Government of Nigeria to ensure urgently the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including by respecting the right to life, by releasing all political prisoners, including those detained in connection with the 1993 presidential elections, among them Chief M.K.O. Abiola, trade union leaders, human rights advocates and journalists currently detained. The observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms would also be ensured by improving conditions of detention and by guaranteeing freedom of the press, freedom of opinion and association and respect for the rights of individuals, including persons belonging to minorities.

The Assembly would also call upon the Government of Nigeria to ensure that all trials are held fairly and promptly and in strict conformity with international human rights standards; take concrete and credible steps to restore democratic government without delay, and to end rule by decree; ensure the independence of the National Human Rights Commission, including in its investigations of human rights abuses; implement fully its interim undertakings to the Secretary-General without further delay and to respond in full to the recommendations of the Secretary-General's mission to Nigeria; implement its obligations under the International Labour Organization Convention No. 87 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize; and cooperate fully with the Commission on Human Rights and its mechanisms.

In addition, the Assembly would welcome the declared commitment by the Government of Nigeria to civilian rule, multi-party democracy and freedom of assembly, press and political activity by 1 October 1998, and recalling in that regard the declaration by the Government of 1 October 1995 which it recently confirmed. It would express its deep concern at, among other things, continuing grave violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in

Third Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

Nigeria, including arbitrary detention, as well as failure to respect due process of law.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and the United States.

By terms of a draft resolution submitted by the Chairman on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan (document A/C.3/52/L.75), the Assembly would note with deep concern the intensification of armed hostilities and the deterioration of the human rights situation in Afghanistan. It would express deep concern, in particular, at the frequency of arbitrary arrests, detentions and summary trials throughout the country, which have resulted in summary executions. It would demand that all Afghan parties fulfil their obligations regarding safety of international personnel and that they cooperate with United Nations and associated bodies and humanitarian organizations. The Assembly would urge all Afghan parties to end discrimination based on gender, to work closely with the United Nations Special Mission to Afghanistan in achieving a political solution to the armed conflict, to provide remedies to victims of grave human rights violations and to respect fully international humanitarian law.

By the draft, the Assembly would express its deep concern at new landmines laid despite demining programmes of the international community and at reports that the Afghan cultural heritage was deteriorating. The Assembly would urge all States to respect the full national unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Afghanistan, would appeal to the international community to give adequate humanitarian assistance to both the people of Afghanistan and to Afghan refugees in neighbouring countries pending voluntary repatriation, and would request Afghan parties to lift restrictions imposed on the international aid community, allowing free transit of food and medical supplies. Finally, the Assembly would urge all Afghan parties to cooperate with the Commission on Human Rights and its Special Rapporteur, and would request the Secretary-General to assist the Special Rapporteur, deciding to keep the situation under consideration at the fifty-third session of the Assembly.

Action on Draft Texts

The Committee Chairman, ALESSANDRO BUSACCA (Italy), said that at the end of the morning's meeting, he intended to give the floor to the representatives who had indicated yesterday they wished to make statements in the exercise of the right of reply.

Third Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on preparations for the Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders (document A/C.3/52/L.5). The Chairman called attention to a statement on the financial implications of the draft contained in document A/C.3/52/L.43).

KATE STARR NEWELL, Committee Secretary, said there would be a new statement on the budget implications of the draft on the Tenth Congress preparations. She then read out the changes to be included in the new text, which indicated that after further review of the activities and related resources proposed for the biennium 1998-1999, the Director of the Centre for International Crime Prevention had concluded that additional requirements of $83,700 arising from the draft on the preparations for the Tenth Crime Congress could be met through redeployment of resources within the overall level of resources already proposed.

As a result, she said, the statement on the financial implications would be revised as follows. In paragraph 5, the second sentence read that the additional requirement would not be able to be met. That sentence would be replaced in the revised draft to read, "Following a detailed review of the activities and related resources proposed for the biennium 1998-1999 under section 14, Crime control, it was considered that the additional requirements of $83,700, for the travel cost of the representatives of the least developed countries, could be met through redeployment of resources within the overall level of resources proposed under that section." In addition, paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 would be deleted.

The draft was then approved without a vote.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on measures to combat contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/C.3/52/L.31/Rev.1).

The representative of the United States said he had tried to get in touch with the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania for an exchange over some points and had not been able to reach him. He asked for a postponement of the action until later in the day.

The representative of Turkey said he was an original co-sponsor of the draft and that fact was omitted in the first draft, as well as in the revision.

The CHAIRMAN said the omission of Turkey as a sponsor on the draft would be corrected. He then said consideration of the texts on racism would be postponed, which included the above draft, as well as a draft on the Third Anti-racism Decade (document A/C.3/52/L.38/Rev.1) and the programme budget implications of the Third Decade (document A/C.3/52/L.74).

Third Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

Next, the Committee took up the draft resolution on the effective implementation of human rights instruments (document A/C.3/52/L.36/Rev.1).

The CHAIRMAN said the draft resolution had no financial implications.

The following were added as co-sponsors: France, Russian Federation, Ukraine, Turkmenistan, Poland, Israel, Nicaragua, Solomon Islands, Monaco and El Salvador.

The representative of Canada made the following revisions to the draft resolution:

A new ninth preambular paragraph was added as follows: "Concerned that lack of adequate resources not impede the effective functioning of the treaty bodies, including in regard to their ability to work in the applicable working languages." That paragraph would be followed by the existing preambular paragraph 9.

In operative paragraph 1, the words "with appreciation" were replaced by the words "submission of". The first line of that paragraph would therefore read as follows: "Welcomes the submission of the report of the persons chairing the human rights treaty bodies....."

In operative paragraph 21, the first line and the first two words in the second line were deleted. The paragraph would now begin with the word "notes". In the second line, the words "to enhance" were replaced by the word "at". The paragraph would now read as follows:

"Notes that efforts continue to be made at coordination and cooperation between the human rights treaty bodies and the special procedures, rapporteurs, representatives, experts and working groups of the Commission on Human Rights and the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, all acting within their respective mandates".

In operative paragraph 5 the word "relevant" was added to the end of the third line. The last line would read as follows: ".... to give the treaty bodies adequate administrative support and better access to technical expertise and relevant information".

The representative of Costa Rica urged Member States to take account of the important changes that had been introduced by the representative of Canada in the interest of reconciling delegations' views, and adopt the resolution by consensus.

The representative of Cuba, speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said he attached great importance to the role of the treaty bodies in monitoring international human rights instruments. Their work was an

Third Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

important tool in the work on promoting human rights. In promoting human rights the international community faced major challenges and the manner in which it worked to overcome them was important. The co-sponsors had tried to impose their own views and had been very inflexible in the consultations.

He expressed concern about the personal views reflected in the draft text, such as the attempts to change the treaty bodies by ad hoc procedures. Such action was just another factor in the policitization of human rights, which would make dialogue among States difficult. He would not join in the consensus on the draft resolution and requested a recorded vote on operative paragraph 21. That paragraph did not take account of the concerns of his delegation. He would vote against that paragraph.

The representative of India said, on a point of order, that he was not aware that the Committee had moved on from general statements to explanations of vote.

The CHAIRMAN said the Committee was still at the stage of general statements on the draft resolution. The representative of India could make a general statement if he wished to do so.

The representative of India, making a general statement, said he valued the treaty bodies as a healthy mechanism in the field of human rights. India had raised a number of issues on the original draft text and the co-sponsors had made an effort to take account of his concerns. However, he still had other concerns, particularly on the issue of trends that might be established with the draft, which he needed to flag at this stage in the interest of the effective functioning of the treaty bodies.

Regarding operative paragraph 21, he said he supported the idea of better coordination and cooperation, but there was a need to look at the different roles of the treaty bodies and the various mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights. It was important to take note of the distinction between the two sets of mechanisms. The treaty bodies comprised experts, whose judgements were based on the international human rights conventions that governed their work. There was also a direct relationship between the State and the treaty bodies. On the other hand, the Commission on Human Rights had a more political and diplomatic role. He warned against the blurring of the two systems by bringing an element of politicization into the work of the treaty bodies.

Regarding operative paragraph 5, he raised the question of information to be provided to the treaty bodies being linked to the administrative and staff support. Stressing that it was important for any State party to present information to the treaty bodies and for any expert to solicit information from States parties, he said in so doing, the centrality of the reporting system should not be compromised. There was a need for caution to ensure that

Third Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

information would not undermine the integrity of the experts and the treaty bodies.

The representative of the United States, making a general statement on the draft resolution, said operative paragraph 21 was a balanced attempt to deal with the issue of coordination and cooperation between the human rights treaty bodies and the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights. There was nothing in the text that would harm the interest of any country or delegation. The United States was not a co-sponsor of the draft. However, such coordination as referred to in the resolution was important. He expected that paragraph 21 would be adopted and that the draft resolution would be adopted by consensus.

The representative of the Netherlands said he expected the resolution to be adopted, as in past years, without a vote. The negotiation process for drafting the resolution had been transparent and the text had been revised to take into account the concerns of a number of delegations. Paragraph 21 had been revised and he, therefore, had difficulty in determining what a delegation could object to in the revised version, which related closely to what had been stated in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. He, therefore, supported the paragraph and wondered if its substance was of a nature to require a vote.

The representative of Nicaragua said he had no objection to increasing coordination and cooperation between treaty bodies and the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights. He would vote in favour of paragraph 21 and in favour of the entire draft.

The representative of Denmark said he appreciated the transparency of the negotiations on the draft text. Operative paragraph 21 was very important. It was important to encourage the cooperation and coordination of the various bodies in the field of human rights in order not to add to the workload of small countries in their reporting to the treaty bodies. It was important to encourage such cooperation to ensure efficient and effective use of human rights machinery. He intended to vote in favour of the draft resolution.

The representative of Cuba, making a general statement on the text, said he had not seen the transparency in the negotiations that had been mentioned. Perhaps it was among those who spoke of it. The draft resolution was prepared late and had been issued late. Other delegations had been invited to participate in consultations only at a late stage. He continued to believe that paragraph 21 had an undesirable element of politicization that would not assist the bodies in question. Therefore, he had called again for a vote on the paragraph.

The representative of Norway said the consultations on the draft text

Third Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

had been very transparent. The text was balanced.

The CHAIRMAN said a recorded vote had been requested on paragraph 21 of the draft resolution.

The representative of Iran, speaking in explanation of vote on paragraph 21, said he wanted to add to India's statement on the paragraph. Since the treaty bodies were legally-based bodies and the Commission on Human Rights was a political and intergovernmental body, cooperation and coordination among them was very important. However, the reference to cooperation and coordination in paragraph 21 was vague. It did not clarify the extent of the cooperation nor the framework of that cooperation. Therefore, he would not vote in favour of paragraph 21.

The representative of Sudan, speaking in explanation of vote on operative paragraph 21, said she would vote against the paragraph because she believed that it was not practical to coordinate the work of the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights and the treaty bodies. Their methods and approaches were different. For example, the special rapporteurs were volunteers and the members of the treaty bodies were experts who were elected. There would be practical difficulties in setting up a framework for cooperation. Although she supported coordination and cooperation in the field of human rights, she would not support operative paragraph 21 of the draft resolution.

The representative of India said he was not against coordination and cooperation among the bodies in question, but it should be more needs-based. He was not satisfied with the language in paragraph 21 and would, therefore, abstain.

Operative paragraph 21 of the draft resolution on the effective implementation of human rights instruments (document A/C.3/52/L.36/Rev.1) was approved, as orally revised, by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to 4 against (Cuba, Libya, Sudan, Syria), with 41 abstentions. (For details of the vote, see Annex I.)

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Syria said he had voted against paragraph 21 because it did not reflect the reality of the reference to such issues in the Vienna Declaration. It was vague and did not take into account the concerns about the type of coordination that should exist between the various bodies. Further, it did not clarify how such coordination would be achieved.

The representative of Yemen said her vote had been recorded as an abstention, but she intended to vote in favour of the paragraph.

The CHAIRMAN announced that the Committee would vote on the entire

Third Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

resolution.

The representative of Sudan said she had joined the consensus on the resolution because of her country's commitment to the international human rights instruments and to fulfilling their obligations under those instruments.

The representative of Cuba said he would not break the consensus on the draft resolution. The vote on the paragraph, however, had been an indicator of how divided were the views on that issue. Member States should take note of those views when they considered the draft resolution or those issues in other forums.

The draft resolution was approved, as orally revised, without a vote.

The representative of Syria said he joined the consensus on the draft resolution in view of its importance and his country's continuous support for the effective implementation of international human rights instruments, despite his opposition to operative paragraph 21.

The representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea said he did not oppose the draft resolution as a whole. He had decided to refrain from putting the draft resolution to a vote, so as not to break the tradition of adopting resolutions on human rights instruments without a vote. His country had withdrawn from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because some parties had been politically provocative towards his country. He had a reservation on, and would not be subject to, operative paragraph 1 of the text. [Operative paragraph 1 reads as follows: "Welcomes the submission of the report of the persons chairing the human rights treaty bodies on their eighth meeting, held at Geneva from 15 to 19 September 1997, and takes note of their conclusions and recommendations."]

* The Committee then took up the draft resolution on human rights and terrorism (document A/C.3/52/L.58).

The CHAIRMAN said the draft resolution had no financial implications. He reminded the Committee that Colombia and the Philippines had been announced as co-sponsors when the draft resolution was introduced.

The representative of Turkey made the following revisions to the draft resolution: Operative paragraph 7 was revised to read as follows: "Requests the Secretary-General to continue to seek the views of Member States on the possible establishment of a voluntary fund for victims of terrorism, as well as ways and means to rehabilitate the victims of terrorism and to reintegrate them into society."

Operative paragraph 8 was revised to read as follows: "Also requests

Third Committee - 14 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

the Secretary-General to seek views of Member States on the implications of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations on the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and submit a report on the subject to the General Assembly at its fifty-fourth session."

He went on to say that the language of the text was not new. He cited a number of similar resolutions on human rights and terrorism that contained similar language. In addition, he said heads of States or governments of the Non-Aligned Movement, in their summit in Cartagena, the summit of heads of States of Ibero-American countries, as well as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries had all defined acts of terrorism as human rights violations. Therefore, the co-sponsors of the draft resolution hoped that the members of the Committee would refrain from contradicting their heads of States or government.

He said he would like to ensure that the Committee understood that the draft resolution did not prejudice the right of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination to take any legitimate action to realize their inalienable right to self-determination, in accordance with the Charter. That position, however, should not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action that would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.

The following cosponsors were added: Republic of Korea, Tajikistan and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

The CHAIRMAN said the draft resolution had no financial implications. He reminded the Committee that in addition to the sponsors listed in the document, Colombia and the Philippines had been announced as co-sponsors when the draft resolution was introduced.

The CHAIRMAN said a recorded vote had been requested by the United States.

The representative of Algeria said she would like to see the draft resolution adopted by consensus. Throughout the consultations on the text, the co-sponsors had accommodated the views of all delegations. It was important to close ranks to deal with the phenomenon of terrorism and strengthen the means of dealing with that scourge. No country was immune to terrorism and an absence of consensus would send the wrong signal. The international community had repeatedly condemned terrorists who attacked the fundamental right -- the right to life. Denouncing the human rights violations of terrorist groups did not mean that the international community was according them any status. She appealed to delegations to support the draft resolution.

The representative of Luxembourg, on behalf of the European Union, said

Third Committee - 15 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

she had some reservations on a number of paragraphs in the draft text. The Union condemned terrorism, but continued to believe that the most appropriate arena for addressing the issue was the Sixth Committee (Legal). Combatting terrorism was a top priority for the Union, but no State could invoke terrorism to justify violations of human rights. The Union intended to abstain in a vote on the draft resolution.

The representative of the United States said he had requested the vote on the resolution. He regretted that he was unable to vote for the draft text. His Government was committed to the efforts by the international community to combat terrorism and was equally committed to promoting and safeguarding human rights around the world. However, in attempting to serve both causes, the proposed resolution served neither well. It was a fundamental view of the United States that terrorism could be more appropriately addressed in the Sixth Committee. That Committee's 1994 Declaration on Terrorism remained the most comprehensive and far-reaching United Nations statement.

He went on to say that terrorists did not respect human rights, but the resolution granted them a measure of the legitimacy they sought when their criminal conduct was equated with that of State actors that violated human rights. In the zeal to denounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism, Member States must be careful not to hamper the effective work of other more appropriate United Nations committees and other bodies. He would, therefore, abstain on the draft resolution.

The draft resolution on human rights and terrorism (A/C.3/52/L.58) was approved, as orally revised, by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to none against, with 57 abstentions (Annex II).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Canada said his country condemned all acts of terrorism. One of the problems of the draft resolution was that it stated that terrorists were responsible for gross violations of human rights. Only governments had international human rights obligations. The draft resolution was a duplication of resolutions adopted by the Sixth Committee and by other forums.

The representative of Australia said it was more appropriate for the issue of terrorism to be taken up in other forums. He had abstained in the vote.

The representative of Argentina said he had abstained in the vote. To accept the view that terrorists violated human rights would accord them international status.

The representative of Norway said the fight against terrorism must be carried out with full respect for human rights. He had abstained in the vote, because he had reservations on parts of the draft resolution. International

Third Committee - 16 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

human rights law applied only to governments and some other parties under specific circumstances. The Sixth Committee was best suited to make a thorough examination of the issue of terrorism.

The representative of Lebanon said he would explain his vote in the General Assembly.

The representative of Peru said that, although voting in favour of the draft resolution, the Peruvian Government did not agree with the interpretation in the draft resolution regarding terrorist acts for the purpose of self-determination.

The representative of Syria said he had abstained, because the resolution had not made reference to a relevant resolution adopted by consensus by the General Assembly in December 1991. He referred to a definition of terrorism that had been previously accepted by all Member States in the Assembly resolution. He expressed concern about countries under the yoke of foreign occupation or under any form of foreign domination.

The representative of Mexico said her Government strongly condemned all acts of terrorism. Her Government was concerned, however, about the linkages in the draft resolution between terrorist acts and human rights and the identification of terrorist acts as violations of human rights, rather than criminal acts. She had, therefore, abstained.

The CHAIRMAN then said that the draft resolution on the right to development (A/C.3/52/L.66/Rev.1) had been postponed to the afternoon.

The representative of Colombia said that a paragraph had been left out of the new version of the draft resolution on the right to development. He read out the following operative paragraph, which would be inserted after operative paragraph 16: "Affirms in the above regard that the inclusion of the Declaration on the Right to Development in the International Bill of Human Rights would be an appropriate means of celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

China and Paraguay were added as co-sponsors.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (document A/C.3/52/L.67)

The CHAIRMAN said the draft resolution had no financial implications.

The representative of Colombia said there had been agreement on the following revisions: The first preambular paragraph had been deleted and revisions were made to the third, fourth and fifth preambular paragraphs. In

Third Committee - 17 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

operative paragraph 1, after "Commission on Human Rights at its", insert "seventieth meeting of the". Following the words "fifty-third session on", insert "18 April 1997" and delete the remainder of the paragraph.

In operative paragraph 2, delete the phrase "as well as non-governmental organizations" and insert "to continue" in its place. Insert the words "and encourages non-governmental organizations to actively contribute in this endeavour" at the end of the paragraph. Operative paragraph 3 is deleted and replaced by "Notes with appreciation the Commission on Human Rights will keep under review the matter to which the Chairman's statement refers."

China, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Mali were added as co-sponsors.

The draft resolution was approved, as orally revised, without a vote.

Next the Committee took up the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Cambodia (document A/C.3/52/L.68).

The CHAIRMAN said the draft resolution had no financial implications. He reminded the Committee that the following had been announced as co-sponsors when the draft resolution was introduced: Costa Rica, Denmark, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Norway.

The following were then added as co-sponsors: Ireland, Finland, Netherlands, Iceland, Portugal, Israel, Germany, France, Belgium, Spain and Romania.

The representative of the Lao People's Democratic Republic said that for the past five years the Committee had considered a resolution on the situation of human rights in Cambodia with the consent of that Government, and the resolution had been adopted without a vote. Based on that understanding, his country had joined in the consensus, but now the situation was quite different.

Following the events of 5 and 6 July in Cambodia, that country's seat had been kept vacant, he continued. As a result, the representative of the present Government had not had the chance to participate in the drafting of the draft resolution on his country and that text did not reflect the present situation of human rights in Cambodia. Rather, it touched only on the negative aspects of the situation. No efforts were being made to refer to the efforts of that Government to improve the situation.

The representative of the current Government of Cambodia should be consulted on the draft resolution, he said. By consulting them and having them involved in that endeavour, his Government would be expected to cooperate in implementing the draft resolution. In that way human rights in the country

Third Committee - 18 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

could be preserved and effectively promoted. He hoped that the co-sponsors would take that into account in their future endeavours.

The CHAIRMAN said that the statement of the Lao People's Democratic Republic was being made at a late stage in the Committee's proceedings. The Committee was about to take action on the draft resolution.

The representative of the Lao People's Democratic Republic said he was making a general statement.

The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

The CHAIRMAN announced that action on the draft proposal on the situation of human rights in Rwanda (document A/C.3/52/L.65) and human rights in the former Yugoslavia (document A/C.3/52/L.69/Rev.1) had been postponed until the afternoon.

The Committee then took up the situation of human rights in Nigeria (document A/C.3/52/L.70). The CHAIRMAN said the draft contained no programme budget implications. A recorded vote was requested.

Ms. NEWELL, the Committee Secretary, read out the following oral revisions that had been made when the draft was introduced: The fifth preambular paragraph was replaced with: "Noting that the Commonwealth has been concerned about the continued existence of a military government and the failure to observe fundamental human rights, and has decided that Nigeria should remain suspended from the Commonwealth."

In operative paragraph 3, after the word "decree", the following phrase was added: "and to permit an observer presence during transition, as recommended by the United Nations fact-finding mission."

The CHAIRMAN reminded the Committee that the Marshall Islands had become a co-sponsor when the draft was introduced.

Speaking before action on the draft text, the representative of Nigeria said the resolution was not based on real facts and it was tendentious, contentious and, in some places, inaccurate. With regard to second preambular paragraph. for example, there was no evidence to indicate Nigeria discriminated on the basis of race or age, so that phrase should be removed. The fifth preambular paragraph implied that the human rights situation in Nigeria was static. In fact, in line with the timetable, elections on the basis of party had been successful and State elections were under way. Operative paragraph 1 should recognize that actions toward the transition had already been taken, as in the establishment of an electoral commission and the registration of both voters and parties.

Third Committee - 19 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

He noted other operative paragraphs that contained statements that, he said, could not be proven, were tendentious, prejudicial, unfair, untrue or unfounded. He also referred to the Secretary-General's note of November 1997, which stated, "I shall also be considering concrete ways in which the United Nations can assist Nigeria to return to democratic rule in accordance with the timetable established."

Finally, he said the reference to the International Labor Organization (ILO) with regard to freedom of association was inappropriate in a resolution designed to facilitate the return of democracy to Nigeria. Nigeria had always complied with the ILO Convention. He concluded by saying he hoped that, even at this late stage, the European community would revisit the draft and modify it in the spirit of objectivity and accommodation. If the above suggestion was not fully taken into account, he called on the Committee to reject the proposal in its entirety.

The representative of Niger said he was anxious to show respect for human rights, but was surprised by the resolution on Nigeria. The co-authors had not recognized the remarkable changes that had taken place for the normalization of democratic life and the return of a civilian government in Nigeria. In the spirit of objectivity regarding human rights, he would have liked to see more attention given to the individual situations of countries. He would vote against the draft.

The resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 79 in favor to 15 against, with 56 abstentions (Annex III).

The representative of Algeria said her vote was incorrectly reflected. She had abstained.

The Committee then took up the situation of human rights in Afghanistan (document A/C.3/52/L.75) and approved it without a vote.

Right of Reply

ENRIQUE PAGUAGA FERNANDEZ (Nicaragua) said he had not wanted to be in the painful situation of having to respond to the absurd and anachronistic statement made by the representative of Cuba, but could not understand the Cuban regime denouncing all those who had chosen democracy. Since the fall of the iron curtain, democracy had been blooming all over the world. Now, the people of Nicaragua were rejecting benighted pseudo-revolutionary statements, such as the one made by the representative of Cuba. The sole aim of their rhetoric was to keep one man in power.

After hearing Cuba's diatribe, he said the world knew who the apologists were; those who still yearned for the past and the evils of imperialism. That kind of regime could not reproach those who had come to power by the ballot

Third Committee - 20 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

box. He paid tribute to the people of Nicaragua who had given their lives to the cause. When the vote on Cuba came before the General Assembly, he would exercise his right.

JULIO RENDON BARNICA (Honduras) said that the representative of Cuba had referred to his country as one of the poorest and that its prisons were shameful. Honduras was a developing country and it was poor, but there was no shame in being poor and it was not synonymous with a lack of freedom or the holding of political prisoners. There was freedom in Honduras. There was none in Cuba. As for poverty, the development index placed Nicaragua well above Cuba. Furthermore, Honduras was not aware of any Hondurans asking Cuba for asylum, but Honduras received requests for asylum, from Cubans. All rights in Honduras were protected by the Government and there were codes governing rights for families and juveniles, while Cuba placed reservations on human rights. He had not intended to make a political statement, but Cuba's forceful statements had forced him to.

AHMET ARDA (Turkey), responding to Syria's explanation after the vote on the resolution regarding human rights in Iraq, said that his country had always been committed to the preservation of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. However, the international community knew why Iraq could not exercise its sovereignty. There was a de facto vacuum in northern Iraq, which made it possible for armed terrorist elements to launch armed attacks into Turkish territory. Until Iraq reestablished its control in the north of its country, his Government would not hesitate to take all appropriate measures to remove the threat directed from northern Iraq.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said it seemed that some were trying to disrupt the Committee's work, which seemed logical since there were those who would deny history. The Samoza apologists received money from Miami and the Nicaraguan people had been forced to endure great hardships. People at the United Nations should deal with facts.

AHMAD AL-HARIRI (Syria) said that the Turkish government intended to stay where it was. Some States were trying to export problems and blame others. The occupation was known to United Nations members. Those were facts that were covered by media.

Mr. RENDON BARNICA (Nicaragua) said that poverty did not mean you could not have human rights. In Cuba, the most dreadful form of prostitution was encouraged by a Government eager to get at imperialist dollars. A certain tyranny had been imported into Nicaragua from Cuba. The Government of Nicaragua, unlike that of Cuba, was a product of election.

Mr. ARDA (Turkey) said that those who lived in glass houses should not cast stones. The terrorist elements to whom he had referred had no difficulty finding sanctuary and support from a country that had made an unfortunate

Third Committee - 21 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

attempt to level unfounded criticism against Turkey. The Turkish government would defend the sanctity of its borders and the safety of its citizens.

MOHAMMED AL-HUMAIMIDI (Iraq) said the representative of Syria had spared him the need to go into detail. He supported everything Syria had said with regard to there being no justification for any State to enter the territory of another under the pretext of combatting terrorism. The argument of Turkey was flimsy. It was a return of "might makes right" and the rule of the jungle. There were Turkish designs on northern Iraq and Turkey was exploiting the situation, under the pretext of a terrorism that was indigenous to Turkey.

Mr. FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said it was not the virulence of adjectives that revealed truth. Nicaragua had suffered and the Government did not say what was being done with terrorist and drug money from Miami. Some people were nostalgic for Samoza, but Cuba had been a model of strength and was not ashamed of its past.

Other Statements

The representative of Papua New Guinea said he wanted to make a change in yesterday's action on human rights in Cuba. He intended to vote no on the resolution, because there had been changes for the better in Cuba.

The representative of Niger said by mistake he had voted in favor of the resolution on Iraq, but had wanted to abstain.

The representative of the Dominican Republic said that in yesterday's vote, he had intended to abstain on the resolution on Cuba.

(annexes follow)

Third Committee - 22 - Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

Third Committee Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

ANNEX I

Vote on International Human Rights Instruments

Operative paragraph 21 (which concerns cooperation between human rights treaty bodies and the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights) of the draft resolution on effective implementation of international human rights instruments (document A/C.3/52/L.36/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to 4 against, with 41 abstentions:

In Favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Cape Verde, 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, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen.

Against: Cuba, Libya, Sudan, Syria.

Abstain: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Suriname, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Benin, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Maldives, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Qatar, Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

(END OF ANNEX I)

23

Third Committee Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

ANNEX II

Vote on Human Rights and Terrorism

The draft resolution on human rights and terrorism (document A/C.3/52/L.58) was approved by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to none against, with 57 abstentions:

In Favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Syria, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Grenada, Madagascar, Maldives, Mongolia, Mozambique, Palau, Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yemen.

24

(END OF ANNEX II)

Third Committee Press Release GA/SHC/3459 48th Meeting (AM) 26 November 1997

ANNEX III

Vote on Human Rights in Nigeria

The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Nigeria (document A/C.3/52/L.70) was approved by a recorded vote of 79 in favour to 15 against, with 56 abstentions:

In favour: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zimbawe.

Against: Benin, China, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Ghana, Iran, Liberia, Libya, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Syria, Togo.

Abstain: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Zambia.

Absent: Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Belize, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Gabon, Grenada, Lesotho, Madagascar, Maldives, Mauritius, Oman, Palau, Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines,

25

Seychelles, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yemen.

* *** *

For information media. Not an official record.