THIRD COMMITTEE WINDS UP WORK FOR CURRENT SESSION WITH CALL FOR RESPECT FOR HUMANITARIAN LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS

10 November 2000
GA/SHC/3624

THIRD COMMITTEE WINDS UP WORK FOR CURRENT SESSION WITH CALL FOR RESPECT FOR HUMANITARIAN LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS

10 November 2000

Press ReleaseGA/SHC/3624

THIRD COMMITTEE WINDS UP WORK FOR CURRENT SESSION WITH CALL FOR RESPECT FOR HUMANITARIAN LAW, HUMAN RIGHTS

20001110

Adopts 13 Draft Resolutions, Three on Human Rights in Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Sudan

Stressing the importance of preserving diversity, the Assembly will affirm principles for equal opportunity in pursuing a democratic and equitable international order. It will do that by the terms of one of three resolutions on promoting human rights that the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) approved this afternoon, two by recorded vote. In all, the Committee approved four resolutions by recorded vote out of a total of 15 approved, as the Committee concluded the present consideration of its work programme. Also approved were 18 draft decisions concerning reports.

The draft on promoting a democratic and equitable international order was approved by a recorded vote of 91 in favour to 50 against, with 13 abstentions. (Annex III) By it, the Assembly will affirm such rights as the right to development, peace, representation and participation in an international information and communication order based on greater information flow to and from developing countries. The Assembly will reaffirm that the international community should devise ways and means to remove obstacles to realizing human rights.

A draft on the new international humanitarian order will have the Assembly urge all actors to support the Secretary-General's initiatives for promoting compliance with international humanitarian laws in situations of armed conflict and complex emergencies. A draft on respect for the Charter with regard to promoting human rights was approved by a recorded vote of 78 in favour to 51 against, with 21 abstentions. (Annex II) According to its terms, the Assembly will stress the vital role of the United Nations and regional arrangements in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and in solving international problems of humanitarian character.

Also this afternoon, the Committee approved without vote three resolutions related to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), although operative paragraph 20 of a resolution on the Office itself was approved by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to none against, with 30 abstentions. (Annex I) The paragraph calling for the vote refers to a disputed definition of

Third Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/SHC/3624 55th & 56th Meetings (PM) 10 November 200

the protection of internally displaced persons. Delegations expressed disappointment at breaking a precedent with a vote on any aspect of the resolution.

The two related resolutions concerned the pledging conference of the UNHCR and the fiftieth anniversary of the UNHCR Office. By that resolution, the Assembly will decide that 20 June would be commemorated as World Refugee Day.

By a resolution on assisting refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa, the Assembly will note with concern the increased numbers of such persons, due to a declining socio-economic situation compounded by political instability, internal strife, human rights violations and natural disasters. The Assembly will express particular concern over the impact of large-scale refugee populations on asylum countries. It will call on States to pre-empt internal displacement, urging the international community to generously fund UNHCR's programmes for Africa.

Approved without vote was a draft on eliminating all forms of religious intolerance, by which the Assembly will urge States to ensure that their constitutional and legal systems provide guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including by providing for effective remedies in instances of violations. A resolution on enforced or involuntary disappearances, also approved without vote, will have the Assembly urge States to ensure constitutional and legal guarantees for freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including by providing for effective remedies in instances of violation.

Finally, the Committee approved four drafts on regional human rights situations. The text on human rights in parts of South-eastern Europe was approved without vote. It will have the Assembly call for implementing the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the annexes thereto.

By a resolution on human rights in the Sudan, the Assembly will welcome progressive steps, but will also express deep concern over such developments as the breakdown of the ceasefire in June, the upsurge of armed confrontations, and acts of intimidation and harassment against the civilian population. That resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 75 in favour to 30 against, with 45 abstaining. (Annex V)

A draft on human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was approved by a recorded vote of 94 in favour to 4 against, (Rwanda, Sudan, Syria, Uganda), with 55 abstaining. (Annex IV) That draft also welcomed improvements, but expressed concern at the adverse impact of conflict throughout the country, the continued violations of the Lusaka Agreement and the preoccupying situation of human rights. The Assembly will urge all parties in the conflict to implement the provisions of the Lusaka Agreement and to facilitate re-establishment of the Government's authority, as agreed in the Inter-Congolese political negotiations of the Agreement.

Third Committee - 1b - Press Release GA/SHC/3624 55th & 56th Meetings (PM) 10 November 200

A draft on the situation of human rights in Haiti was adopted without vote. By its terms, the Assembly will stress the need for the Haitian National Police to improve its performance through measures such as technical assistance, training and education. It will also ask governments to assist Haiti in fighting impunity and facilitating reconciliation. The Assembly will invite the international community, including the Bretton Woods institutions, to continue their involvement in the reconstruction and development of Haiti.

The Committee approved its organization of work and its biennial programme of work for 2001-2002.

The Committee also decided to recommend that the Assembly take note of 18 reports. Four of those related to refugees. They included the report of the High Commissioner for Refugees, and reports of the Secretary-General on a new humanitarian order, on the situation of refugees and others displaced in Africa, and on the regional conference addressing problems of refugees in the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Five other reports recommended for noting by the Assembly included the Economic and Social Council's report and a note by the Secretariat on human rights and unilateral coercive measures. Also included were reports by the Secretary- General on protecting migrants and on the right to development, as well as a report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to development.

The Committee recommended that the Assembly take note of reports on the situation of human rights in Rwanda, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in Burundi, and in southern Lebanon and Western Bekaa.

Finally, the Committee recommended that the Assembly take note of reports on the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture; the status of the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund on Contemporary Forms of Slavery; the status of the Convention against Genocide; status of the Convention against Torture; and enhancing the long-term effectiveness of the United Nations human rights treaty- monitoring system.

Speaking this afternoon were the representatives of Egypt, France (on behalf of the European Union), Pakistan, India, Sudan, United States, Algeria, Canada, Ghana, Singapore, Dominican Republic, Burundi, Tunisia, China, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Lesotho, Mali, Honduras, Libya, Cuba, Thailand, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Russian Federation, Croatia, Venezuela, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Uganda, Bangladesh, Haiti, Lithuania, Lebanon and South Africa.

Making closing remarks were the representatives of France (on behalf of the European Union), Nigeria (on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China), Brazil (on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean States), Guyana (on behalf of the Caribbean Community), Australia (on behalf of Japan, United States,

Third Committee - 1c - Press Release GA/SHC/3624 55th & 56th Meetings (PM) 10 November 200

Canada, Australia and New Zealand), Mauritania (on behalf of the African Group), Libya (on behalf of the Arab Group), Swaziland (on behalf of the Southern African Development Community), Kyrgyzstan, Benin, Algeria, New Zealand, Canada, Cuba and the United Kingdom.

Also addressing the Committee was the Chief of the Documentation Programming and Monitoring Unit of the Department of General Assembly Affairs and Conference Services.

The Committee will meet again at a time to be announced in the Journal.

Third Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/SHC/3624 55th & 56th Meetings (PM) 10 November 2000

Committee Work Programme

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this afternoon to conclude its consideration of draft resolutions on a range of issues within its mandate.

Resolutions

By a draft on the new international humanitarian order (document A/C.3/55/L.66), the Assembly would urge governments, organizations and non-State actors to support the Secretary-General's initiatives for promoting compliance with international humanitarian laws in situations of armed conflict and complex emergencies. It would invite the Independent Bureau for Humanitarian Issues to further strengthen its activities, including cooperation with the United Nations system, and would ask the Secretary-General to report on progress at the Assembly’s fifty-seventh session.

The Assembly would stress the importance of international solidarity, burden-sharing and cooperation in reinforcing protection of refugees by a draft on the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/55/L.67). The Assembly would also condemn acts threatening the security and well-being of refugees and asylum-seekers, urging States to uphold the civilian and humanitarian character of refugee camps and settlements. States as well as organizations would also be urged to support the High Commissioner's search for durable solutions and to explore capacity-building initiatives as part of a comprehensive approach to addressing refugee issues. In addition, States and other parties would be urged to observe principles of human rights and refugee law of particular relevance to children and adolescents, even as the Assembly underscored the particular role of elderly refugees within the refugee family.

A resolution on the pledging conference of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/55/L.68) would have the Assembly note that it had endorsed the presentation of a unified annual programme budget of the High Commissioner's Office. It would further note that financial requirements for the Office were presented in the Global Appeal issued each November/December in Geneva. The Assembly would then decide to improve and rationalize the funding mechanism beyond adoption of the annual programme.

The Assembly would pay tribute to the dedication of humanitarian workers by a draft on the fiftieth anniversary of the UNHCR Office and World Refugee Day (document A/C.3/55/L.69). The Assembly would also note that the Organization of African Unity (OAU) had agreed to have international Refugee Day coincide with Africa Refugee Day on 20 June. It would, therefore, decide that the date of 20 June would be commemorated as World Refugee Day.

By a resolution on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa (document A/C.3/55/L.70), the Assembly would note with concern that the declining socio-economic situation, compounded by political instability, internal strife, human rights violations and natural disasters, had led to increased numbers of refugees and displaced persons in some African countries. The Assembly would express particular concern about the impact of large-scale refugee populations on the security and conditions of asylum countries, and by instances jeopardizing the fundamental principle of asylum, such as by unlawful expulsion. The Assembly would deplore injuries, death and other forms of violence sustained by the High Commissioner's staff, and would urge States and other actors to protect activities related to humanitarian assistance. Expressing grave concern about the plight of internally displaced persons in Africa and calling on States to pre-empt internal displacement, the Assembly would urge the international community to generously fund the Office of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) programmes, with an eye towards turning a fair and equitable portion of resources to refugees in Africa.

By a draft on eliminating all forms of religious intolerance (document A/C.3/55/L.41), the Assembly would urge States to ensure that their constitutional and legal systems provided guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including by providing for effective remedies in instances of violation. The Assembly would also urge that no one within a State's jurisdiction be deprived of those rights, further urging States to take actions preventing such deprivations. All States would be urged to combat intolerance and acts of violence, as well as to educate public officials against discrimination based on religion or belief. The Assembly would emphasize that restrictions on the right to manifest beliefs should be proscribed only to protect the public welfare, and would express grave concern at any attack upon religious places, sites and shrines. Finally, it would request a number of coordinating steps from the United Nations system, deciding to keep the question under review.

A draft on respect for the purposes and principles of the Charter with regard to promoting human rights (document A/C.3/55/L.47/Rev.1) would have the Assembly stress the vital role of the United Nations and regional arrangements in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights, and in solving international problems of humanitarian character. It would reaffirm that no State or group of States had the right to intervene in the affairs of another State, and that armed interference or threat was in violation of international law. The Assembly would call on States to cooperate in the search for peaceful solutions to international problems of humanitarian character, and to comply with principles and norms of international law.

By a resolution on enforced or involuntary disappearances (document A/C.3/55/L.52), the Assembly would urge all governments to take legislative or other steps to prevent and suppress the practice of enforced disappearances, in keeping with the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances. It would also urge them to take national and regional steps towards that end in cooperation with the United Nations, including through technical assistance. Further, they would be urged to protect the families of disappeared persons against intimidation or ill treatment. The Assembly would recall the importance of the Working Group as a channel of communications between those families and governments, inviting it to identify obstacles to realizing the Declaration and encouraging it to continue considering the question of impunity. It would call upon the Commission on Human Rights to continue studying the question as a matter of priority, to take steps in pursuit and follow-up of the Working Group's task. Finally, it would ask the Secretary-General to report on implementation of the resolution at the Assembly's fifty-seventh session.

By terms of a draft on promoting a democratic and equitable international order (document A/C.3/55/L.56/Rev.1), the Assembly would affirm a number of principles regarding equality of opportunity for all people in pursuing a democratic and equitable international order. Those include the right to development, peace, representation and participation in an international information and communication order, based on a greater international information flow to and from developing countries. The Assembly would stress the importance of preserving the diversity of the international community and the universality of rights. It would reaffirm that all States should promote international peace and security, and that the international community should devise ways and means to remove obstacles and meet challenges to realizing human rights. Finally, the Assembly would urge States to cooperatively promote a democratic and equitable international order.

The situation of human rights in parts of South-eastern Europe is addressed by resolution (document A/C.3/55/L.42/Rev.2), which would have the Assembly reiterate its call for implementation of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the annexes thereto. It would stress the crucial role of human rights in successfully implementing the Agreement, and the need for enhanced international efforts to effect the voluntary return of displaced persons and refugees in safety and dignity. It would condemn the growing problem of trafficking in women and would urge all parties to the Peace Agreement to cooperate with the International Tribunal.

Further by the draft, the Assembly would condemn the harassment of returning refugees and internally displaced persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina, also condemning religious discrimination and manipulation of the press. It would call upon the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to take a number of remedial steps, and would welcome the admission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to membership in the United Nations. It would urge all parties in Kosovo to strengthen a multi-ethnic society, stressing the importance of ethnic minorities returning and that of suppressing harassments. Further stressing the urgent need for cooperation with the Interim Administration Mission and the Kosovo Force, the Assembly would express its concern about the forced ethnic division of any part of Kosovo and would ask the Special Rapporteur in the region to continue monitoring the situation and to report at the Assembly's fifty-seventh session.

The Assembly would welcome a large number of progressive steps by a resolution on the human rights situation in the Sudan (A/C.3/55/L.51/Rev.1). Those would include efforts to improve freedoms of expression, association and assembly, including the adoption of the Political Organization Act of 2000 and the creation of a High Commission to review the Law on Public Order. Other welcome steps would include efforts to implement the right to education, release of prisoners, sheltering refugees, and commitments to desist from recruiting child soldiers. The Assembly would, however, also express deep concern over such developments as the breakdown of the ceasefire in June, the upsurge of armed confrontations and acts of intimidation and harassment against the civilian population.

The draft would, therefore, urge all parties in the conflict to take actions leading to peace and to an environment of respect for human rights. Among others, parties would be asked to immediately stop using weapons against civilians, to cooperate with peace efforts of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, and to allow independent investigation into outstanding cases of human rights abuses. Finally, the Government would be called upon to take initiatives such as strengthening efforts to ensure the rule of law through legislation and avoiding the execution of severe, inhuman punishments.

Finally, the Assembly would encourage the Government to dialogue with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and would encourage the Office to consider requests for assistance by the Sudan. It would then call upon the international community to expand its support for activities.

The Assembly would welcome recent developments, according to a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/C.3/55/L.62/Rev.1). Those developments would include the general amnesty declared in preparation for the Lusaka Agreement, the commitment by the Government to cooperate with the United Nations, and steps leading to repatriation of refugees and release of prisoners. Again, the Assembly would express concern at a number of conditions, including the adverse impact of conflict throughout the country, the continued violations of the Lusaka Agreement and the preoccupying situation of human rights in the country.

As a result, the Assembly would urge all parties in the conflict to implement the provisions of the Lusaka Agreement and to facilitate the re- establishing of the Government's authority, as agreed in the Inter-Congolese political negotiations of the Agreement. It would stress the need for the Congolese to engage in an all-inclusive process of political dialogue, with a view to achieving national reconciliation and the holding of democratic elections. It would call on the Government to comply with its international obligations, including by reforming its judicial system, ensuring freedoms and ending impunity.

Under a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Haiti (document A/C.3/55/L.64), the General Assembly would stress the need for the Haitian National Police to continue to undertake more effective efforts to improve its performance through, inter alia, technical assistance, and training and education, in order to function efficiently, within a framework of respect for human rights, to curb the alarming increase in insecurity in the country.

Also according to the draft, the Assembly would request all interested governments to make available to the Government of Haiti information and documentation to enable it to prosecute the perpetrators of human rights violations, in order to reinforce the efforts already made by the Haitian authorities to fight against impunity and to facilitate the reconciliation process. The Assembly would also invite the international community, including the Bretton-Woods institutions, to consider, when conditions permit, continuing their involvement in the reconstruction and development of Haiti.

A note by the Secretariat transmits the Committee's organization of work and biennial programme of work for 2001-2002 (document A/C.3/55/L.61).

Action, Draft on UNHCR

The Committee next took up a draft resolution on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (document A/C.3/55/L.67).

The following were added as co-sponsors: Togo, Guinea, Malawi, Namibia, Swaziland, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco and Bahamas.

The Philippines was deleted as a co-sponsor.

The resolution was adopted without a vote.

The representative of Egypt expressed deep appreciation for the work of the UNHCR. While supporting the contents of the draft resolution, his delegations found it difficult to agree to language which emphasized the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (operative paragraph 20). His delegation had requested the main sponsors to delete that language or, if that could not be done, to include other language that took into consideration certain developments in the Economic and Social Council during its humanitarian segment. As it read today, the language in paragraph 20 prejudged the work that the special representative operative would do. The representative of Egypt called for a recorded vote on operative paragraph 20 of the draft resolution.

The Committee adopted operative paragraph 20 of the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to none against, with 30 abstentions (see Annex I).

In explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said it was regrettable that a vote had to be held on language that had already been agreed upon.

The representative of Pakistan said it was regrettable that the Committee had to vote on specific aspects of her work. He had hoped that the co-sponsors would be able to give attention to the concerns some delegations had with operative paragraph 20. He hoped that more open deliberations would characterize the work of the Committee in the future.

The representative of India said that the guiding principles on internally displaced persons in the draft resolution did not enjoy government approval and were not binding. The language was out of place, and the resolution sought to confer on those principles a profile they did not deserve. In view of those and other facts, his delegation had abstained.

The representative of the Sudan said her delegation could not fail to express profound regret at having to vote on paragraph 20 of the draft resolution. Everyone was aware that the language did not have consensus. Her delegation had abstained in the hope that Member States would resolve the situation some time in the near future.

The representative of the United States said that his Government was proud of its close relationship with the UNHCR, and was a major supporter of the work of the High Commissioner. His delegation was not able to co-sponsor the resolution, however, because it did not reflect the decisions of the Executive Committee of the UNHCR on the safety of all humanitarian personnel. The language of the text narrowed the decisions of the Executive Committee. He also said that the process that produced the text had been flawed. The expertise of the Executive Committee should be reflected accurately. His delegation was pleased to join the consensus, but not as a co-sponsor. He regretted the last-minute efforts of some delegations to politicize the work of the UNHCR.

The representative of Algeria said the fact that paragraph 20 had been put to a vote in no way called into question the work of the UNHCR.

The representative of Canada expressed sincere regrets at having to take a vote on the issue. However, considering the result of the vote, he said that surely the responsibility of seeking and achieving consensus fell on the delegations which chose to call the vote.

In a general statement, the representative of Norway also expressed regret at having to vote on paragraph 20.

The representative of Ghana said that her delegation had voted in favour of the paragraph in question.

The resolution as a whole was adopted without a vote.

In explanation of position after adoption, the representative of Singapore said his delegation supported the general thrust of the draft resolution. However, while the resolution reaffirmed that everyone had the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries, Singapore was of the view that that should not necessarily be taken as an affirmation or recognition of an absolute right to asylum. Instead of giving unqualified affirmation to the right of asylum, it would have been more realistic to acknowledge that contemporary international practices varied based on the policies of each country.

The representative of India said that his delegation fully supported the work of the UNHCR. His delegation was aware of the body of opinion that believed the solution to certain refugee situations lay in acceding to refugee conventions. India did not share that view, and had successfully managed such situations of its own accord and with its own resources. As regarded paragraph 20, international action should remain within the bounds of national sovereignty.

The representative of the Dominican Republic said that, as a co-sponsor of the draft resolution, he wished to clarify that his delegation in no way renounced its sovereign right to apply its own policies as to refugees.

The representative of Burundi confirmed his delegation’s co-sponsorship of the draft resolution.

Action, UNHCR Pledging Conference

The Committee took up a draft resolution on the Pledging Conference of the UNHCR (document A/C.3/55/L.68).

The Secretary made an oral statement with conference-service implications in connection with the draft resolution.

The following were added as co-sponsors: Botswana, Indonesia, Chile, Chad, Cyprus and Albania,

The draft resolution was adopted without a vote.

Action, Draft on Fiftieth Anniversary of UNHCR

The Committee took up a draft resolution on the fiftieth anniversary of the UNHCR (document A/C.3/55/L.69).

The following were added as co-sponsors: Croatia, Cyprus, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Malawi, Ethiopia, Liechtenstein, Rwanda, Malta, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Albania, Colombia, Comoros, Chad, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Nicaragua, Nepal, Tunisia, Bolivia, Botswana, Morocco, Philippines, Indonesia and Togo.

The draft resolution was adopted without a vote.

Action, Draft on Elimination of Religious Intolerance

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on eliminating all forms of religious intolerance (document A/C.3/55/L.41).

The Chairperson said it was the general practice of the Committee that statements introducing draft proposals should be confined to issues addressed in those proposals. During the introduction of the current draft resolution on 7 November, references had been made by the delegation of Ireland to two specific countries which, it was believed, should not have been made at that time. Following discussions with concerned delegations, it had been agreed that those statements would be deleted form the official summary record of the Committee.

The Secretary then drew the Committee’s attention, at the request of the Controller, to certain paragraphs of the current draft resolution which his office felt contained administrative and budgetary implications.

The following were added as co-sponsors: Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua and Eritrea.

The representative of Tunisia said his delegation supported the substance of the resolution, but could not align itself with the statement of the main co-sponsor at the time the draft resolution was introduced. States should never assume the position of a special rapporteur, especially at the introduction of draft resolutions.

The draft resolution was adopted without a vote.

The representative of China said that Ireland had unfairly launched an attack on other delegations when the draft was introduced, thus creating the impression that the draft had been targeted to specific countries.

Action, Draft on Respect for Principles of Charter

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on respect for the purposes and principles of the Charter with regard to promoting human rights (document A/C.3/55/L.47/Rev.1), including a number of amendments read by the representative of Cuba, the draft’s main sponsor.

Ethiopia and Chad joined as co-sponsors of the draft text.

A recorded vote was called for.

In explanation of position, the representative of Canada said that his delegation would not support the draft resolution, as it contained selective and unbalanced use of language drawn from the United Nations Charter. The draft appeared to promote the notion that sovereignty represented a shield behind which human rights violations could be committed. Canada would always stand against such views. The representative of France, on behalf of the European Union, supported the principles and aims of the Charter, and had submitted amendments to bring the resolution into line with it. But sadly, the resolution as presented did not reflect those changes. While the amendments read today showed some progress, the language of the text still showed selectivity. The European Union could not support a draft which, under the cover of evoking the spirit of the Charter, actually aimed to limit its scope.

In explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Japan, speaking also on behalf of the Republic of Korea, said that both delegations placed great importance on the issue of protecting and promoting human rights, and fully respected the tenets of the Charter. Therefore, it was difficult to support the resolution before the Committee. While the text tried ambitiously to address humanitarian issues, it failed to recognize that many of those issues should be addressed by other bodies or committees. During informals, both delegations had offered suggestions to narrow the view of the draft resolution. While some progress had been made in that regard, the outcome was sorely lacking in many areas. The mainstreaming of human rights did not mean that the Third Committee should take up any issue dealing with human rights.

The representative of Australia said his delegation respected the spirit of the Charter, as well as the protection and promotion of human rights. He noted, however, that the relationship between human rights and humanitarian action was complex and required comprehensive discussions by all parties concerned. The Third Committee should not pre-empt the work of other United Nations bodies in the area of human rights. His delegation also had concerns about the draft’s selective use of certain principles of the Charter. For those reasons, his delegation would vote against the adoption of the resolution.

The draft resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 78 in favour and 51 opposed, with 21 abstentions (see Annex II).

In explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of New Zealand said that the United Nations should not be denied the right to intervene where humanitarian issues were at stake. The Charter made clear that there were situations where measures of international peace and security could override State sovereignty. The resolution failed to reflect that view, and his delegation had voted against it.

The representative of the United States said his delegation believed that the draft resolution was seriously flawed, and contained language and concepts inconsistent with the Charter. Consequently, the draft was considered as an attempt to, in effect, rewrite the Charter in order to undercut international support for individual liberty. Moreover, the draft appeared to be an attempt to restrict the ability of the United Nations to respond to humanitarian crises. He recalled the words of the Secretary-General, who had said that surely no legal principle -- not even sovereignty -- could ever shield such crimes against humanity as gross violations of human rights. The current draft would have the effect of promoting the construction of such a shield. He had voted against.

The representative of Brazil said his delegation attached great importance to the principles enshrined in the Charter. The draft resolution dealt with matters that fell within the purview of other human rights forums. The Organization had well defined mechanisms for addressing different issues. His delegation had abstained from voting.

The representative of Argentina reaffirmed his delegation’s commitment to the Charter and the promotion and protection of human rights. No circumstance could excuse a violation of human rights. Therefore, the international community could not remain passive, particularly in the face of gross violations. Present security arrangements must also take into account humanitarian concerns. His delegation had abstained.

The representative of Lesotho said that his delegation had voted in favour of the resolution.

The representative of Mali said her delegation had abstained for a number of reasons. Specifically, she said that the concept of sovereignty or borders must not give certain States leeway to violate international instruments. Acts of intervention must be placed within the framework of the United Nations system, so that such actions would not be taken for the wrong reasons.

The representative of Honduras said that his delegation had abstained.

Action, Draft on the Question of Involuntary Disappearances

The Committee took up the draft resolution on the question of enforced or involuntary disappearances (document A/C.3/55/L.52).

The following became co-sponsors: Latvia, Australia, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Republic of Moldova, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Slovenia.

The representative of France made an oral amendment on the seventh preambular paragraph, concerning the jurisdiction of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Canada reaffirmed that the jurisdiction of the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court had been recognized.

Algeria said there had been no consensus on the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction. The question of enforced or involuntary disappearances was not within the Court's province, and the Statute had not entered into force. He was startled by a reference to an organ that was not yet in existence. He would have liked to see the paragraph deleted, with no reference to the content of the seventh preambular paragraph. While he did not feel bound by that paragraph, he would join the consensus because of the issue's importance.

Crimes committed in peacetime belonged within the jurisdiction of States, the representative of India said. Crimes of disappearances during peacetime were not in the Court's province.

The draft was approved without a vote.

In explanation of vote after the vote, Libya's representative said she would have voted against the seventh preambular paragraph. Bringing parties to justice was the responsibility of States. The seventh preambular paragraph was ambiguous. She did not feel bound by it.

Action, Draft on Promotion of Equitable International Order

The Committee took up a draft resolution on promotion of a democratic and equitable international order (document A/C.3/55/L.56/Rev.1).

Cuba's representative noted that Ghana was not a co-sponsor. The draft, he said, was intended to protect developing countries. It listed some basic rights, such as the right to development. It had been refined to reflect delegations' suggestions for amendments.

Malaysia became a co-sponsor.

A recorded vote was requested.

The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the text had received careful consideration. He could not support the resolution because it was not within the competence of the present forum. He appreciated the changes that had been made in the effort to make the wording acceptable, but they had not answered the questions that had been asked. The draft, for example, still did not emphasize the essential importance of an equitable national order.

Speaking also on behalf of “associated States”, Japan's representative said all delegations had made the effort to achieve consensus, but it had not been reached. The co-sponsors should have focused on human rights issues rather than on the international economic order. The language was unacceptable and the resolution referred to arenas that were the responsibility of national governments. Japan's vote would be against the resolution.

The draft was approved by a recorded vote of 91 in favour to 50 against, with 13 abstentions (see Annex III).

In explanation of vote after the vote, Thailand's representative said he had voted in favour of the resolution because it contributed to transparency in the process of development.

Cuba's representative expressed gratification at adoption of the draft. She emphasized the magnitude of the changes that had been made since the text had been presented to the Human Rights Commission. The aim was not only to gain broader support for the draft, but also to achieve consensus in the future.

The Committee then took note of the Secretariat's note on unilateral coercive measures (documents A/55/214 and Add.1); reports of the Secretary-General on protection of migrants (documents A/55/275 and Add.1); and on the right to development (document A/55/283); and the Secretary-General's note transmitting the High Commissioner's report on the right to development (document A/55/302).

Action, Human Rights Situation in South-eastern Europe

The Committee next took up a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in parts of South-eastern Europe (document A/C.3/55/L.42/Rev.2), including several technical amendments. The following were added as co-sponsors: Lithuania, Albania, Latvia, Israel and Iceland.

The representative of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia said that there had been broad agreement on the draft, and that there was a general feeling that it would be adopted by consensus. His delegation would vote in favour of the draft resolution. He hoped the draft obtained broad support, as the issues it addressed were important to human rights as the basis of building a democratic society. The draft resolution, however, did not fully correspond to the newly created situation on the ground, and should not contain provisions that might be construed as a departure from Security Council resolution 1244. That resolution should be strictly interpreted. The resolution should also have retained language on the human rights situation in Croatia, particularly as to the return of refugees. His delegation had not been able to participate in the negotiations, since it had only became a full Member of the United Nations last week. From now on, his delegation would do its utmost to contribute to the noble work of the Organization.

The resolution was adopted without a vote.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that, as a result of the changes in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, consensus had been achieved on the draft resolution. His delegation appreciated the spirit of cooperation during the negotiating process. At the same time, his delegation had some reservations. It would particularly like to see a solid confirmation of the status of Kosovo as part of the Federal Republic. His delegation could not agree with portions of the draft that assessed the recent elections in the Federal Republic and Kosovo. It was the view of the Russian Federation that during those elections Serbs and other minorities had been left out of the democratic process. Such occurrences could only have a negative effect. Finally, he said the draft did not reflect the conclusions, recommendations or suggestions of the Special Rapporteur who had taken note -- among other things –- of the “mono-ethnic” character of the elections, ethnic cleansing and increased drug trafficking in the region. Still, the draft was a significant step forward.

The representative of Croatia noted that the Committee had first considered the current resolution as long ago as 1993. Her delegation had followed the intricate course of its evolution, particularly changes to its title and the increasing number of countries considered to be within the purview of the text. She recalled that the main sponsor of the draft had said that this year’s formulation would not consider the situation in Croatia. That testified to the obvious efforts by Croatia to improve its human rights situation and build on the progress already achieved. Croatia would continue to move forward in that respect, she said.

The representative of Venezuela said that his delegation had joined the consensus. However, his delegation expressed concern that Kosovo had been singled out in the draft.

The representative of Libya said that the regional principles spelled out in the draft were also the principles of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and could not be considered binding for other Member States of the United Nations. Those provisions should only be binding for States in that region. She also said that the draft’s repeated mention of Kosovo would contribute to instability in the region. The representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina expressed gratification that his whole region was now represented in the United Nations. He welcomed the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and hoped that soon that country’s progress would negate the need for future resolutions on its behalf.

The representative of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia expressed her delegation’s satisfaction at the consensus. She hoped that further change in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina, would contribute to stability in the region.

Action, Human Rights in Democratic Republic of Congo

The Committee next took up the draft text on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/C.3/655/L.62/Rev.2).

Australia joined as a co-sponsor of the draft resolution

A recorded vote was called for.

Expressing surprise, the Democratic Republic of the Congo informed the Committee his delegation had not called for the vote. He asked the Chairperson which delegation had called for the vote.

The Chairperson gave the floor to the representative of Rwanda.

The representative of Rwanda said that his delegation had no real problems with the draft text in its original form. But he was surprised by the transformation of the revised text. He was also surprised that the amendment his delegation made during negotiations to refine the text had not been taken into account. His delegation would not associate itself with the current text.

The Chairperson told the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo that Rwanda had called for the vote.

In explanation of vote before the vote, Uganda said that her delegation did not agree with certain aspects of the draft text. Namely, it did not refer to “all” Security Council resolutions and named only one specific resolution. Her delegation also noted that the report of the Special Rapporteur had not been well researched. Therefore the draft text should not have “welcomed” that report, but rather should have “taken note” of it. The draft text also failed to address the human rights situation with regard to the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Her delegation would vote against the draft resolution.

The representative of Burundi made several proposals for changes to certain portions of the text. He suggested that the text should not highlight a single Council resolution, but should refer to all resolutions on the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He agreed that the text should “take note of” and not “welcome” the report of the Special Rapporteur. He hoped that those and other proposals were acceptable at this time. If they were not, his delegation would abstain from the vote on the draft resolution.

The representative of Rwanda said that language in the draft text which only “took note of” the outcome of the Summit of Heads of State of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), but “welcomed” the report of the Special Rapportuer, was unfair. If that were not taken into account, Rwanda would vote against the draft resolution.

The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo told the Committee that his country had always designated as aggressors those delegations which had just offered amendments to the draft resolution and called for a vote. Indeed, the Security Council resolution which had caused so much concern was one which demanded that Rwanda and Uganda leave the country. Aligning himself with the amendments introduced by the European Union, he noted that condemnation of killing -- but without naming the perpetrators -- would only inflame the problem.

The representative of Rwanda said that trading accusations also would not help the problem.

The draft resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 94 in favour to 4 against (Rwanda, Sudan, Syria, Uganda), with 55 abstentions (see Annex IV).

In explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Bangladesh said his delegation had abstained. He said that, as a matter of principle, his delegation always abstained on country-specific human rights resolutions.

The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said that his delegation had abstained. The positive developments in his country had been recognized by the General Assembly. His country had also shown a willingness to continue working towards progress. The initial version of the draft had reflected the equilibrium for which the Special Rapporteur was striving. Adopting the resolution in its present state was a “victory for confusion”, he said. Certain amendments proposed by the European Union no longer reflected the situation on the ground in his country. He also strenuously objected to the draft’s tendency to note that abuses were taking place, but not to mention perpetrators. The Committee should know that forces from Rwanda and Uganda were the ones committing violations and murders in his country. He hoped that the thousands of lives that were lost had not been lost in vain.

Action, Draft on Human Rights Situation in Haiti

The Committee took up the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Haiti (document A/C.3/55/L.64).

The following were added as co-sponsors: Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta, Panama, Romania, Switzerland and Togo.

The representative of Haiti drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that her delegation had co-sponsored last year’s resolution. Unfortunately, that would be impossible this year. It was most unfortunate that her delegation’s proposal to include language on the right to development had not been taken into consideration. The draft text was very confusing, particularly on the Government’s policies on freedom of expression. One also got the idea that Haiti did not ensure the human rights of children. The resolution did not note progress by the Government in the area of human rights. Her delegation reserved the right to make a more detailed statement in plenary.

The draft resolution was adopted without a vote.

The representative of the Dominican Republic said there was no doubt that social development and the creation of stable institutions were difficult in any country suffering from extreme poverty. The language of the text should have highlighted and promoted the cooperation of the international community with Haiti. International actors should have been invited to contribute to the country’s social, political and economic rehabilitation, if allowed.

Action, Draft on Human Rights Situation in Sudan

The Committee next took up a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Sudan (document A/C.3/55/L.51/Rev.1), including a number of amendments.

Australia and New Zealand joined as co-sponsors of the draft resolution.

A recorded vote was called for.

The representative of the Sudan asked which delegation had called for the vote.

The representative of the United States said his delegation had requested the vote.

In a general statement, the representative of Canada said his delegation was a co-sponsor of the resolution. On the question of the abduction of children in the context of the conflict, his delegation had been encouraged by positive commitments undertaken by the Government. He recognized the situation was complex and that progress might not come quickly, but he was hopeful. He also considered that the international community was justified in demanding the safe return of all children abducted in the region.

In explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of the United States said he believed it was important to register the strong concerns of the international community about the human rights situation in the Sudan. His delegation could, therefore, not join consensus on the draft resolution. The draft text lacked balance and was an insufficient reflection of what should have been outright condemnation by the United Nations of the human rights situation in that country. He hoped that resolutions of that nature could be more balanced in the future, particularly with respect to slavery.

He did recognize, however, that this year’s resolution was slightly more comprehensive. That was in no small part due to the work of the Special Rapportuer. Still, the draft text did not reflect the sad reality that the situation in the Sudan continued to deteriorate, particularly in light of the continued bombings of civilians and humanitarian facilities by the Government. In that regard, the present resolution should have emphasized that there was nearly equal responsibility to be shared by both the Government and the rebel forces. Oddly, however, the text treated the bombings as if they just happened without perpetrators. The draft resolution also inexplicably failed to call slavery by its real name. Instead it used the timid formulation: “abductions of women and children in connection with the conflict”. A human rights resolution which failed to call a government into question on the issue of slavery was unacceptable. The United Nations should condemn such practices.

The representative of the Sudan said that all were aware that her delegation had entered into lengthy negotiations with the European Union with a view to reaching a consensus on the draft. Despite great differences of opinion on some issues, enormous efforts had been made out of the desire to cooperate and enhance Sudanese-European dialogue. That initiative had culminated in actually arriving at a consensus. There were a few provisions to which her delegation had reservations, and she would make a more comprehensive statement later.

She regretted the statement by the representative of the United States, as that delegation had not directly participated in the negotiations. However, the basic reason for the United States’ objections revolved around language which referred to involvement of the rebel movement in shelling civilian targets. The United States had insisted on deletion of all references to rebel activity. That reflected the readiness of the United States to support the rebel movement in an attempt to undermine the Sudanese Government, regardless of the human rights violations those rebels committed. The United States was clearly applying double standards. She also said that the United States had not raised the issue of slavery while the text was being negotiated. The United States did not seem concerned by violations of human rights as long as they were committed by its allies. She said that the United States had supplied the rebel movement with material support. The resolution was extremely biased and filled with hidden political agendas. Finally, she stressed her country’s commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights. For all those reasons, and because of the United States insistence on calling a vote, her delegation would vote against the draft resolution even though it had first intended to vote in favour.

The draft resolution was adopted by a recorded vote of 75 in favour to 30 against, with 45 abstentions (see annex V).

In explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Bangladesh said his delegation had abstained out of principle, to avoid voting on a country- specific human rights resolution.

The representative of Thailand said he hoped that the Sudan would continue along a constructive path, as well as continue to cooperate with the United Nations.

The representative of Libya said her delegation had hoped that the lengthy negotiations would have yielded a consensus on the issue in question. The fact that a delegation had called for a recorded vote proved that the practice of politicizing human rights issues was continuing. The Government of the Sudan had taken positive steps in the area of human rights and had cooperated with the Commission on Human Rights. For that reason, Libya would have preferred a draft that encouraged the Sudan to make further efforts rather than a text that might have negative implications.

In a general statement, the representative of France, on behalf of the European Union, welcomed the work of the Special Rapporteur. He regretted that the resolution had not been adopted by consensus, but was hopeful that the Sudan would continue to pursue dialogue with his delegation.

Action, Draft on New International Humanitarian Order

The Committee took up a draft resolution on the new international humanitarian order (document A/C.3/55/L.66), including a number of technical revisions and amendments introduced by its main sponsor, Bosnia and Herzegovina. That representative read the amendments aloud to the Committee, as time constraints had not allowed copies to be made.

Thailand and Bangladesh joined as co-sponsors of the draft resolution.

The draft was adopted as orally amended without a vote.

The representative of India said that he was uncertain what his delegation had just adopted.

Action, Assistance to Refugees, Displaced Persons in Africa

The Committee took up a draft resolution on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa (document A/C.3/55/L.70).

The following were added as co-sponsors: Canada, Denmark, France, Spain, Venezuela, Chile, Croatia, Ireland, Haiti and Honduras.

The draft resolution was adopted as orally revised without a vote.

Committee Work Programme, 2001-2002

The Committee then took up its organization of work and the draft biennial programme of work for 2001-2002.

XIONG LIXIAN, Chief of the Documentation, Programming and Monitoring Unit of the Department of General Assembly Affairs and Conference Services, introduced the document and updated it in light of the resolutions the Committee had adopted.

The representatives of Lithuania, France and Haiti made oral technical amendments for purposes of clarification.

Mr. XIONG took note of the amendments and said they would be followed up.

The Committee adopted its programme of work for 2001-2002 without a vote.

Economic and Social Council Report

The Committee took note of the Economic and Social Council's report (document A/55/3).

Voting Clarification

The representatives of Lebanon, Venezuela and South Africa said they were belatedly voting in favour of the resolution on the impact of globalization on human rights (document A/55/L.48/Rev.1). South Africa's representative also noted that his country was a sponsor of the draft.

Closing Remarks

YVONNE GITTENS-JOSEPH, Committee Chairperson, said the session had been productive and successful. Statements and exchanges with guests such as the High Commissioners for Human Rights and Refugees had been useful and engaging. Over 60 resolutions had been adopted. Transparency in negotiations had been welcome, and while expectations had not always been satisfied, the cordiality of negotiations had been notably commendable. She extended special thanks to the Committee secretariat, most especially Kate Starr Newell, the Committee Secretary, whose professionalism, understanding, charm and wit had been "a source of inspiration on and off the podium". The secretariat support personnel, including conference officers, documents officers and sound, as well as press, staff had been invaluable in the timely completion of the Committee's work, she said. She wished everyone a happy holiday season, whether celebrating Hannukah, Christmas or Eid Al-Fitr.

The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union, paid tribute to the Chairperson's humanity, vigour and to the personal devotion that had enabled the devising of solutions. Her wit had contributed to facilitating the work, he said, as had the proficiency of the secretariat. Kate Starr Newell had helped clear the air when a cloud had hung over human rights questions.

Nigeria's representative expressed gratitude to the Bureau and the secretariat, on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, saying difficult moments had been encountered but overcome. The Committee had completed its work in timely fashion -- even though the timeliness of documentation must still be addressed.

On behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean States, the representative of Brazil expressed special thanks to Kate Starr Newell and her staff, as well as to the United Nations staff. Most especially, it warranted notice that the Committee's work could not have been successfully completed without the Chairperson's wisdom in addressing thorny issues.

On behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Guyana's representative said the Committee's work had been completed in a timely fashion because of the Chairperson's dedication, well known throughout the Caribbean Community.

Australia's representative, speaking on behalf of Japan, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, said the Chairperson had conducted a very well run and, in a perverse way, enjoyable meeting. Now, it was up to delegations to be more prompt for meetings.

Speaking for the nations of the African Group, the representative of Mauritania expressed appreciation for delegations' ability to work towards consensus.

On behalf of the Arab Group of States, the representative of Libya expressed congratulations for the patience of all the delegations who had come from their capitals all over the world to express the diversity of the global community. Special thanks were due to all who had worked for consensus, as well as to those in conference services and the Secretariat who had enabled the meetings.

On behalf of the SADC, Swaziland's representative said that the Chairperson's leadership had led to successful conclusion of the Committee's work. She also expressed gratitude to Kate Starr Newell and the secretariat.

The representatives of Kyrgyzstan and Benin thanked the hard and fruitful work of delegations, the secretariat and the Chairperson. The representative of Benin also noted that, without the rigour with which the Chairperson had conducted the work, it would have spilled over to next week.

(annexes follow)

Third Committee Press Release GA/SHC/3624 55th & 56th Meetings (PM) 10 November 2000

ANNEX I

Vote on UNHCR

Operative paragraph 20 of the draft resolution on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (document A/C.3/55/L.67) was adopted by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to none against, with 30 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Ecuador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: None.

Abstain: Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Cambodia, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam.

Absent: Afghanistan, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Congo, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Iran, Jordan, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yemen.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Respect for Purposes and Principles of Charter

The draft resolution on respect for the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations, to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and of fundamental freedoms and in solving international problems of humanitarian character (document A/C.3/55/L.47/Rev.1), was adopted by a recorded vote of 78 in favour to 51 against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Argentina, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, Côte d’Ivoire, Guatemala, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, Uruguay.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Kiribati, Lesotho, Maldives, Morocco, Nauru, Nepal, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on Promotion of Equitable and Democratic International Order

The draft resolution on promotion of an equitable and democratic international order (document A/C.3/55/L.56/Rev.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 91 in favour to 50 against, with 13 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Argentina, Cape Verde, Costa Rica, Fiji, Guatemala, Madagascar, Malawi, Morocco, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Senegal, Uruguay.

Absent: Afghanistan, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Kiribati, Maldives, Nauru, Palau, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on Human Rights in Democratic Republic of Congo

The draft resolution on situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/C.3/55/L.62/Rev.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 94 in favour to 4 against, with 55 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.

Against: Rwanda, Sudan, Syria, Uganda.

Abstain: Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Grenada, Kiribati, Lebanon, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

ANNEX V

Vote on Human Rights in Sudan

The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Sudan (document A/C.3/55/L.51/Rev.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 75 in favour to 30 against, with 45 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Algeria, Bahrain, Chad, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam.

Abstain: Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Guinea, Honduras, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Uganda, Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Zambia.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Cameroon, Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Grenada, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yemen.

* *** *

For information media. Not an official record.