THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES 10 DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS, SELF-DETERMINATION, ELIMINATION OF RACISM

20 November 2003
GA/SHC/3770

THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES 10 DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS, SELF-DETERMINATION, ELIMINATION OF RACISM

20/11/2003
Press ReleaseGA/SHC/3770

Fifty-eighth General Assembly

Third Committee

52nd & 53rd Meetings (AM & PM)

THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES 10 DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS,

SELF-DETERMINATION, ELIMINATION OF RACISM

Recorded Votes Taken on Drafts Concerning Self-Determination,

Right to Health, Coercive Measures, Terrorism, Access to Medication

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) approved 10 draft resolutions today on human rights questions, the right to self-determination and on the elimination of racial discrimination.  Out of those approved, five were adopted by recorded votes.

Several draft resolutions were also introduced today on issues related to alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights, as well as specific human rights situations.

Deeply concerned at the continuation of acts or threats of foreign military intervention and occupation that are threatening to suppress, or had suppressed, the right to self-determination of peoples and nations, the Committee approved a draft resolution on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination by a vote of 88 in favour with 64 abstentions, to 3 opposed (Bhutan, India, Mauritius) (see Annex I).  The draft would have the General Assembly declare its firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, and call upon those States responsible to cease immediately their military intervention in and occupation of foreign countries and territories.

Many speakers said it appeared that the universal principle of self-determination had been used to refer to the specific situation between India and Pakistan.  Believing that the context that had prevailed was not appropriate or within the spirit of the universal principle of the right to self-determination, some delegations, including Benin, Dominican Republic, Kenya, Botswana and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines withdrew their co-sponsorship of the draft resolution.

Explaining his vote, the representative of India said that the statement made by the main sponsor – Pakistan -- while introducing the draft resolution, had challenged the unity and territorial integrity of India.  The right to self-determination must not be construed to condone any action that would disrupt or threaten the territorial integrity of a State.  India would oppose any attempts to misuse the principle of the right to self-determination for ulterior motives.

The representative of Pakistan expressed his gratitude to all delegations that had reaffirmed their commitment to the principle of self-determination.  A vote for this principle was not a vote in favour of any specific issue –- it was a vote for the principle of self-determination -– a principle central to the United Nations Charter.

In a text that expressed concern about the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures in the field of international relations, trade, investment, and cooperation, the Committee approved a draft on human rights and unilateral coercive measures by a vote of 118 in favour to 50 against, with 1 abstention (Georgia) (see Annex II).

By the terms of the draft, the General Assembly would urgeall States to refrain from adopting any unilateral measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations.  States would also be urged to refrain from adopting any unilateral measures that impeded the full achievement of economic and social development by the population of the affected countries.

Also connected to international peace, security and human rights, the Committee approved by a vote of 111 in favour to 39 against, with 17 abstentions (see Annex IV), a draft resolution on human rights and terrorism.  The draft would have the General Assembly profoundly deplore the increasing number of innocent persons killed, massacred and maimed by terrorists in indiscriminate acts of terror that could not be justified under any circumstances.  The international community would be called upon to enhance cooperation at all levels in the fight against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, and States would be called upon to take all necessary measures to prevent, combat and eliminate terrorism and to strengthen their legislation to combat it.

In a draft resolution approved on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, in a vote of 166 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 5 abstentions (Australia, Czech Republic, Jordan, Sweden, United Kingdom) (see Annex III), the international community would be called upon to assist developing countries in promoting the full realization of the right to physical and mental health.

Under the text, States would be called upon to guarantee that this right be exercised without discrimination and to pay special attention to the situation of vulnerable groups.  In addition, States would be called upon to place a gender perspective at the centre of policies affecting women’s health, and to protect and promote sexual and reproductive health as integral elements of the right to health.

In a vote of 167 in favour to 1 against (United States) (see Annex V), the Committee approved a draft on access to medication in the context of pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, which would have the General Assemblycall on States to implement national strategies to realize access for all to prevention-related goods, services and information, as well as access to comprehensive treatment, care and support for all individuals infected and affected by pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

In other action today, the Committee approved draft resolutions, without votes, on the incompatibility between democracy and racism, the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, on the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa, and on the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Several draft resolutions were also introduced to the Committee today.  The representative of Austria introduced drafts on the effective promotion of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National, Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, as well as on human rights and the administration of justice.

Representatives of Ireland, Netherlands, Cuba and Mexico introduced drafts on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance, on an in-depth study on all forms of violence against women, on the right to food, and on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.

The representative of Cuba also introduced a draft 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 for fundamental freedoms in solving international problems of a humanitarian character.

Under questions relating to human rights situations and the reports of special rapporteurs, the representative of Canada introduced a draft resolution on the situation of human rights on in Iran.

The Committee will reconvene tomorrow at 10 a.m. to take action on remaining draft resolutions.

Introductions of Draft Resolutions

The representative of Austria, introducing a draft resolution (document A/C.3/58/L.63) on the effective promotion of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National, Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, said that the situation of minorities in many countries underlined the need for States, national institutions and the United Nations to reinforce and join efforts of persons belonging to minorities.

The representative of Austria introduced, with oral amendments, a draft resolution on human rights and the administration of justice (document A/C.3/58/L.64).

     The representative of Ireland introduced a draft resolution on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance (document A/C.3/58/L.65), noting the draft underlined the need for cooperation of all Governments with the Special Rapporteur to enable him to carry out his mandate.  It also underlined the importance of education and a strengthened dialogue among religions to promote greater tolerance, respect and mutual understanding.  His delegation hoped the resolution, as in previous years, would again be adopted by consensus.

The representative of the Netherlands introduced a draft resolution on the in-depth study on all forms of violence against women (document A/C.3/58/L.66) and said that this draft was based on another draft introduced by the Netherlands (document A/C.3/58/L.22) on violence against women.  The draft requested the Secretary-General to conduct an in-depth study on all forms of violence against women as identified in the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcomes of related conferences and meetings.  Such a study would shed light and clarity on the violence, and the causes thereof, faced by women.

The representative of Cuba introduced a draft resolution on the right to food (document A/C.3/58/L.70), saying the draft noted the alarming situation of 84 million people in the world being condemned to hunger and chronic malnutrition, while more food than needed was being produced.  The draft urged the international community to implement regional and national measures to eliminate hunger and States to adopt national plans to combat hunger.  On behalf of all co-sponsors of the draft, she encouraged all Member States to support the draft, in order to implement the right to food for all people of the world.

Introducing a draft resolution on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (document A/C.3/58/L.71), the representative of Mexico said the scourge of terrorism had led to thousands of victims around the world.  The best way of combating terrorism was to promote universal human rights and fundamental freedoms.  States must ensure that measures undertaken to combat terrorism complied with national and international human rights and humanitarian law.

The representative of Cuba introduced a 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 fundamental freedoms and in solving international problems of a humanitarian character (document A/C.3/58/L.72).  She said the draft highlighted the role of the United Nations in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It also encouraged States to comply with the principles set forth in the United Nations Charter, in particular respecting the sovereign equality of all States and refraining from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.  She invited all Member States to support the draft, thereby complying with their obligations under the United Nations Charter and ensuring human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.

     Introducing a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran (document A/C.3/58/L.69), the representative of Canada said there had been some deterioration in the situation of human rights in Iran, despite isolated positive developments.  The draft sought to involve the international community in the promotion of human rights in Iran, and its Government was urged to give full attention to the draft’s recommendations.  Further human rights dialogue between the Government of Iran and the human rights community was required.

He stressed that the draft resolution and human rights dialogue were not mutually exclusive, but complementary.  In the current human rights environment in Iran, human rights defenders needed to be commended.  The draft expressed concern about the denial of freedom of expression and opinion, arbitrary justice, and the treatment of minorities, including religious minorities.  He was particularly concerned about the difficulties faced by journalists in Iran.  The draft resolution underlined the need for human rights dialogue in order to achieve the full realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Action on draft resolutions

Before the Committee was a resolution on the incompatibility between democracy and racism (document A/C.3/58/L.33/Rev.1), which would have the General Assembly condemn political platforms and organizations, as well as legislation and practices, which were based on racism, xenophobia or doctrines of racial superiority and related discrimination, as incompatible with democracy and transparent and accountable governance.  In addition, the General Assembly would condemn the resurgence of neo-Nazism, neo-fascism and violent nationalist ideologies, based on racial or national prejudice.

     By the draft’s terms, the Assembly would also urge States to reinforce their commitment to promote tolerance and human rights by introducing or reinforcing human rights education in schools and in institutions of higher education.  The Inter-Parliamentary Union and other relevant inter-parliamentary organizations would also be invited to encourage debate in and action by, parliaments on various measures to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

     The draft was adopted without a vote, as orally amended.

     After the vote, the representative of Liechtenstein, speaking also on behalf of Australia, New Zealand and Switzerland, reiterated previous calls for the rigorous review of recurring issues.  It was time for delegations to rationalize their agenda to make the Committee’s work more focused.

     The representative of Brazil said he hoped the same statement would be made after the introduction of all repeated resolutions to preclude the application of double standards regarding this issue.

     The representative of Sudan, in response to the statement by the representative of Liechtenstein, said that it remained the prerogative of each and every State to introduce and present whatever initiative they believed was suitable to be looked at by any given committee of the General Assembly.

     The representative of New Zealand said that in response to the statement of the representative of Brazil, his delegation could not speak on every resolution that was duplicated.  His delegation’s approach was the same for resolutions that it voted for or against.  The intention was to draw to the Committee’s attention its agenda that was continuously growing.  His delegation would not question the importance of any resolution or the prerogative of any delegation to introduce a resolution.

     The representative of Cuba said his delegation was surprised at the statements in connection with the supposed repetition of drafts.  Every delegation had the right to introduce any text it feels would contribute to the Committee’s work.  The most important thing was support for texts and the merit of those texts, bearing in mind that the texts should be a contribution to dealing with human rights and other issues before the Committee.

     The representative of Benin said her delegation believed that any delegation was entitled to introduce resolutions to any issue that it felt needed to be addressed.  It was not up to other States to say whether those delegations should do so or not.

     The representative of Argentina said he agreed with Brazil and Cuba.  His delegation believed that the Committee should use the same criteria in dealing with repeated resolutions.  This was a text on democracy and racism that Brazil felt must come before the Committee once again, and his delegation supported Brazil’s introduction of the resolution.

     The representative of the United States said his delegation appreciated the efforts of Brazil’s delegation to address anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.  He noted that in the United States, even offensive speech was protected under the Constitution.

     The Committee had before it a resolution on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/C.3/58/L.31).

The draft would have the General Assembly declare its firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, since those acts have resulted in the suppression of the right of peoples to self-determination.  It would have the Assembly call upon those States responsible to cease immediately their military intervention in, and occupation of foreign countries and territories and all acts of repression, discrimination and maltreatment.

The representative of Singapore said he had co-sponsored the draft resolution and that his Government believed in the right of peoples to self-determination.  The draft did not address any specific situations, and he believed that a case-by-case approach needed to be mentioned in the draft.  The representative of Singapore would therefore have to reconsider its co-sponsorship next year.

The representative of Algeria told the Committee of his country’s experience of colonialism and deep belief in the right of self-determination. 

A vote was called for by the representative of India.

The representative of Pakistan, in a point of order, appealed to the representative of India to not call for a vote on this resolution that had been adopted year after year by consensus.

The representative of India, explaining his vote before the vote, said that some of the references made by Pakistan, on behalf of the co-sponsors, challenged and threatened the territorial integrity of India.  It was therefore clear that for Pakistan the universal right of people to self-determination was a mere excuse to pursue its own political agenda.  The draft was selective and unbalanced and did not deal with the right to self-determination in its entirety.  Any attempt aimed at the disruption of the territorial integrity of a nation State went against the purpose and principles of the Charter.

The right to self-determinations implied free elections, democracy, equality, secularism and the rule of law, he said.  The Pakistani people had been deprived of those rights for most of their history.  The Government of Pakistan must therefore ensure the right to self-determination to its own people, before tabling resolutions on the universal right to self-determination.  The representative of India would therefore vote against the draft resolution.

In a general comment, the representative of Pakistan said that the representative of India had said that the draft resolution was unacceptable to India; however, India had joined the consensus on the text for several years in a row.  This represented new thinking in New Delhi, and one must wonder what the causes were for this change.  When a territory’s final status was to be determined through the exercise of the right to self-determination through a United Nations plebiscite, it could not be described as an integral part of a State.  It was a disputed territory. 

Both India and Pakistan had emerged as sovereign States through the right of self-determination, he said.  He reserved the right to respond to the gratuitous remarks made about the Government of Pakistan and stressed that a Government made up of fascists and fanatics had no right to criticize any other Government.

     The representative of Benin, making a general statement, said that she had not expected things to be so complicated.  The concern of the draft was to support the general decolonization process, not issues between India and Pakistan.  She therefore withdrew her co-sponsorship, since it seemed the draft was no longer about the universal right to self-determination.

     A representative of the Dominican Republic said his delegation was co-sponsoring the draft, since it agreed with the spirit of the universal right to self-determination.  However, he did not agree with some of the things said by the main co-sponsor.  The Dominican Republic was therefore withdrawing its co-sponsorship too.

The representatives of Kenya and Botswana joined others and withdrew their co-sponsorship.

The representative of Comoros said that he would like to co-sponsor the draft resolution. 

A representative of Malaysia, a traditional co-sponsor of the draft resolution, said she regretted the attempts to muddy the important issue of self-determination. 

Opening the Committee’s afternoon meeting, the representative of St. Vincent and the Grenadines said she would withdraw her co-sponsorship due to the alteration of the context within which it would be approved.

The representative of India, explaining his vote before the vote, said he would cast a negative vote on the draft resolution.  The statement made by the main sponsor, while introducing the draft resolution, challenged the unity and territorial integrity of India.  For Pakistan, the universal realization of the right to self-determination was a mere excuse for pursuing its own political agenda.  The right to self-determination must not be construed to condone any action that would disrupt or threaten the territorial integrity of a State.  Such attempts were incompatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.

In today’s world, self-determination implied freely held election, freedom of ethnic and religious minorities to preserve their identity, democracy, secularism and the rule of law, he said.  For Pakistan to talk about self-determination, that Government must first ensure that the right to self-determination was granted to its own citizens.  India would oppose any attempts to misuse the principle of the right to self-determination for ulterior motives.

In a vote of 88 in favour and 64 abstentions, with 3 opposed (Bhutan, India, Mauritius), the draft was approved (see Annex 1).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Myanmar said she had supported the resolution.

The representative of the United States explained why he had abstained.  The United States believed that the best solution would be a mutual resolution of issues between India and Pakistan, taking into account the interests of all parties.

The representative of Argentina said the text must be applied in keeping with General Assembly resolutions, particularly as related to the situation in the Malvinas Islands.  Regarding these islands the principle of territorial integrity must be applied.

The representative of Armenia said the draft dealt with a fundamental and universally recognized international law.  She considered that bringing into bilateral issues, on a matter of a universal nature, did not serve the purpose of the draft.  It was her understanding that the Committee had approved the text of the draft and not the introduction of the draft.

A representative of Cyprus said he had abstained with great regret even though his Government attached great importance to the principle of self-determination.  However, the context that prevailed was not appropriate, and had not allowed him to vote in favour of the draft.

A representative of Burkina Faso said that the draft brought up the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination.  The Committee was not part of the bilateral controversy.

The representative of the United Kingdom said, in response to what had been said by the representative of Argentina, that his country’s position on the sovereignty over the Falkland Islands was well known.

The representative of Indonesia said that his country was committed to the right to self-determination.  However, since the draft had been open to interpretation and could cause difficulties for other States, he had abstained.  It was hoped that next year’s draft would be better formulated to allow those who believed in the right to self-determination to support the draft.

A representative of Nepal said he would have preferred this draft would have been approved without a vote.  Despite his commitment to the principle of self-determination, he would have abstained.

The representative of Canada speaking on behalf of Australia and New Zealand, explained that these countries had voted in favour of the universal right to self-determination.  However, they deplored the tenure of the debate that had taken place surrounding the draft resolution and hoped that it would not happen again.

A representative of Liechtenstein said he regretted that his delegation had felt the need to abstain.

The representative of Ethiopia said she had voted in favour of the draft resolution based on the spirit of universality of the principle of self-determination.

The representative of Portugal said she had supported the draft, but regretted that the debate had focused on specific situations rather than the principle, in general.

A representative of the Dominican Republic said that if he had been in the room, he would have voted in favour of the resolution.  It was a shame that this draft resolution had not been approved by consensus, as had been the case in previous years.

His vote in favour must be considered to mean his support for the universal principle of self-determination only, said the representative of Mongolia.

The representative of Turkmenistan would have voted in favour had he been in the room.

The representative of Fiji had not been in the room, she said.  If she had been present, the Government of Fiji would have abstained.

The representative of Austria said that he had voted in favour of the draft resolution entirely on the basis of its text.

A representative of Cape Verde had voted in favour of the draft resolution.

     The representative of Pakistan said his delegation wished to express its gratitude to all delegations, who had reaffirmed their commitment to the principle of self-determination.  A vote for this principle was not a vote in favour of any issue; it was a vote for the principle involved, a principle central to the United Nations Charter and the basis for the existence of the United Nations.  It was not Pakistan’s intention to introduce controversy or polemics with India in the context of the resolution.  Pakistan had introduced this resolution for almost one dozen years.  He said it was a matter of record that over the years, Pakistan had mentioned Palestine, Namibia and also Kashmir in its statements related to the resolution.  What happened this year was that the context had been changed, and polemics introduced by India.  What changed was that India felt it could bully the United Nations and bully Pakistan into halting its advocacy of the cause of Kashmir.  Pakistan would continue to support Kashmir, whether other delegations supported it or not.

He noted that 80,000 Kashmiris had been killed by the Indian army and thousands of others had been maimed, and women raped.  Kashmir was a disputed territory, wherein the Security Council had determined that people must be given the right to choose their destiny, as to whether to be a part of India or Pakistan.  The territory of Kashmir shown on the map of the United Nations was disputed territory; it was not part of India and would never be a part of India.  The people of a disputed territory should not be denied its right to self-determination.

     The representative of Bangladesh said her delegation fully subscribed to the right of people to self-determination and was on the list of co-sponsors.  Its own sovereignty was the product of the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination. Her country was therefore committed to supporting the resolution.

     The representative of Malaysia said that as a former colony, Malaysia was more than a little concerned about this resolution.

     The representative of Iran said Iran had been traditionally a co-sponsor of the resolution on the right of people to self determination and also this time because the resolution reaffirmed the right of people to self-determination was enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

     The representative of Ireland said his country had voted in favour of the resolution because it believed in the right of people to self-determination, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter. 

     The representative of Cuba said his delegation would like to stress that the only reason why it had voted in favour of the draft was because Cuba supported the right of people to self-determination, as a basic principle of the United Nations Charter.  His delegation had tremendous respect for that principle, and this was the main reason why it voted in favour of the resolution.

     The representative of India said his delegation did not intend to respond to any points made by the representative of Pakistan.  It rejected completely all his accusations.  However, his delegation wished to point out that if any delegation had any doubts as to the real motives of Pakistan’s sponsorship of the resolution, then the general statement made by the representative of Pakistan would not leave any doubt. 

     The representative of Thailand said his delegation subscribed to the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination.  It did so again this year as a reconfirmation of its commitment to this right. 

     The representative of Nigeria said Nigeria had traditionally supported this resolution, and on that basis it had voted in support of this resolution.  Over the years Nigeria had taken the lead against the cruel practice of apartheid, and it continued to support the resolution. 

     The representative of The Republic of Korea voted in favour of the resolution despite the debate and the not very desirable exchange of views.  It decided to continue to support the text because in the end, what was important was what the resolution said. 

     The representative of Croatia said Croatia had voted in favour of the resolution on the merits of the text, although it deeply deplored the discussion that took place this morning.

     The representative of Bulgaria voted in favour because it consistently supported the principle of the right of people to self-determination, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter.  Bulgaria deeply regretted however, that the resolution was adopted after such an acrimonious debate and hoped that next year it would be adopted by consensus. 

Before the Committee there was a draft resolution on the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (document A/C.3/58/L.50).  The draft would have the General Assembly urge all actors on the international scene to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equality, human dignity and respect for cultural diversity and human rights, and to reject all doctrines of exclusion based on racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia.

The draft calls on States, specialized agencies and intergovernmental organizations to continue to carry out a dialogue for the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and encourages non-governmental organizations to contribute actively to this endeavour.

The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

     The Committee also had before it a draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (A/C.3/58/L.51).  The draft would have the General Assembly urgeall States to refrain from adopting any unilateral measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, in particular those of a coercive nature with all their extraterritorial effects, which create obstacles to trade relations among States and impede the full realization of the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

     It also urges all States to take steps to refrain from adopting any unilateral measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter that impede the full achievement of economic and social development by the population of the affected countries. The draft rejectsunilateral coercive measures with all their extraterritorial effects as tools for political or economic pressure against any country, and in particular against developing countries and calls onStates that have initiated such measures to comply with obligations, under international human rights instruments to which they are party, by revoking such measures, as soon as possible.

     A recorded vote was requested. 

     The draft was approved by a vote of 118 in favour and 50 against, with one abstention (Georgia).  (See Annex II.)

     Making a general statement, the representative of Australia, speaking on behalf of New Zealand, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, said part of the draft called on the Secretary-General to collect the views of Member States.  There appeared to be no views to collect.

The Committee had before it a draft resolution on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (A/C.3/58/L.53) that would have the General Assembly call upon the international community to continue to assist developing countries in promoting the full realization of this right.  States would be called upon to guarantee that the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health would be exercised without discrimination, with special attention paid to the situation of vulnerable groups.  In addition, States would be called upon to place a gender perspective at the center of all policies and programmes affecting women’s health, and to protect and promote sexual and reproductive health as integral elements of the right to health.  

The representative of Egypt explaining his delegation’s vote before the vote said his delegation believed in the right of everybody to have the highest standard of physical and mental health.  However, his delegation did not agree with Brazil’s view, and thought this noble right should not be regarded in the light of any controversies.

The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking also on behalf of Sweden, said the United Kingdom and Sweden were committed to the full realization of all social, economic and cultural rights, which included the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.  However, they could not vote in favour because a more general reference in operative paragraph 11, particularly regarding the responsibilities of States, to which there had been no clear consensus, would have been more appropriate than the specifics mentioned in the text.  Also in operative paragraph 13, the text regarding market forces, as related to the realization of all human rights, suggested that human rights violations might occur as a result of actions beyond the control of the State.  For those reasons, the United Kingdom and Sweden would abstain from voting on this resolution.

The representative of the United States said her delegation was committed to the betterment of public health globally, but objected to preambular paragraph 2, in which an entitlement approach was implied, as opposed to an enablement approach.  The United States believed health policies and actions needed to be based on sound scientific evidence and data, not by a rights and entitlement-based approach.  She also pointed out that the United States did not support the creation of a Special Rapporteur for the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.  It would seek to be constructive with the Special Rapporteur, but believed the interim report should have been noted in neutral terms.

Furthermore, regarding Operative paragraph 13, she said the assertion that there was a “failure of market forces” in developing new drugs, vaccines, and diagnostic tools was often used to justify restrictive regulatory tools that further restricted the operation of markets.  This language highlighted the failure rather than opening the door for acknowledging solutions.  There were, in fact, a growing number of public-private partnerships under way to obtain more research dollars for vaccines and drugs for diseases mainly afflicting the developing world.  For those reasons the United States would vote no on the resolution.

The resolution was approved by a vote of 166 in favour, to one against (United States) with five abstentions.  (See Annex III).

After the vote, the representative of the Czech Republic said her delegation had abstained, but hoped negotiations next year would enable it to join those in favour of the resolution. 

     Also before the Committee was a draft resolution on human rights and terrorism (A/C.3/58/L.54).  The text would have the General Assembly strongly condemn the violation of the right to life, liberty and security, and profoundly deplore the increasing number of innocent persons killed, massacred and maimed, by terrorists in indiscriminate and random acts of violence and terror that could not be justified, under any circumstances.  By the text, the General Assembly would also urge the international community to enhance cooperation at the regional and international levels in the fight against terrorism, in all its forms and manifestations, and call upon States to take all necessary and effective measures to prevent, combat and eliminate all forms of terrorism, including strengthening their relevant legislation. 

     The draft resolution was put to a recorded vote.

     Making a general statement, the representative of the Russian Federation said he supported the draft resolution.  Recent events had showed that terrorism was a phenomenon of a truly global scale.  The practice of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations annihilated human rights, freedom and democracy.  It was also a threat to territorial integrity and the stability of States.  Terrorism in itself was a violation of basic human rights.  At the fifty-seventh session, the Russian Federation had put forward a proposal to draft a code on the protection of human rights from terrorism. 

     The representative of the United States said her country knew all too well the horror of terrorism.  The United States commitment to combating terrorism involved cooperating with the appropriate mechanisms.  The language of the draft included references that the United States could not accept.  She would, therefore, vote no on the draft resolution. 

     The draft resolution was approved in a recorded vote of 11 in favour and 39 against, with 17 abstentions. 

     The representative of Italy, speaking on behalf of the European Union, explained the vote after the vote.  The European Union condemned all acts of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.  The fight against terrorism continued to be a priority for the European Union, and it believed that efforts to combat terrorist acts must be carried out with full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, in accordance with international human rights law. 

However, he said the European Union could not subscribe to the notion that terrorist acts as such constituted human rights violations.  A distinction must be made between criminal acts and human rights violations.  In light of the aforementioned reasons, the European Union had decided to not support the draft.

     The representative of Syria said her delegation had abstained on the vote, since the draft had not referred to a specific General Assembly resolution.  She believed there was a need to reach a definition of international terrorism that involved the agreement of all Member States.  There was a need to draw a distinction between terrorism and the struggle of peoples for national emancipation.  Without such a distinction, discourse on terrorism would have no meaning. 

     The representative of Spain said that in his country, the struggle against terrorism was an essential priority.  He stressed that this struggle must be carried out in compliance with international human rights law.  Any consideration of the question of terrorism must take into account, the tragic realities of the effects of terrorism on the victims of terrorism. 

Spain could not accept that the victims of terrorism would be forgotten, he said.  His delegation believed that the references to victims of terrorism contained within the draft was the very least that could be demanded when considering the topic.  For all those reasons, Spain had not voted against this draft, but had opted for abstention. In the future, any consideration of this question must take duly into account, the victims of terrorism. 

     The representative of Romania said that he agreed with what the representative of Italy had just declared on behalf of the European Union.

     The representative of Lebanon, making a general statement, said he had voted in favour of the draft.  He wished to point out that the draft was still incomplete since there was no definition of terrorism.  The draft also failed to make a distinction between terrorism and the legitimate struggle for self-determination. 

The representative of Turkey said his delegation regretted that no consensus had been reached on this important issue, especially on a day when 27 innocent persons were deprived of their basic human right, the right to life, as a result of the terrorists attacks carried out in Istanbul today, and he expressed his hope that the international community would not have to live through another 11 September for some countries not to vote against this resolution in the future.

Before the Committee was a draft resolution on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/C.3/58/L.55) that would have the General Assembly reaffirm the role of national institutions the dissemination of human rights materials, including those of the United Nations.  In addition, the General Assembly would urge the Secretary-General to continue to give high priority to requests from Member States for assistance in the establishment and strengthening of, national human rights institutions, as part of the United Nations Programme of Advisory Services and Technical Assistance in the Field of Human Rights.  Finally, all Member States would be encouraged to take appropriate steps to promote the exchange of information and experience concerning the establishment and effective operation of national institutions.

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

Before the Committee there was a draft resolution on the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa (document A/C.3/58/L.56) that would have the General Assembly welcome the activities of the Subregional Centre at Yaoundé, and note with satisfaction the support provided for the establishment of the Centre by the host country.  The General Assembly would further request the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue to provide their full assistance for the proper functioning of the Subregional Centre.

The draft was approved without a vote.

Before the Committee was a draft resolution on the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (A/C.3/58/L.58) that would have the General Assembly welcome the reports of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders and her contribution to the effective promotion of the above Declaration and improvement of the protection of human rights defenders worldwide.

By the text, the Assembly would encourage all States to ensure and maintain an environment conducive to the work of human rights defenders, and urge States to ensure that any measures to combat terrorism and preserve national security comply with their obligations under international law, particularly international human rights law, and do not hinder the work and safety of human rights defenders.  The draft would also have the General Assembly emphasize the importance of combating impunity, and in this regard urges States to take appropriate measures to address the question of impunity for threats, attacks and acts of intimidation against human rights defenders.

The resolution was adopted without a vote as orally revised.

The representative of Syria said her delegation had joined the consensus but would like to point out that the declaration obliged States not to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries and to not be selective in their consideration of this obligation.  Her delegation would also like to state that non-governmental organizations should be authorized according to domestic law and that no other interpretation would be valid.

She said it was regrettable that the resolution did not contain a paragraph on responsibility of organizations and institutions to promote human rights, concentrating only on rights, while neglecting obligations.  This was causing imbalance of the content.

The representative of Cuba said his delegation was concerned the resolution did not recognize the responsibility of groups, individuals and institutions, including the fact that their activities should not be contrary to the principles of the United Nations Charter.  The resolution was trying to comment on its importance, but unfortunately did not deal with the rights and responsibilities of individuals, which was an intrinsic part of the resolution.  The United Nations organizations should not depart from the mandate given to them by the Organization.

     The Committee had before it a draft resolution on access to medication in the context of pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria (document A/C.3/58/L.60).  The draft would have the General Assemblycall on States to implement national strategies, in accordance with applicable international law, to realize access for all to prevention-related goods, services and information, as well as access to comprehensive treatment, care and support for all individuals infected and affected by pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

By the draft’s terms, the Assembly would call on States to take all appropriate measures to promote research and development of new and more effective pharmaceutical products and diagnostic tools, in accordance with applicable international law.  The draft also calls on the international community, and in particular, the developed countries, to continue to assist the developing countries in the fight against pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria through financial and technical support.

     The draft resolution was approved as orally amended by the representative of Brazil at the time of its introduction.

     A recorded vote was requested by the representative of the United States.

     The representative of the United States said it was regrettable that the draft would not be approved by consensus.  The United States would pursue a comprehensive approach to expand care and treatment, including better access to medication.  The United States regretted that there had been no agreement on some paragraphs of the draft, and it did not support the entitlement approach of the draft.  In addition, the United States was not a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights and could, therefore, not reaffirm it, as stated in the draft.

     The draft was approved in a recorded vote of 167 in favour to 1 against (United States).  (See annex V).

ANNEX I

     Vote on Right to Self-Determination

     The draft resolution on universal realization of the right to self-determination (document A/C.3/58/L.31) was approved by a recorded vote of 88 in favour to 3 against, with 64 abstentions, as follows: 

In favour:  Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, Iran, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen.

Against:  Bhutan, India, Mauritius.

Abstain:  Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Cambodia, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malta, Monaco, Namibia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Uganda, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Belarus, Central African Republic, Chad, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Liberia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nepal, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX II

     Vote on Human Rights and Coercive Measures

     The draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/58/L.51) was approved by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to 50 against, with 1 abstention, as follows: 

In favour:  Afghanistan,Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain:  Georgia.

Absent:  Central African Republic, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan.

ANNEX III

     Vote on Right to Physical/Mental Health

     The draft resolution on the right of everyone to highest standards of health (document A/C.3/58/L.53) was approved by a recorded vote of 166 in favour to 1 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows: 

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstentions:  Australia, Czech Republic, Jordan, Sweden, United Kingdom.

Absent:  Central African Republic, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Palau, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Human Rights and Terrorism

The draft resolution on human rights and terrorism (document A/C.3/58/L.54) was approved by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 39 against, with 17 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, Fiji, Israel, Japan, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Moldova, San Marino, Spain, Syria.

Absent:  Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Federated States of Micronesia Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX V

Vote on Access to Medication

The draft resolution on access to medication in the context of pandemics (document A/C.3/58/L.60) was approved by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to 1 against with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  None.

Absent:  Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Lebanon, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Palau, Republic of Moldova, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

* *** *

For information media. Not an official record.