TEN AMENDMENTS TO DRAFT PROPOSING MORATORIUM ON USE OF DEATH PENALTY REJECTED BY RECORDED VOTES IN THIRD COMMITTEE

14 November 2007
GA/SHC/3905

TEN AMENDMENTS TO DRAFT PROPOSING MORATORIUM ON USE OF DEATH PENALTY REJECTED BY RECORDED VOTES IN THIRD COMMITTEE

14 November 2007
General Assembly
GA/SHC/3905
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixty-second General Assembly

Third Committee

43rd & 44th Meetings (AM & PM)


TEN AMENDMENTS TO DRAFT PROPOSING MORATORIUM ON USE OF DEATH PENALTY


REJECTED BY RECORDED VOTES IN THIRD COMMITTEE

 


Assembly Called Upon to Ensure Realization

Of Millennium Development Goals for Persons with Disabilities


Ten proposed amendments to a draft resolution that would have the General Assembly call upon States to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty were rejected today during recorded votes in the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), amid an impassioned debate between supporters of the draft and those who argued that it was an attempt by States that had abolished the death penalty to impose their values on those that had not.


An additional four amendments will be taken up tomorrow, before the Committee votes on the draft -- entitled “Moratorium on the use of the death penalty” -- which would also have the Assembly express deep concern about the continued application of the death penalty.


The Committee also heard the introduction of four draft resolutions, before approving without a vote a text entitled “Implementation of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons: realizing the Millennium Development Goals for persons with disabilities”.  The text would have the Assembly call upon all parties involved in discussions on the United Nations system-wide coherence in the areas of development, humanitarian assistance and environment to ensure that the disability perspective was incorporated in the examination of options, decisions and evaluations related to implementation of the Goals.


A total of 14 amendments to the draft on a moratorium on executions were tabled by Egypt, Singapore, Barbados, Antigua and Barbuda, and Botswana.  The representative of Singapore anticipated “a divisive, unpleasant and unnecessary fight … because a group of countries led by the European Union decided to table a resolution knowing full well that not only it would it not enjoy consensus, but that it would polarise this Committee”.


“Why did they do so?” he asked.  “They did so because they want to impose their values on us.  Apparently, anyone who has a different view must be forced to change… Now that all in the European Union have decided to abolish the death penalty, they expect the rest of us to follow.”


The representative of Jamaica, in a statement echoed by several other delegations, expressed support for the amendments and said the question of the death penalty fell unequivocally within the jurisdiction of each State.  International law did not prohibit the death penalty, she added.  The representative of Egypt, noting that respect for human dignity and the sanctity of life was highly revered in Islam and other religions, said the issue of the right to life was better addressed in a comprehensive manner by the Human Rights Council.


The representative of China, calling the draft on a moratorium inappropriate, recalled that the death penalty had been discussed by the General Assembly in the past without results; deciding on the most appropriate judicial penalty for any crime fell within the remit of national sovereignty, she added.  The representative of Botswana said failure to accept the principle of non-interference in the national affairs of Member States might lead to countries ignoring provisions of the United Nations Charter; today it was the death penalty, but tomorrow, “who knows what they will come up with”.


Supporters of the draft, in statements opposing the amendments, stressed the cross-regional nature of their initiative, underlining that it was not only a European Union endeavour.  Several delegations spoke out against what they called an attempt to selectively quote from the Charter and from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  The representative of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union, contended that an Assembly resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty would not violate the sovereignty of any Member State, as such resolutions were not interventions.  His counterpart from the Russian Federation, noting that a moratorium on the death penalty had been in effect in his country for several years, said that any reference to the Charter was acceptable in any documents and bodies of the United Nations.


The representative of Ireland noted that 130 countries, out of a global total of 193, had ceased using of the death penalty either in law or in practice, a figure disputed by some delegations that supported the amendments.  Her counterpart from Liechtenstein referred to the fallibility of all judicial systems and the irreversible nature of a death sentence.  If you were wrongfully imprisoned, you could be released, he said, but “if you are wrongfully executed you are dead and that is irreversible, for yourself and for your relatives”.


The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 15 November, to continue taking action on the final four proposed amendments to the draft resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, as well as on the draft itself.  Action will also be taken on other draft resolutions.


Background


The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to hear the introduction of draft resolutions on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/62/L.67), Assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa (document A/C.3/62/L.82), Combating defamation of religions(document A/C.3/62/L.35) and the Status of internally displaced persons and refugees from Abkhazia, Georgia (document A/C.3/62/L.38).


It was then to take action on three draft resolutions.


A draft entitled Implementation of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons:  realizing the Millennium Development Goals for persons with disabilities (document A/C.3/62/L.5/Rev.1) would have the General Assembly call upon all parties involved in discussions of the United Nations system-wide coherence in the areas of development, humanitarian assistance and environment to ensure that the disability perspective is appropriately incorporated in the examination of options, decisions and evaluations related to the implementation of internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals.


A draft on Moratorium on the use of the death penalty (document A/C.3/62/L.29) would have the General Assembly express its deep concern about the continued application of the death penalty, and call upon States that still maintained this penalty to progressively restrict its use and reduce the number of offences for which it might be imposed.


A draft resolution on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol (document A/C.3/62/L.36/Rev.1) would have the General Assembly request United Nations agencies and organizations, and invite intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, to continue undertaking efforts to disseminate accessible information on the Convention and its Optional Protocol, to promote their understanding, to prepare for their entry into force and to assist States parties in implementing their obligations under these instruments.


Introduction of Draft Resolutions


The representative of Denmark introduced a draft resolution entitled Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/62/C.3/L.67).


Speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries and 94 co-sponsors, she said she was pleased to introduce the draft resolution, which would reaffirm the support of the General Assembly for the work of UNHCR.  The resolution would encourage the High Commissioner to continue pursuing reform, and acknowledge the recent efforts to strengthen the Office’s emergency response capacity.  The text would also condemn all acts threatening the safety of refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced persons, and call on all parties to an armed conflict to respect international human rights law.  The draft would also deplore refoulement.  Regarding the situation in Iraq, the text would recognize the increase in UNHCR’S caseloads and call on the international community to provide those affected with increased assistance.  Finally, it would call for a widened donor base by reinforcing cooperation with governmental, non-governmental and private donors.  She hoped the draft resolution would be passed by consensus, as had been the case in previous years.


The representative of Sierra Leone then asked for the introduction of the draft resolution on Assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa (document A/C.3/62/L.82) to be deferred, explaining that efforts to gather more co-sponsors were continuing.


The representative of Pakistan then introduced a resolution on Combating defamation of religions (document A/C.3/62/L.35).  He said it was an annual initiative of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) aimed at combating defamation against all religions, particularly Islam.  The text was not new; it built upon a similar resolution adopted at the sixty-first session of the General Assembly.  Over history, different religions and their adherents had been targets of discrimination, violence and defamation.  Today it was Islam and its adherents who were targeted.  Islamophobia had been documented extensively by Special Rapporteurs.  The post-9/11 world had seen an increase of discrimination against Islam, with its adherents being portrayed as extremists.  The objective of the resolution was to reverse the phenomenon of Islamophobia and to protect other religions and beliefs from defamation.  He hoped the text would have the widest possible support.


A draft entitled Status of internally displaced persons and refugees from Abkhazia, Georgia (document A/C.3/62/L.38) was then introduced by the representative of Georgia.  The text would have the Assembly reaffirm the right of such persons to promptly return to their homes without preconditions.  It would also recall reported “ethnic cleansing”, which had been condemned at summits of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).  He said by no means did the draft impede ongoing efforts to resolve the Abkhazia situation; in fact, it had been designated to be part of that process.  It was hoped the text would generate the widest possible support.


The representative of Egypt introduced a draft amendment contained in document A/62/C.3/L.68 in connection with the draft resolution entitled Moratorium on the death penalty (document A/C.3/62/L.29).  He said the draft amendment would recognize that the Charter of the Organization was not authorized to intervene in the domestic matters of States.  That was a guiding principle of the Charter -- States had a sovereign right to determine their own societies.


The representative of Egypt then introduced a draft amendment contained in document A/62/C.3/L.69 in connection with the draft resolution entitled Moratorium on the death penalty.  He said that amendment would recognize that some Member States had decided to abolish the death penalty.  Meanwhile, many Member States retained the death penalty in their legislation.  Neither was more right than the other, and neither was wrong.  Both were acting according to their sovereign rights according to the Charter, and in compliance with their obligations to civil and political rights.  The co-sponsors of both amendments hoped they would be approved by consensus.


The representative of Singapore then introduced a draft amendment contained in document A/62/C.3/L.70 in connection with the draft resolution entitled Moratorium on the death penalty (document A/C.3/62/L.29).  He said that his delegation was proposing a new preambular paragraph that would reaffirm each Member State’s right to choose without interference.  The proposed preambular paragraph would also aim to provide balance that was lacking in the European Union’s draft.  The proposed preambular paragraph was an affirmation of the United Nations Charter, and he hoped all would support the proposal.


The representative of Barbados then introduced an amendment (document A/C.3/62/L.71) to the draft entitled Moratorium or the death penalty.  The assumption that the death penalty was illegal or prohibited in international law was a major shortcoming of the draft; nothing could be further from the truth.  It was stated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that in countries where the death penalty had not been abolished, sentence of death could be imposed for the most serious crimes.  It was only appropriate that some language be included from that Covenant, which was referred to in the preambular section of the draft. 


The representative of Portugal, the main sponsor of the draft, took the floor to explain that it was not a European Union initiative, but a cross-regional initiative.


The representative of Barbados then introduced another amendment (document A/C.3/62/L.72) to the draft that would seek to lend balance to the text by adding a preambular paragraph affirming that treaties, protocols and conventions were binding only on States parties.  To reject such a factual statement would be difficult, he said.


The representative of Singapore introduced an amendment (document A/C.3/62/L.73) that would correct a false impression about positions taken by the Commission on Human Rights on the death penalty, as many States had disassociated themselves from those positions.  To deny that fact would be to deny reality, he said.


The representative of Antigua and Barbuda then introduced a draft amendment contained in document A/62/C.3/L.74 in connection with the draft resolution entitled Moratorium on the death penalty.  She said all States had to consider their specific conditions when applying a particular rule or standard.  That diversity had to be respected.  Antigua and Barbuda respected the rights of States to abolish the death penalty, but those States who abolished it should also respect the right of other States to uphold it.


The representative of Botswana then introduced a draft amendment contained in document A/62/C.3/L.75 in connection with the draft resolution entitled Moratorium on the death penalty.  The delegation of Botswana was convinced that its amendment was a statement of fact.  Over 100 Member States maintained capital punishment, and only 90 had abolished the death penalty.  It was a criminal justice issue, and by the current amendment, Botswana was not presenting arguments for or against a moratorium on the death penalty; it was putting the issues in its proper context.  Member States were at different stages of development and had different backgrounds that influenced their jurisprudence.  His country fully respected those who had abolished the death penalty.


The representative of Botswana then introduced a draft amendment contained in document A/62/C.3/L.76 in connection with the draft resolution entitled Moratorium on the death penalty.  He said that Botswana found several inconsistencies in the current draft resolution.  Capital punishment was permitted under international law, as long as fundamental issues of due process were observed.  His delegation believed that it was important that the main sponsors take cognizance of all international legal instruments that allowed the death penalty as a legal action.  Passing judgment on sovereign Governments was not acceptable, as it impinged on the sovereignty of United Nations Member States.  A properly balanced statement was needed.   Botswana recognized the variety of possible reasons for some countries to abolish capital punishment.


The representative of the Bahamas introduced an amendment (document A/C.3/62/L.77) to the draft on Moratorium on the death penalty.  She noted that no other issue had enflamed passions more than the one that was before the Committee today, as it did not enjoy international consensus.  The amendment aimed to strike a balance in preambular paragraph 6 by taking note that “some” Member States, rather than “an increasing number” of States, had decided to voluntarily abolish the death penalty or to apply a moratorium on executions.


The floor was returned to the representative of Barbados to introduce an additional amendment (document A/C.3/62/L.78) to the draft, aimed at replacing unnecessarily strong and judgemental language in operative paragraph 2.  It would be more enlightened to use conciliatory language.


The same representative then introduced a further amendment (document A/C.3/62/L.79) to replace what he called a “puzzling” operative paragraph 2, which made reference to information regarding imposition of the death penalty.  In keeping with the notion of democracy and transparency, the amendment would encourage Governments to make such information available to the public.


The representative of Barbados then introduced a draft amendment contained in document A/62/C.3/L.80 on the draft resolution entitled Moratorium on the death penalty.  As with much of the language, operative paragraph 2c was overly prescriptive.  Barbados had therefore tabled the current amendment, which it believed was a much better formulation.  He thanked all delegations which co-sponsored the draft, and said Barbados was cognizant that dismissive language, when it related to the death penalty, would be problematic for most delegations.


The representative of Barbados then introduced a draft amendment contained in document A/62/C.3/L.81 in connection with the draft on Moratorium on the death penalty.  He said that there was no international consensus on the death penalty, and it was not prohibited under international law.  While he expressed respect for those who had abolished it, he also asked that the same courtesy be accorded to those who had not.  The draft was an attempt to impose values.  Despite the change in title from “abolish” to “moratorium”, the original intention of the draft remained the same; to abolish the death penalty.


Action on Draft Resolutions


The Committee then took action on the draft on Implementation of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons: realizing the Millennium Development Goals for persons with disabilities (document A/C.3/62/L.5/Rev.1).  The representative of the Philippines said the revised text focused more on the needs of persons with disabilities, who should be part of the pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals.  Full participation and equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities was the goal of the draft.  She then made a minor oral change to the draft and a correction to its Spanish version.


The representative of Australia noted her country had signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and that it was undertaking consultations and legislative scrutiny prior to ratifying that instrument.


The draft when then adopted, as orally revised, without a vote.


The representative of Greece asked that his country be added to the list of co-sponsors on a draft resolution on Follow-up to the International Year of Older Persons:  Second World Assembly on Ageing (document A/C.3/62/L.9) that had been approved at a previous session.


The representative of the Philippines then made a statement in connection with action on the draft resolution entitled Moratorium on the use of the death penalty.  She said the text was the result of a comprehensive effort by the main sponsors, who had worked in a transparent and cooperative manner.  In a sincere effort, the main sponsors had made several modifications to the text, which had led to a rise in the number of co-sponsors.  Beginning with the title, as well as the preambular and operative paragraphs, the focus of the draft was on a moratorium.  Abolition would be the result of a step-by-step process.  The text began with a reference to the Charter of the United Nations, and that document should be read and understood in its entirety; selective quotation would undermine the text.  As the main sponsors had taken those changes to the text on board, the co-sponsors reiterated that such changes did not aim to challenge national sovereignty and were rather aimed at reinforcing the phasing out of the death penalty.  Making a correction, she said she thought she had mentioned Rev.1, but there was no such document, and the Committee was still working on document A/C.3/62/L.29.


The representative of Egypt then received the floor on a point of order, to say he had just noticed that there were a few typing mistakes in the Arabic edition of draft resolution L.29.  The first was that it said it was a Second Committee resolution.  That should be changed to Third Committee resolution.  The second was in preambular paragraph 4; the translation used a word he could not recognize in Arabic.  He then listed the relevant words in English and Arabic, and said that the difference in Arabic was the same as between “can” and “could” in English.  His delegation would appreciate it if the Committee’s secretariat could take care of that, he said.


The Secretary, Moncef Khane, said that he had taken note of the grievances, and if mistakes had been made in the Arabic text, they would be corrected in due course.


The Chairman, Raymond Wolfe ( Jamaica), then proposed that the Committee take action on the draft amendments submitted in connection with the draft resolution Moratorium on the use of the death penalty in the order in which they had been tabled.  He also made a note of time limits to delegations’ interventions.  That was approved by the Committee.


The Committee then took action on amendments to the Moratorium on the use of the death penalty (A/C.3/62/L.29), beginning with A/C.3/62.L.68).


The representative of Pakistan, on behalf of member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that States belonging to the Conference strongly believed that every human being had a right to life.  It was the duty of States to respect the right to life, in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and relevant instruments.  A number of States had exercised their sovereign right to impose a moratorium or to abolish the death penalty.  For a majority of member States of the Organization, the issue was one related to their criminal justice systems, with an obligation on them to carry out the death penalty subject to competent courts and after exhausting all legal remedies.  The OIC recognized that the issue of establishing a moratorium lacked international consensus, especially in view of existing international human rights instruments.


The representative of Antigua and Barbuda, on behalf of States in the Caribbean region, said those States had great difficulty with the tone and intent of the draft resolution.  Any implication that they had arbitrarily applied capital punishment for insignificant crimes without regard for the human rights of the accused was regrettable, she said.  In most Caribbean countries, where the death penalty was applied for cases of murder or treason, capital punishment had not been carried out for more than a decade.  The unwillingness of “abolitionist” countries to engage in discussion on such a complex issue was equally regrettable.  Caribbean opponents of the draft resolution had broken no law, and would resist the callous characterization of their choice to keep the death penalty as part of their legal systems.


The representative of Jamaica said that, in keeping with the Charter of the United Nations, Member States should refrain from taking steps that amounted to interference in the domestic affairs of other countries.  For her country, the question of the death penalty fell unequivocally within the jurisdiction of each State.  International law did not prohibit the death penalty.  The co-sponsors of the draft were seeking to read words against the death penalty into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was expressly aimed at the abolition of the death penalty, but if a country was not a party to that Optional Protocol, then no binding instrument prohibited it from carrying out that penalty in some circumstances.  The Government of Jamaica had indicated that it was considering a conscience vote in Parliament on the death penalty; it was unlikely that outside intervention would influence such a vote.  Jamaican had not implemented the death penalty since 1988; it would vote against the original form of the draft resolution sponsored mainly by the European Union and other States.


The representative of the Bahamas said her delegation firmly regarded the issue of the death penalty as one of national sovereignty.  Her country had a proud history vis-à-vis human rights; it had always considered the death penalty applicable only in cases of the most serious crimes.  That the co-sponsors of the draft sought to make impositions on other States was deeply regretted.


The representative of Egypt said that respect for human dignity and the sanctity of life was highly revered in Islam and other religions.  The death penalty, restricted to the most serious crimes, and applied only as part of due process, was part of Islamic jurisprudence.  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights did not prohibit capital punishment.  He noted that Islamic sharia law prohibited abortion except in rare circumstances.  Allegations made by some of the co-sponsors that General Assembly resolutions were only recommendations did not hold; such resolutions constituted international norms that in time became international law.  The issue should have been dealt with in the Human Rights Council in a comprehensive manner that tackled the right to life in all its aspects.  States that abolished the death penalty or applied a moratorium, and States that had the death penalty as part of their legislation, were both acting in compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  Neither was right or wrong.


The representative of Botswana asked for clarification as to where the Committee found itself regarding statements on the draft on Moratorium on the death penalty, L.29, and its amendments.


The Secretary said that the Committee was in the action process, and that it had a number of amendments to act upon first.  He wanted to make sure all delegations understood that there would be an opportunity to make general statements after action on the amendment.  He saw that the list of speakers was growing, and said some delegations might wish to withhold their general statements until the Committee was about to take action on the draft resolution as a whole, as amended.


The representative of Botswana said he would ask for the floor at an appropriate time.


The representative of China said her delegation regretted the fact that the death penalty was again being discussed in the Third Committee, as there was no international consensus on its abolition.  She said in 1994 and 1999, the General Assembly had discussed that issue without results.  The death penalty was not prohibited by international law.  According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the death penalty might be imposed only because of the most serious of crimes.  Deciding on the most appropriate penalty was a question of sovereignty and therefore a matter for the State.  The Assembly was not the proper forum to address the death penalty question.  To discuss the issue in such a political forum would only further politicize it.  It was inappropriate to submit a draft resolution to the General Assembly which asked for a moratorium on the death penalty.  She called upon all delegations to support the amendments proposed.


The representative of Iran said his delegation associated itself with the statement made by Pakistan.  Over one hundred countries recognized capital punishment in their penal code.  The deterrence value of the death penalty had been endorsed by many systems.  The protection of the right to life of victims was more important than the right to life of a mass-murderer.  Who would prevent the violation of the right to life of more innocent people, he asked, and who would pay for the life imprisonment costs?  He requested that the sponsors of draft resolution on a moratorium on the death penalty withdraw it from the agenda of the meeting.


The representative of Syria said that her delegation feared the draft resolution constituted a blatant interference in political affairs that was contrary to the United Nations Charter.  Asking States to impose a moratorium on capital punishment was asking them to change their judicial systems, which were a product of their historical and social backgrounds.  Her Government applied capital punishment based on instructions from Syria’s legal system, based on protection of the rights of victims, and on social factors.  The States which abolished the death penalty were taking the rights of the accused into consideration before the rights of the victims, she said.  Her country did not apply the death penalty except for the most serious crimes.  The draft resolution on moratorium was blatant interference in States, she said, and her delegation would vote against it.  She called on all States to support the amendments submitted by a group of States including Syria.


The representative of Gabon said there seemed to be some confusion.  Was the Committee discussing the first amendment to the main draft on a Moratorium on the death penalty or the main draft itself?


The Chairman recalled that general statements could be made after amendments were carried, but there was a preference among delegations to speak before.


The representative of Egypt, the main sponsor of the first amendment tabled (document A/C.3/62/L.68), asked for two minutes to confer with his delegation.  The Chairman replied that there was no time now for consultations.


The representative of Botswana took the floor to make remarks on the first tabled amendment.  Noting that it quoted directly from the Charter of the United Nations, he said that it was not selective in its reference to that document.  It was hoped that invoking the Charter would serve to protect some small countries, including his, against a worrying trend of interference in the national affairs of Member States through the United Nations process, one that demonstrated a sense of superiority on the part of some Member States.  The issue was not about the abolition of the death penalty or a moratorium, but about framing the debate in accordance with the Charter.  Failure to accept that principle might embolden the position of the main sponsors of the main draft by giving them ideas that they could ignore provisions of the Charter.  Today it was the death penalty; tomorrow “who knows what they will come up with”.  Botswana would vote in favour of this important amendment.


The representative of Singapore said that a divisive, unpleasant and unnecessary fight was about to begin.  A group of countries led by the European Union had decided to table a resolution knowing fully well that it would not only not enjoy consensus, but that it would polarize the Committee.  They had done so because they wanted to impose their values on others; apparently, anyone who had a different view had to be forced to change.  The tabled amendments were a defence against the European Union’s aggressiveness.  The ultimate objective of the main draft was not a moratorium, but the abolition of the death penalty.  For many countries, such a penalty was a criminal justice matter, not a human rights issue, and despite what many co-sponsors claimed, that penalty could not be a violation of human rights, as it was not forbidden under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.


Now that all States in the European Union had abolished the death penalty, it expected all others to follow, he said.  The Union wanted everyone to think as they did; “when their values ‘shift,’ our values should also ‘shift’.”  If anyone had the audacity to be different, then the European Union thought it was open season to badger them.  That trait had been seen before.  Singapore supported the amendment introduced by Egypt; it was nonsense to argue that it was a selective quotation from the Charter of the United Nations.  The Committee had before it a blatant attempt to impose the values of one set of countries upon everyone else.


The representative of Gabon, given the floor on a point of order, asked to correct what his counterpart from Singapore had said.  The draft resolution on a moratorium was an interregional initiative, not an initiative of the European Union.


The Chairman said that the representative of Gabon was not making a point of order, but rather an explanation that could be delivered after a vote.


The representative of Gabon responded that it was necessary for delegations to be well-informed and to avoid confusion.   Gabon was not in the European Union, but it was an African country that was supporting the initiative; others were from Asia and South America.


The representative of Egypt reiterated that States that had abolished the death penalty or imposed a moratorium, or which maintained the death penalty, were acting in compliance with their obligations.  Both were right, and neither side should impose their viewpoint on the other.  The amendment would merely improve the language of the resolution and ensure due respect for the sovereignty of Member States, which was the cornerstone of the United Nations.


The Chairman said that a recorded vote had been requested, but that he was obliged to suspend the meeting.  The Committee would resume its work at 3 p.m.


Resuming its meeting in the afternoon, the Committee heard a procedural explanation from the Secretary in light of the fact that a recorded vote had been requested for all 14 amendments to “L.29” that had been tabled in the morning.


Speaking on a point of order, the representative of Egypt asked who had asked for a recorded vote.


The Chairman replied that it had been requested by a number of the co-sponsors of the main draft, whom he named.


In a statement of explanation prior to the vote, the representative of Mexico said the co-sponsors of the main draft, from all regions of the world, reaffirmed their commitment to the United Nations Charter, as reflected in its first preambular paragraph.  The amendment was unnecessary and responded to a clear attempt to impede discussion of subjects of concern to the Committee, such as the death penalty.  As well, recourse to selective quotation of the Charter, out of context, undermined the content of that document and set an unfortunate precedent.   Mexico reaffirmed its commitment to the Charter, which must be read and taken up as a whole; greater importance could not be attached to some of its precepts over others.  To vote against the amendment would be to vote against a clear attempt to undermine the integrity of the Charter, and Mexico would vote against the amendment.


The representative of Portugal reiterated, on behalf of the European Union, that the main draft was not a European Union initiative, but a cross-regional initiative, as the list of co-sponsors demonstrated clearly.  Full consideration had been given to the amendment, which had been presented during informal consultations.  A general reference to the Charter was a reference to all its Articles; thus, there was no need for a specific reference to any one Article.  The Charter must be read and understood in its entirety, and selective quotations would only weaken its significance.  A resolution of the General Assembly on a moratorium would not violate the sovereignty principle of any Member State, as such resolutions were not interventions.  The promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms must be considered as a priority objective of the United Nations and a legitimate concern of the international community.  The present amendment was hostile to the spirit and letter of the resolution, and Member States of the European Union would vote against it.


The representative of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia said that during informal consultations, there had been ample time to discuss changes, and his delegation had given careful consideration to the amendment.  The protection and promotion of all human rights and fundamental freedoms was a priority objective of the United Nations.  Also, it was unnecessary to quote selectively from the Charter when a general reference to it was made.  Moreover, the resolution did not impose any measures on any State whatsoever and did not violate the sovereignty principle.  The amendment was absolutely contrary to the spirit and letter of the main resolution, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia would vote against it.


The representative of Guatemala said his delegation was going to abstain from voting.  The Charter of the United Nations was a universal instrument and should be read in its entirety.  His delegation believed the Charter had to be interpreted as a harmonious whole, and that each part had to be considered in coordination with the other parts.  No provision should be considered in isolation, and certain clauses must not be pitted against others.


The representative of Gabon said since its establishment, the United Nations had adopted several resolutions which a priori belonged to sovereign States.  In recent years, Member States had signed and ratified several treaties on human rights, including criminal instruments.  Questions belonging to national law should be considered in international law.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights referred to penal issues.  His country would vote against the amendment and he urged others to do the same.


The representative of the Philippines said that since “L.29” already contained a reference to the Charter, it was not necessary to single out any principles.  He said “L.29” involved a matter that fell within the principle of human rights as well as the dignity of a human person, which was at the heart of the Preamble, and was a universal principle.  It was certainly not just within the domestic matters of a State.  The Philippines would therefore be voting against the amendment.


The representative of the Russian Federation said in his country there had been a moratorium on the death penalty for several years.  The Russian Federation was committed to strict compliance in the area of human rights and supported “L.29”.  At the same time, the United Nations Charter was the main international unilateral agreement, and consequently his delegation believed that any reference to the provisions of the Charter were acceptable in any documents and bodies of the Organization.  For that reason, the Russian Federation would vote for the amendment in “L.68”, and for other amendments if they were based on the Charter or other legal documents to which Russia was a party.


The Committee then took action on amendment A/C.3/62/L.68, whose terms would replace the first preambular paragraph of “L.29” with the following text:  “Guided by the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations, and recalling, in particular, Article 2, paragraph 7, which clearly stipulates that nothing in the Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State…”


The amendment was rejected by a vote of 82 against to 73 in favour, with 15 abstentions.  (See annex I.)


The representative of Singapore expressed astonishment at the decision to reject “L.68”, which had been presented in the language of the United Nations Charter.  The reality was that nothing in the Charter spoke of abolishing the death penalty.  Some countries had voted to ignore the United Nations Charter because it seemed inconvenient.  One day, he speculated, they would ask that the whole Charter be redefined to suit their convenience. 


The representative of Egypt said he was disappointed at the vote.  Despite his delegation’s sincere efforts to improve the language, some delegations had voted against cooperation and respect, as well as against the foundations of this organization.


The representative of El Salvador reaffirmed her country’s commitment to the Charter as a coherent whole.   El Salvador had voted against the draft amendment because a partial quotation seemed unnecessary, and the amendment was detrimental to “L.29”.


The representative of Botswana said he was disappointed with the rejection of the amendment proposed by Egypt.  As he had stated earlier, the issue was not on whether a county had imposed a moratorium, but on framing the current debate in accordance with the Charter.  That had set a dangerous precedent where the same trends would probably be seen, and where the Charter would be reinterpreted to suit certain ends.


The Committee than took action on amendment A/C.3/62/L.69, whose terms would have a new operative paragraph inserted before operative paragraph 1 of the draft text titled Moratorium on the death penalty (document A/C.3/62/L.29).  The new operative paragraph would affirm the sovereign right of States to determine the legal measures and penalties which are appropriate in their societies, including the death penalty for the most serious crimes, in accordance with international law.


The representative of Egypt, the main sponsor, reiterated that countries that had imposed moratoriums or abolished the death penalty, and those that maintained the death penalty, were both right, and that neither should impose its point of view on the other.  It was hoped that Member States would vote in favour of the amendment.


In a statement of explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of China said the death penalty was not prohibited under international law.  China attached great importance to the death penalty but applied stringent conditions on its use.  His delegation opposed any attempt to intervene in a country’s judicial system.


The representative of Italy said that the majority of the Committee had not voted against an Article of the Charter, but had voted against the selective quotation of the Charter.


Interrupting on a point of order, the representative of Singapore said that his counterpart from Italy was talking about the previous amendment, “L.68”.  Could the Chairman ask him to stick to the issue at hand?


The representative of Italy said the amendment implied that the main sponsors of the resolution were trying to interfere in the way that some countries organized their criminal and legal systems.  That was obviously not the case.  The main sponsors believed that promotion of a moratorium on the death penalty by the international community did not constitute a form of intervention in the domestic jurisdiction of a State.  The amendment sought to undermine the resolution, and it could only be rejected.  The cross-regional alliance behind the resolution did not want to pick a fight.


The representative of Singapore, again on a point of order, asked why the representative of Italy was “going all over the world” when he should be speaking only about amendment “L.69”.


The Chairman then appealed to the representative of Italy to stick to that amendment.


Resuming his statement, the representative of Italy said that nowhere was it being said that the death penalty was contrary to international law.  Moreover, nothing in the main draft represented “finger-pointing” or blaming countries in the internal sphere.


The representative of Paraguay said that urging a moratorium on the death penalty did not constitute interference in the internal affairs of a State.  Amendment “L.69” suggested that the co-sponsors of the main draft were trying to undermine the legal and criminal systems of other States, but that was far from the intention.  Rather, “L.29” appealed to Member States to establish a moratorium on executions, with a view to the abolition of the death penalty.  The present amendment sought to weaken that main draft.


The representative of Syria began speaking, but was interrupted by the Chairman, who said that as a co-sponsor of the amendment, she could not speak in explanation of vote ahead of the vote.


The Committee then took action with a recorded vote, and the amendment was rejected by a recorded vote of 83 against to 68 in favour, with 18 abstentions.  (See annex II.)


The representative of Egypt said that once again he wished to register its deep disappointment at the vote just cast.  His delegation had presented the amendment together with other co-sponsors to avert any attempt by certain countries to imposition their will on the rest of the membership.


The representative of Syria expressed her delegation’s disappointment at the result of the voting.


The Committee then moved onto action on amendment A/C.3/62/L.70, which proposed the insertion of a new second preambular paragraph, reaffirming that “every Member State has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another State…”


The representative of Singapore said that he believed he had already said enough when introducing the amendment this morning, and called on everyone in the room to vote for it.


The representative of Egypt said that his delegation believed the amendment reaffirmed the inalienable right for States to choose their economic and social systems without interference from other nations.  That was one of the fundamental principles governing his country, and his delegation believed that the amendment would only serve to restore balance to the resolution in question.  His delegation was voting in favour, and he urged all others to do the same.


The Chairman then opened the floor for statements in explanation of vote before the vote.


The representative of Timor-Leste said her country was one of the main sponsors of the cross-regional initiative and her delegation wished to state the following before the vote:  the main sponsors had provided plenty of opportunity to put forward amendments.  The amendment in question sought to undermine the spirit of the resolution.  The purpose of the draft was not to intervene, but to reinforce a growing trend towards phasing out the death penalty, which was a legitimate concern of the international community.  Timor-Leste would vote against it and urged others to do the same.


The representative of Switzerland said his county, as a co-sponsor of “L.29”, would vote against “L.70” and urged other states to vote no.


The representative of Albania said his delegation believed the resolution had started a process of dialogue that was of fundamental importance to the development of human rights.  The purpose of “L.29” was not to interfere, but to promote a moratorium on the death penalty.  His country would vote against the draft amendment “L.70”, and he urged others to do the same.


The Committee then moved to a recorded vote on draft amendment “L.70”.  The resolution was defeated by a vote of 83 against to 72 in favour, with 15 abstentions.  (See annex III.)


In a statement following the vote, the representative of Singapore said he was surprised by the rejection of the amendment.  Was it being said that the European Union should be telling others how to act?  Some delegations had been cynical in their support of the United Nations Charter.  There was no room for selectivity.  If States were so keen to raise the issue of the death penalty, why could they not bring it up bilaterally?


The representative of Egypt also expressed disappointment.


The Committee then took action on the amendment A/C.3/62/L.71, which would recall also that “article 6, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that in countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”.


The representative of Barbados, the main sponsor, said that the death penalty was not prohibited in international law, as the main draft seemed to imply.  The language in the amendment was an exact quote from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  It would be surprising if this amendment was rejected, particularly by States party to that Covenant.


Making a general statement, the representative of Botswana said concern had been expressed that the main sponsors of the main draft “L.29” had been inflexible and had refused to engage in constructive dialogue.  What recourse was there but to table amendments?  Botswana wanted to express its uneasiness at the approach that had been taken by the main sponsors.


In an explanation of vote prior to voting, the representative of Armenia noted that his delegation was among the co-sponsors of the main draft, which was a cross-regional initiative.  Co-sponsors of amendments were trying to impose their will by stating that the main draft was a European Union initiative or Union-led.  Addressing the amendment at hand, he said use of such a selective quotation indicated that the death penalty was permissible under the Covenant, but that was not the case, as Article 6 of the Covenant said that nothing in the article shall be invoked to delay or prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State party to the Covenant.  Armenia would vote against the amendment, he said.


The representative of Brazil said his country would oppose the amendment as well.  The purpose of such selective quotation was to indicate that the death penalty was permissible under the Covenant, but that was not the case, as the previous speaker had explained.  The amendment went against the spirit of the Covenant and all Member States should vote against it.


The representative of New Zealand, speaking as a co-author of the main draft “L.29”, said the amendment was a selective and partial quotation from the Covenant that was misleading and imbalanced.  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights pointed to the abolition of capital punishment.  The co-sponsors had been open to feedback, and the feedback had been that there was no wish for selective quotations from international instruments on which the main draft was founded.  New Zealand would oppose the amendment.


The representative of Angola said that, as co-author of the main draft “L.29”, his delegation was taking the floor to say that there was no reason for the amendment to be included.  He appealed to all Member States to vote against the selective quotation of a treaty body.


The Committee took action through a recorded vote and rejected the amendment “L.71” by a recorded vote of 82 against to 68 in favour, with 19 abstentions.  (See annex IV.)


The Chairman opened the floor for general statements following the vote.


The representative of Egypt said that his delegation had voted in favour of the amendment and hoped that everyone else party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights had voted in favour of it as well.  His delegation was very disappointed about the vote that had just taken place.


The representative of Iran said the reason his delegation had voted in favour of “L.71” was to guarantee respect for the rights of all countries.  The situation of all States was not the same. Iran was in an area that was a main route for the transit of drugs, and because of his country’s zero-tolerance policy, almost 3,000 soldiers had been killed.   Iran did not suggest that application of all procedures should be the same in all regions, but said that countries had to take note of all situations.


The representative of Barbados expressed his disappointment, and said that in presenting a draft resolution on the death penalty, it was totally appropriate to include a part from the Covenant that allowed for the provision of such a penalty.  The death penalty was not prohibited under international law.


The Chairman then invited the Committee to take action on the amendment contained in “L.72”, which would have a new second paragraph inserted reading: “Affirming that the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the death penalty imposes an obligation only on States parties to the Protocol to take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within their jurisdiction.”


The representative of Barbados said that his delegation had introduced the amendment to reinforce the point that treaties, conventions and optional protocols were only binding to those that were party to them.  He looked forward to the support of delegations for the amendment.


The Chairman then opened the floor for statements in explanation of vote before the vote.


The representative of France, speaking as a co-sponsor of “L.29”, said L.72 was a biased interpretation of the Optional Protocol to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and for that reason his delegation called for others to vote against it.


The representative of Croatia said that the amendment was unacceptable and her delegation would vote against it.


The Committee then proceeded to a recorded vote on amendment L.72, which was rejected by a vote of 82 against to 65 in favour, with 22 abstentions.  (See annex V.)


In a general statement after the vote, the representative of Barbados expressed his extreme disappointment that a reasonable amendment had been rejected.  He reiterated that the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was binding only on States that were party to it.


The Committee then took action on draft amendment A/C.3/62/L.73, which would recall resolutions on the question of the death penalty adopted by the Commission on Human Rights, the last being its resolution 2005/59, and joint statements of disassociation related to them.


Speaking before the vote, the representative of Singapore, the main sponsor, said the amendment aimed to correct the wrong impression that the resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights regarding the death penalty had been adopted unanimously.  That was not the case; in 2005, 66 countries had signed a statement of disassociation.  The amendment was based on the facts; to reject it would be to deny reality.


The representative of Chile noted that his country was a co-sponsor of the main draft “L.29”, and not a member of the European Union.  That text had been constructed in a harmonious way, with a sequence of quotations starting with the Union Nations Charter and following with mentions of essential human rights instruments.  It concluded with mention of a whole host of resolutions adopted by the Commission on Human Rights; taken as a whole, over 10 consecutive sessions, they expressed a consistent line of thinking aimed at realizing -- in the future, and in keeping with norms of international law -- the disappearance of the death penalty from the face of the Earth.  It was only logical to briefly mention the content of the last of those resolutions.  Reference to disassociation on the content of those resolutions did not distract from those texts.   Chile would vote against the amendment.


The representative of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia said that the Commission on Human Rights had adopted resolutions on the abolition of the death penalty that called for a moratorium on executions.  All States were cordially invited to vote against the proposed amendment, which was unnecessary.


The representative of Belgium said it was only natural to insert in the main draft a reference to important actions taken by the Commission on Human Rights.  Making references to national declarations of disassociation was not habitual.  Belgium would vote against the amendment.


By way of a recorded vote, the Committee then defeated the amendment by 82 against to 67 in favour, with 19 abstentions. (See annex VI.)


Making a general statement after the vote, the representative of Egypt said his delegation had voted in favour because the amendment was a statement of fact; the vote that had been cast only denied that fact.  Had the vote been in favour of the amendment, it would have shown impartiality and objectivity.  He added: “We are extremely disappointed at this stage.”


The representative of Singapore said the position his delegation had taken concerned a known fact.  A dangerous road was being followed; delegations would be wise to ponder what precedent had been taken by the vote just held.


The representative of Antigua and Barbuda , referring to draft amendment A/C.3/62/L.74, said all had to respect diversity.  All Member States had to support that statement of fact, she said.


The Chairman then opened the floor for explanations of vote before the vote.


The representative of Ireland said that the proposed amendment “L.74” intended to invoke cultural diversity as an argument for not applying the same rules everywhere.  That ran counter to the universality of the International Declaration of Human Rights.  All States, regardless of their political systems, had a duty to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms.  Implausible motivations had been imputed to L.29, but the draft was a genuinely felt concern of a broad group of States that had no desire to impose anything on anyone.  The Irish delegation stood against L.74 and respectfully invited all Member States to vote against it.


The representative of Timor-Leste said the rationale behind L.74 was flawed, in that cultural diversity could only be respected if it ran counter to universal human rights.  The Declaration of Human Rights said that when it came to those rights, the same rules should be applied everywhere.  All States had the duty to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms.  She invited all to vote against the draft amendment.


The representative of Montenegro said she was taking the floor to explain her delegation’s position on L.74.  There was a reasonable amount of legal diversity, yet there was also a lot of common ground.  Many countries had abolished the death penalty.  Therefore, Montenegro would vote against amendment L.74 and invited all to vote against it.


The representative of Singapore, speaking on a point of order, said he did not know that the Committee had moved to statements of explanation of vote.


The Chairman reminded the representative of Singapore that, as a co-sponsor, he did not have the right to make a statement in explanation of vote.


The representative of Singapore asked for the chance to make a general statement.


The Chairman asked him to wait until after the vote, to which the representative of Singapore agreed.  The Committee then moved to a recorded vote.


The amendment was rejected by a recorded vote of 83 against to 71 in favour, with 15 abstentions.  (See annex VII.)


Draft amendment L.74, after the fourth preambular paragraph, would have inserted a new paragraph reading “Acknowledging that there is a great diversity of legal, social, economic and cultural conditions in the world, and that all rules are not suitable for application in all places and at all times.”


The Chairman then opened the floor for general statements.


The representative of Singapore said he wanted to reinforce Antigua and Barbuda’s point that the amendment that had been rejected was a statement of fact.  All rules were not suitable for application in all places at all times.  Not to acknowledge reality was as good as saying that the legal systems of some Governments were what everyone should have.


The representative of Antigua and Barbuda expressed regret that the amendment had not been approved, and said that there was no consensus on the death penalty.  She added that the co-sponsors were witnesses to the fact that the only consensus was that there was no consensus on the death penalty.


The representative of Iran said he regretted that the amendment had not been approved, and that the meaning of universality had been misunderstood.


The Committee then took action on the amendment contained in document A/C.3/62/L.75, which would insert a preambular paragraph recognizing that many Member States maintained the death penalty in their statutes for the most serious crimes.


The representative of the main sponsor, Botswana, said standards needed to be maintained and balance upheld.  The main sponsors of the main draft had failed to acknowledge a simple of statement of fact -- that many Member States had kept the death penalty on their statute books for the most serious crimes.  Member States were invited to vote for the amendment in a true spirit of constructive engagement.


The representative of Uruguay said his delegation would vote against the amendment, as it was unnecessary.


In an explanation of position before the vote, the representative of New Zealand agreed with her counterpart from Uruguay that the amendment was unnecessary and, though it may be factual, that did not justify its inclusion.  She said 130 countries –- or more than two thirds of the United Nations membership -- had abolished the death penalty, in law or in practice, for all crimes.  The representative of Botswana had referred earlier in the day to inflated statistics.  The number of Member States that still had the death penalty had sharply declined, a clear trend that had been mentioned in the main draft.  The amendment was contrary to the spirit and intention of the main draft, and New Zealand would vote against it.


The representative of Germany said he could not agree more with what his counterpart from Botswana had said about sticking to the facts, which were that an increasing number of countries had abolished the death penalty from their legislation.  When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had been adopted, eight countries had abolished capital punishment for all crimes; now the figure was 130 countries out of 193 that had done so in law or in practice.  Only 25 countries had carried out executions in 2006.  The co-sponsors wanted recognition of the trend towards phasing out the death penalty. 


He went on to remind everyone that the nature of capital punishment was irreversible and irreparable, and no legal system anywhere was immune to miscarriages of justice.  Furthermore, the amendment was not in accordance with the operative part of the main draft, which called for a moratorium leading to the abolition of the death penalty.  Germany would vote against it.


The Committee then rejected the amendment by a recorded vote of 83 against to 72 in favour, with 14 abstentions. (See annex VIII.)


Making a general statement after the vote, the representative of Botswana expressed disappointment, saying the amendment had not been intended to present arguments for or against a moratorium, but to bring to the forefront simple facts that needed to be recognized.


The representative of Iran said that, regrettably, the Committee had been hearing misleading statistics.  In fact, 107 countries had recognized the death penalty as a punishment; 67 of those had been applying it for all crimes, and 29 had had a moratorium in place for more than 10 years.  Only 90 countries had abolished the death penalty.  He concluded by offering to read the names of those countries, if the Committee so wished.


The Chairman opened the floor for general statements on draft amendment “L.76”, which recommended replacing the text of the fifth preambular paragraph of draft resolution L.29 with the following: “Recognizing that some Member States are of the view that the maintenance of the death penalty provides a deterrent for the most serious crimes.”


The representative of Botswana said he wished to speak against the assumption of selectivity.  There were double standards at work.  There was a false impression that the death penalty had implications of irreversibility.  That was an affront to the criminal justice systems of those sponsoring the amendment.  Even other forms of punishment could be irreparable under miscarriages of justice.  Saying that the death penalty was irreversible was, therefore, a clear attempt to embarrass those who still used such a penalty.  Most were convinced that their criminal justice systems were good.  Imprisoning an innocent person was equally irreversible.  He urged all delegations to vote in favor of the amendment.


The representative of Iran said that the deterrent value of the death penalty was important for many countries, and had been endorsed by many legal systems.  Victims’ right to life was more important than the right to life of a murderer or a war criminal.


The Chairman then opened the floor for statements in explanation of vote before the vote.


The representative of Finland said the main sponsors had provided plenty of opportunity to make amendments, and that the current text of L.29 had wide support.  The amendment under discussion would change the overall thrust of the paragraph.  Several delegations had referred to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, she said, and added that there was no conclusive evidence of the deterrent effect of the death penalty.  One could not dispute the irreversibility and irreparableness of capital punishment.  The amendment undermined the spirit and purpose of the draft resolution.  Finland was against it and invited all to vote against it.


The representative of Liechtenstein said there were different views about the deterrent value of the death penalty.  If you were wrongfully imprisoned, you could be released.  “If you are wrongfully executed you are dead and that is irreversible, for yourself and for your relatives.”  His delegation would vote against L.76.


The representative of Serbia said the draft amendment would completely undermine the spirit and purpose of the resolution.  Serbia was not at all convinced that the death penalty was a deterrent for the most serious crimes.  Being a co-sponsor of the draft resolution, he said his country was doing so in the belief that a moratorium on the death penalty would lead to enhancement of human rights.  The Serbian delegation would vote against the amendment.


The Committee then proceeded to a recorded vote on amendment L.76, which was rejected by 83 against to 67 in favor, with 15 abstentions.  (See annex IX.)


The representative of Botswana said he had very little to say and that it was indeed a sad day.   Botswana regretted that the amendment had again been shot down on very unconvincing grounds.


The representative of Barbados said the Committee had seen a number of very reasonable attempts to improve, belatedly, a one-sided resolution.  To include language that was intricately linked to the death penalty was not selectively quoting.  Repeated assertions about an inclusive consultative process had been heard, with which he expressed disagreement.  Regarding assertions that a moratorium on the death penalty contributed to progressive enhancement of human rights, he said the enhancement of human rights, such as the rights to development, to food and to not live in poverty, should also be discussed.


The Committee then took action on amendment A/C.3/62/L.77, which would replace the sixth preambular paragraph of the main draft to take note of decisions taken by some Member States to voluntarily abolish the death penalty and by others to apply a moratorium on executions; the main draft L.29 referred to an increasing number of States applying a moratorium, followed by the abolition of the death penalty.


The representative of the Bahamas, the main sponsor, said the intention of the amendment was to balance out the paragraph to note that some Member States, such as her own, had not abolished the death penalty.


The representative of Gabon, a co-sponsor of the main draft, said it was logical that a draft focusing on establishing a moratorium on executions would welcome decisions taken by many countries to apply just such a moratorium.  He recalled that 130 countries no longer used the death penalty, compared with 8 countries that had abolished the practice when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had been adopted; that marked a clear evolution and a fact that could not be contested.  Gabon would vote against the amendment.


The representative of Denmark said it was indisputable that an increasing number of States had applied a moratorium on executions; therefore, there was no need to replace the phrase “increasing number of States”.  Denmark would vote against the amendment.


The Committee then moved to a recorded vote, which defeated the amendment by 81 against to 70 in favour, with 15 abstentions.  (See annex X.)


The representative of the Bahamas regretted that the amendment had been rejected, but noted that, compared with previous occasions, it had been supported by a larger number of delegations.  Sentiments and expressions of support were appreciated.


The representative of Barbados said that, given his frequent interventions, many delegations might want to impose the death penalty on him.  He said the figure of 130 countries that no longer used the death penalty was inflated; his country had been listed as abolitionist because it had not executed anyone for a quarter-century, but that had been because due process had not allowed for such a punishment to be carried out.  It was perplexing that the co-sponsors of the main draft had not had more than 85 votes against any of the amendments; indeed, some of the co-sponsors of the main draft had voted to abstain.


The representative of Botswana said countries no longer using the death penalty had done so at their own pace.  Member States that still had the death penalty on their statutes would decide themselves when to have a moratorium on executions or when to abolish the death penalty.


ANNEX I


Vote on Amendment to First Preambular Paragraph


The amendment to the draft resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (document A/C.3/62/L.68) was defeated by a recorded vote of 82 against to 73 in favour, with 15 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, China, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, (Federated States of) Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela.


Abstain:  Algeria, Congo, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Mali, Morocco, Republic of Korea, South Africa, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Zambia.


Absent:  Azerbaijan, Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Palau, Peru, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tunisia.


ANNEX II


Vote on New Operative Paragraph 1


The amendment to the draft resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (document A/C.3/62/L.69) was defeated by a recorded vote of 83 against to 68 in favour, with 18 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, (Federated States of) Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela.


Abstain:  Algeria, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Togo, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia.


Absent:  Azerbaijan, Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Palau, Peru, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tunisia.


ANNEX III


Vote on New Second Preambular Paragraph


The amendment to the draft resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (document A/C.3/62/L.70) was defeated by a recorded vote of 83 against to 72 in favour, with 15 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, (Federated States of) Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela.


Abstain:  Algeria, Cambodia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Kenya, Lebanon, Mali, Morocco, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia.


Absent:  Azerbaijan, Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Palau, Peru, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tunisia.


ANNEX IV


Vote on New Third Preambular Paragraph


The amendment to the draft resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (document A/C.3/62/L.71) was defeated by a recorded vote of 82 against to 68 in favour, with 19 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Nauru, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United States, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, (Federated States of) Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela.


Abstain:  Algeria, Bahamas, Bhutan, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia.


Absent:  Azerbaijan, Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Palau, Peru, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tunisia.


ANNEX V


Vote on New Third Preambular Paragraph


The amendment to the draft resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (document A/C.3/62/L.72) was defeated by a recorded vote of 82 against to 65 in favour, with 22 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Nauru, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, (Federated States of) Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela.


Abstain:  Algeria, Bahamas, Bhutan, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Zambia.


Absent:  Azerbaijan, Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Palau, Peru, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tunisia.


ANNEX VI


Vote on New Third Preambular Paragraph


The amendment to the draft resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (document A/C.3/62/L.73) was defeated by a recorded vote of 82 against to 67 in favour, with 19 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, (Federated States of) Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela.


Abstain:  Algeria, Bhutan, Cambodia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Zambia.


Absent:  Azerbaijan, Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Palau, Peru, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.


ANNEX VII


Vote on New Fifth Preambular Paragraph


The amendment to the draft resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (document A/C.3/62/L.74) was defeated by a recorded vote of 83 against to 71 in favour, with 15 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, (Federated States of) Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela.


Abstain:  Algeria, Cambodia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Kenya, Lebanon, Mali, Morocco, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Zambia.


Absent:  Azerbaijan, Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Palau, Peru, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tunisia.


ANNEX VIII


Vote on New Fourth Preambular Paragraph


The amendment to the draft resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (document A/C.3/62/L.75) was defeated by a recorded vote of 83 against to 72 in favour, with 14 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, (Federated States of) Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela.


Abstain:  Algeria, Bhutan, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Kenya, Lebanon, Mali, Morocco, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Zambia.


Absent:  Azerbaijan, Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Palau, Peru, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tunisia.


ANNEX IX


Vote on New Fifth Preambular Paragraph


The amendment to the draft resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (document A/C.3/62/L.76) was defeated by a recorded vote of 83 against to 67 in favour, with 15 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, (Federated States of) Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela.


Abstain:  Algeria, Bhutan, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Guatemala, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, Mali, Morocco, Niger, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Zambia.


Absent:  Azerbaijan, Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Guinea-Bissau, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Palau, Peru, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan.


ANNEX X


Vote on New Sixth Preambular Paragraph


The amendment to the draft resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (document A/C.3/62/L.77) was defeated by a recorded vote of 81 against to 70 in favour, with 15 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, (Federated States of) Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela.


Abstain:  Algeria, Bhutan, Cambodia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Ghana, Guatemala, Kenya, Lebanon, Mali, Morocco, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Zambia.


Absent:  Azerbaijan, Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Guinea-Bissau, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Marshall Islands, Palau, Peru, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan.


* *** *

For information media • not an official record
For information media. Not an official record.