GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS 52 RESOLUTIONS, 6 DECISIONS RECOMMENDED BY THIRD COMMITTEE ON WIDE RANGE OF HUMAN RIGHTS, SOCIAL, HUMANITARIAN ISSUES

18 December 2008
GA/10801

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS 52 RESOLUTIONS, 6 DECISIONS RECOMMENDED BY THIRD COMMITTEE ON WIDE RANGE OF HUMAN RIGHTS, SOCIAL, HUMANITARIAN ISSUES

18 December 2008
General Assembly
GA/10801
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixty-third General Assembly

Plenary

70th & 71st Meetings (AM & PM)


GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS 52 RESOLUTIONS, 6 DECISIONS RECOMMENDED BY THIRD COMMITTEE


ON WIDE RANGE OF HUMAN RIGHTS, SOCIAL, HUMANITARIAN ISSUES


Texts Address, Among Others, Death Penalty Moratorium, Right to Development,

Religious Defamation, Human Rights in Iran, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea


Updated texts on the right to development and the right to food were among 52 resolutions and 6 decisions adopted by the General Assembly today on the recommendation of its Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), aimed at strengthening international human rights norms, just as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enter its seventh decade.


Their adoption followed the Assembly’s approval on Human Rights Day of an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, also on the Third Committee’s recommendation.  Once in force, the Protocol will pave the way for the monitoring body for the Covenant, established in 1985, to consider complaints by individuals with respect to violations of those rights.  A similar mechanism for civil and political rights has existed since 1976, under the oversight of the Human Rights Committee.


Further steering the course towards increased “justiciability” of social, economic and cultural rights was today’s passage of an updated resolution on the right to development -- by a recorded vote of 182 in favour to 4 against (Marshall Islands, Palau, Ukraine, United States), with 2 abstentions (Canada, Israel).  (For details of the vote, see annex IX)


That resolution, 1 of 16 adopted by recorded vote, gave due recognition to the high-level task force of the Human Rights Council’s Working Group on the right to development, which had begun developing a set of criteria to evaluate progress towards implementation of Millennium Development Goal 8, “developing a global partnership for development”.  Those criteria were understood by the Assembly as being potential building blocks for the Human Rights Council to evolve a basis for considering a binding legal standard on the right to development.


Another resolution that would strengthen the normative frameworks of positive rights was one on the right to food, adopted by a recorded vote of 184 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions (annex XIV).  Past versions had the Assembly recognize the millions of undernourished people worldwide, which was repeated again in this year’s text.  But, the present text also recognized the large numbers pushed into that situation because of the world food crisis.


One of its provisions had the Assembly express concern that girls were twice as likely as boys to die from malnutrition and preventable childhood diseases, and that twice as many women as men were estimated to suffer from malnutrition.  By the text, States were encouraged to address that issue through various measures, including by giving women equal access to income, land and water to feed themselves and their families.


Controversy surrounding those texts at the time of their negotiation emerged again in the Assembly, with some speakers saying that social, economic and cultural rights could only be realized progressively in line with a country’s ability.  Echoing a view expressed by several people, Australia’s delegate said the fulfilment of such rights required a balancing of State resources, which should be left to the States’ discretion.


Mirroring the human rights discourse taking place outside the United Nations, the Assembly drew an explicit link between human rights and extreme poverty, in a resolution of the same name, which called on States and the United Nations system to give the issue “appropriate attention” and inviting the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner, Navi Pillay, to continue awarding it a high priority.  At the same time, a resolution on globalization and its impact on human rights, called on States to promote “equitable and environmentally sustainable economic growth”, so that globalization could occur in such a way that poverty could be systematically reduced.  The text was adopted by a recorded vote of 129 in favour to 54 against, with 4 abstentions ( Brazil, China, Singapore, Timor-Leste).  (annex VIII)


Moreover, the notion that democracy was key to better promotion and protection of human rights came across in such resolutions as on the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa, requesting additional funding to develop a culture of democracy and rule of law.  In Third Committee meetings, education was frequently seen as a corollary to building a rights-based culture, as evidenced through its resolution on the International Year of Human Rights Learning, which officially began on 10 December.  That text, adopted today, had the Assembly reaffirm its conviction in the ability of every woman, man, youth and child to realize his or her full human potential through learning, and being able to act on his or her knowledge.


However, even as it adopted resolutions supporting the proactive achievement of human rights, the Assembly also adopted resolutions with the goal of preventing States from infringing on people’s rights -- for instance through a resolution on a moratorium on the death penalty, adopted by a recorded vote of 106 in favour to 46 against, with 34 abstentions. (annex VI)


Last year’s resolution on a moratorium passed amid great controversy in December 2007, and called on States to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty.  The present text was kept simple and brief to engender as much support as possible, said the representative of Chile, speaking on behalf of the resolution’s co-sponsors.  It had the Assembly “welcoming” the global trend towards the abolition of capital punishment and also “welcoming” the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Secretary-General’s report on the implementation of the 2007 resolution.  It had the Assembly agreeing to take up the issue again in two year’s time.


Even so, the resolution elicited protests from States with death penalty statutes, including Singapore, whose representative argued the notion that the international community was moving towards consensus.  She said the death penalty was used by countries to protect their citizens, and that it was not a human rights issue, but an issue of criminal justice.


Another resolution urging restraint was on combating defamation of religions, adopted by a recorded vote of 86 in favour to 53 against, with 42 abstentions.  (annex VII)  The resolution had the Assembly urge all States to “provide adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions” and to “complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance”.


In meetings of the Third Committee, arguments had centred on the best way to define the concept, so that it would be easier to fight on a legal basis.  Some States had said that the issue would have been better framed in terms of combating the incitement to religious hatred, since it would leave individuals freer to exercise freedom of speech with respect to religious beliefs.  In the Assembly today, the representative of Cape Verde, who voted against the text, said he believed the text had not struck the proper balance.  He emphasized the need to guarantee the full freedom of religion and belief, along with the freedom of choice for those who wanted to change their religion.


The Assembly also urged legislative measures to help manage mercenary activity, by the terms of a resolution on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination.  The text -- adopted by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 52 against, with 5 abstentions (Chile, Fiji, New Zealand, Switzerland, Tonga) (annex III) -- had the Assembly urge Member States to ensure that their territories and nationals were not used for the recruitment, assembly, financing, training and transit of mercenaries whose use could impede the right of people to self-determination, destabilize Governments, or dismember or impair the territorial integrity or political unity of States.


Further by the text, the United Nations Working Group on the use of mercenaries was requested to strengthen the international legal framework against the use of mercenaries begun by the Secretary-General’s Special Rapporteurs.  In one report, the Special Rapporteur on mercenaries had proposed legal definition of mercenary, which the Assembly asked to be taken into account.


As in previous years, the Assembly adopted country-specific resolutions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Iran.  Many delegates from developing countries challenged those texts, arguing that the Human Rights Council, with its newly operational Universal Periodic Review mechanism, was now the most appropriate forum to address such concerns.  They also contended that such texts represented an attempt to meddle in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.  Both country-specific resolutions were adopted; on Iran by a recorded vote of 69 in favour to 54 against with 57 abstentions (annex XXI); and on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by a recorded vote of 84 in favour to 22 against with 63 abstentions (annex XVII).


Other resolutions adopted by a recorded vote concerned the report of the Human Rights Council; inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination; and equitable geographical distribution in the membership of the human rights treaty bodies.


Also adopted by recorded vote were texts on human rights and unilateral coercive measures; extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the vital importance of family reunification; promotion of a democratic and equitable international order; as well as on programme planning.


Other resolutions adopted by the Assembly today included texts on supporting efforts to end obstetric fistula; combating trafficking in women and girls; strengthening the protection of migrants; building respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the vital importance of family reunification; and dealing with missing persons.


A resolution on the human rights situation in Myanmar was deferred, because its budget implications were not yet available.  Three other resolutions were also deferred because of budget implications, including on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination; and on the Committee on the Rights of The Child.


In other business, the Assembly adopted a resolution deciding on the terms of office for General Assembly members on the Peacebuilding Commission’s Organizational Committee.  The representative of Japan, whose country is Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, said the Committee would be charged with naming the chairmanship of the two new country-specific configurations dealing with the Central African Republic and Guinea-Bissau.


The Assembly also adopted a resolution titled “Supporting the United Nations International School in enhancing international education and promoting multicultural interaction”, urging Member States to contribute to the School’s capital development fund to improve its facilities.


Speaking at the meeting were the representatives of United States, Israel, Senegal, Canada, Finland, United Kingdom, Slovenia, Austria, Sweden, Turkey, Norway, Denmark, Argentina, Algeria, Peru, Syria, Uganda (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Egypt, Barbados, Tunisia, China, Ethiopia, Russian Federation, Belarus, Iran, Venezuela, Pakistan, France and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.


The observer from the Holy See also spoke.


Third Committee reports were introduced by its Rapporteur, Khalid Alwafi of Saudi Arabia.


The Assembly will meet again tomorrow, 19 November, at 10 a.m. to take up a series of draft resolutions recommended by its Second Committee (Economic and Financial).  It is also expected to consider three resolutions of the plenary.


Background


The General Assembly met this morning to consider a resolution on the election of seven members to the Organizational Committee of the Peacebuilding Commission (document A/63/L.58).  It was then expected to take action on reports of its Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), listed below.


Refugees


The Committee’s report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions (document A/63/423) contains four draft resolutions.


Draft resolution I, on the enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, approved without a vote on 18 November, would have the Assembly decide to increase the number of members of this Committee from 76 to 78 States, and request the Economic and Social Council to elect the additional members at its resumed 2009 organizational session.  (For summary of the Third Committee’s consideration, see Press Release GA/SHC/3938)


Draft resolution II on the new international humanitarian order, approved without a vote and as orally revised on 20 November, would have the Assembly recognize the need for the further strengthening of national, regional and international efforts to address humanitarian emergencies.  It would have the Assembly urge Governments, intergovernmental organizations and civil society, including non-governmental organizations, to extend cooperation and support to the Secretary-General’s efforts to address the needs of populations requiring humanitarian assistance, as well as the safety and security of humanitarian workers from the United Nations and elsewhere. (Press Release GA/SHC/3939)


Draft resolution III on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), approved without a vote and as orally revised on 11 November, would have the Assembly strongly condemn attacks on refugees, asylum-seekers and internally displaced persons, as well as acts that pose a threat to their personal security and well-being.  Further, it would note the importance of States and the Office of the High Commissioner discussing and clarifying the role of the Office in mixed migratory flows, in order to better address protection needs in that context, including by safeguarding access to asylum for those in need of international protection. (Press Release GA/SHC/3937)


Draft resolution IV on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa, approved without a vote as orally revised on 18 November, would have the Assembly call on States to take concrete action to pre-empt internal displacement and to meet the protection and assistance needs of internally displaced persons, and appeal to the international community to respond positively, in the spirit of solidarity and burden- and responsibility-sharing, to the third-country resettlement needs of African refugees.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3941)


Social Development


The Committee’s report on social development (document A/63/424) contains five draft resolutions.


Draft resolution I on realizing the Millennium Development Goals for persons with disabilities through the implementation of the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, approved as orally revised by a recorded vote of 176 in favour to none against, with no abstentions, on 25 November, would have the Assembly encourage States to ensure that their development strategies, policies and programmes were inclusive of issues concerning persons with disabilities.  It would encourage them to use the objectives of the World Programme of Action and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as a guide for their work.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3941 and GA/SHC/3942)


Draft resolution II on the follow-up to the Second World Assembly on Ageing, approved without a vote as orally revised on 23 October, would have the Assembly encourage Governments to pay greater attention to building capacity to eradicate poverty among older persons, in particular older women, by mainstreaming ageing issues into poverty-eradication strategies and national development plans, and to include both ageing-specific policies and ageing mainstreaming efforts in their national strategies.  It would request the Secretary-General to translate the guide to the implementation of the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing into all official languages of the United Nations and stress the need for additional capacity-building at the national level.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3926)


Draft resolution III on the implementation of the outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly, approved without a vote and as orally revised on 20 November, would have the Assembly express a deep concern that the attainment of social development objectives may be hindered by instability in global and national financial markets, as well as challenges brought about by the ongoing fuel and food crises.  Against that backdrop, the Assembly would urge developed countries that had not yet done so to make concrete efforts towards meeting the targets of 0.7 per cent of their gross national product (GNP) for official development assistance (ODA) to developing countries, and 0.15 to 0.2 per cent of their GNP to least developed countries.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3939)


Draft resolution IV on the follow-up to the implementation of the International Year of Volunteers, approved without a vote and as orally revised on 23 October, would have the Assembly invite Governments to mobilize support for the research community to carry out more studies on the subject of volunteerism, and call for the United Nations system to integrate volunteerism into its policies, programmes and reports.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3926)


Draft resolution V on the United Nations Literacy Decade: Education for all, approved without a vote and as orally revised on 23 October, would have the Assembly appeal to all Governments to develop reliable literacy data and information for more inclusive policymaking and urge all Governments to take the lead in coordinating the activities of the Decade.  It would also request the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to reinforce its coordinating role in the fight against illiteracy.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3926)


Advancement of Women


The Committee’s report on advancement of women (document A/63/425) contains five draft resolutions.


Draft resolution I on intensification of efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women, approved without a vote and as orally revised on 6 November, would have the Assembly urge States to end such impunity, by prosecuting and punishing all perpetrators.  At the same time, it would call upon the international community to support national efforts to promote the empowerment of women, and invite the Bretton Woods institutions and call on United Nations bodies to intensify efforts.  The draft would also have the Assembly recognize that violence against women and girls persists in every country in the world and that it is a major impediment to achieving internationally agreed development goals, in particular the Millennium Development Goals.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3936)


Draft resolution II on trafficking in women and girls, approved without a vote and as orally revised on 21 November, would have the Assembly call upon Governments to discourage, with a view to eliminating, the demand that fosters trafficking for all forms of exploitation, and to criminalize all forms of trafficking in persons, while ensuring that victims were not penalized for having been trafficked.  It would have the General Assembly urge Governments to devise, enforce and strengthen effective gender- and age-sensitive measures to combat and eliminate all forms of trafficking in women and girls.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3940)


Draft resolution III on the future operation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW), approved without a vote and as orally revised on 20 November, would have the Assembly acknowledge the contributions of the Institute in promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women in the areas of security, international migration and governance and political participation.  By the terms of the text, the Assembly would call for the diversification of funding resources and invite Member States to continue to provide assistance and support to the Institute through voluntary contributions and substantive involvement in its projects and activities.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3939)


Draft resolution IV on supporting efforts to end obstetric fistula, approved without a vote on 30 October, would have the Assembly call on States and all relevant actors to strengthen the capacity of health systems, in particular public health systems, to provide the essential services needed to prevent obstetric fistula and to treat those cases that do occur by providing the continuum of services, including family planning, prenatal care, skilled birth attendance, emergency obstetric care and postpartum care, to young women and girls, including those living in poverty and in underserved rural areas where obstetric fistula is most common.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3931 and GA/SHC/3937)


Draft resolution V on the follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly, approved without a vote on 24 November, would have the Assembly, among other things, call upon Governments, the United Nations system and other international and regional organizations, and all sectors of civil society, including non-governmental organizations, as well as all women and men, to fully commit themselves and to intensify their contributions to the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3941)


Promotion, Protection of Children’s Rights


The Committee’s report on promotion and protection of the rights of children (document A/63/426) contains a draft resolution on the rights of the child, approved by a recorded vote of 180 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions, on 24 November, which would have the Assembly -- among other things -- call upon States to create an environment conducive to the well-being of all children, including by strengthening international cooperation in regard to the eradication of poverty, the right to education, the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and the right to food.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3941)


Indigenous Issues


The Committee’s report on indigenous issues (document A/63/427) contains one draft resolution and one draft decision.


The draft resolution on indigenous issues, approved without a vote and as orally revised on 11 November, would have the General Assembly request the Secretary-General to undertake an evaluation of progress made in the achievement of the objectives of the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, 2005 to 2015, and to present a midterm assessment report at the Assembly’s sixty-fifth session.  It would further request the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people to report on the implementation of his mandate to the General Assembly at its sixty-fourth session, while recalling that, in previous sessions of the Assembly, constructive dialogues were held with the first Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples.  It would also decide to adjust the mandate of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations, so as to facilitate the participation of representatives of indigenous peoples’ organizations in the expert mechanism.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3937)


The draft decision would have the General Assembly take note of the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the status of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations (document A/63/166).


Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination


The Committee’s report on the Elimination of racism and racial discrimination (document A/63/428) contains three draft resolutions.


Draft resolution I on the inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, approved as orally revised by a recorded vote of 122 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 54 abstentions, on 18 November, would have the Assembly express deep concern about the glorification of the Nazi movement and former members of the Waffen SS, including by erecting monuments and memorials and holding public demonstrations in the name of the glorification of the Nazi past, the Nazi movement and neo-Nazism, as well as by declaring or attempting to declare such members and those who collaborated with the Nazi movement as participants of national liberation movements.  In turn, it would express concern at attempts to desecrate or demolish monuments erected in remembrance of those who fought against Nazism during the Second World War, as well as to unlawfully exhume or remove the remains of such persons.  It would emphasize the need to take measures to end those practices, and reaffirm that States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination were obliged -- among other things -- to declare as a punishable offence the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3938)


Draft resolution II, on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, approved as orally revised by a recorded vote of 130 in favour to 11 against, with 35 abstentions, on 25 November, would have the Assembly emphasize State responsibility to combat criminal acts motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance through various means.  In the section of the draft relating to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the text would have the Assembly urge the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to maintain and issue regular updates on its website of a list of countries that had not yet ratified the Convention and to encourage such countries to ratify it at the earliest.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3941 and GA/SHC/3942)


Draft resolution III, on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, approved by a recorded vote of 178 in favour to none against, with no abstentions, on 21 November, would have the Assembly call on States to fulfil their obligation, under the Convention, to submit their periodic reports in due time.  It would have the Assembly express its profound concern that a number of States parties had not fulfilled their financial obligations, and would have it appeal strongly to States parties in arrears to fulfil those obligations.  The Assembly would strongly urge States parties to accelerate their domestic ratification procedures with regard to the amendment to the Convention concerning the financing of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.  It would note the Committee’s request that the Assembly authorize an extension of its meeting time, which was currently only six weeks per year, and decide to authorize the Committee to meet for an additional week per session as of 2010, as a temporary measure.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3940)


Right of Peoples to Self-Determination


The Committee’s report on the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/63/429) contains three draft resolutions.


Draft resolution I on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, approved without a vote on 18 November, would have the Assembly declare its firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, while also calling on responsible States to cease their military intervention in, and occupation of, foreign countries and territories, and all acts of repression, discrimination, exploitation and maltreatment -- particularly the brutal and inhuman methods reportedly employed for the execution of those acts against the people concerned.  It would request the Human Rights Council to continue to give special attention to the violation of human rights, especially the right to self-determination, resulting from foreign military intervention, aggression or occupation.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3938)


Draft resolution II, on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination, approved by a recorded vote of 122 in favour to 51 against, with 5 abstentions (Chile, Fiji, New Zealand, Switzerland, Tonga) on 24 November, would have the Assembly urge all States to take legislative measures to ensure that their territories and nationals were not used for the recruitment, assembly, financing, training and transit of mercenaries whose use could impede the right of people to self-determination, destabilize Governments, or dismember or impair the territorial integrity or political unity of States.  It would request States to impose a ban on interventions by companies in armed conflicts or actions to destabilize constitutional regimes, and would call on States that had not done so to consider acceding to, or ratifying, the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. (Press Releases GA/SHC/3940 and GA/SHC/3941)


Draft resolution III on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, approved by a vote of 175 in favour to 5 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 5 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji), on 20 November, would have the Assembly reaffirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to an independent State of Palestine.  It would further urge all States and United Nations entities to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3939)


Promotion and Protection of Human Rights


The Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/63/430) contains one draft decision, which would have the Assembly take note of the following reports:


A note by the Secretary-General submitting the report of the chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies on their nineteenth meeting (document A/63/280); the report of the Secretary-General on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/63/259); the report of the Secretary-General on the protection of migrants (document A/63/287); a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (document A/63/223); and a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (document A/63/263).


Also, a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of his Special Representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises (document A/63/270); a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers (document A/63/271); a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the independent expert on the question of human rights and extreme poverty (document A/63/274); and a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context (document A/63/275).


Also, a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of his Representative on the human rights of internally displaced persons (document A/63/286); a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders (document A/63/288); a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the independent expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights (document A/63/289); a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (document A/63/290); a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education (document A/63/292); and a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/63/313).


Also, a note by the Secretary-General providing information on the work of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee relating to the right to development (document A/63/318); a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (document A/63/236); and the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (document A/63/36).


Addendum 1 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/63/430/Add.1) contains two draft resolutions on implementation of human rights instruments.


Draft resolution I on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, approved without a vote on 18 November, would have the Assembly condemn any action or attempt by States or public officials to legalize, authorize or acquiesce in torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under any circumstances, including on grounds of national security or through judicial decisions.  The draft emphasizes that acts of torture in armed conflict are serious violations of international humanitarian law and, in that regard, constitute war crimes.  It further emphasizes that acts of torture can constitute crimes against humanity and that the perpetrators of all acts of torture must be prosecuted and punished.  The draft resolution would have the Assembly strongly urge States to ensure that no statement made as a result of torture is invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.  It calls upon States parties to the Convention against Torture to fulfil their obligation to submit for prosecution or extradite those alleged to have committed acts of torture, and encourages other States to do likewise.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3938)


Draft resolution II on equitable geographical distribution in the membership of the human rights treaty bodies, approved by a vote of 122 in favour to 53 against, with 4 abstentions (Brazil, Cape Verde, Timor-Leste, Ukraine), on 20 November, would have the Assembly call on States parties to United Nations human rights instruments to include a debate on ways to ensure equitable geographical distribution in the membership of the human rights treaty bodies, based on previous recommendations of the Commission on Human Rights and the Economic and Social Council.  It would recommend the introduction of “flexible procedures” when considering the possible establishment of a regional quota for the membership of each treaty body, where each of the five regional groups would be assigned a quota in equivalent proportion to the number of States parties to the instrument that it represents; that there must be provision for periodic revisions that reflect the relative changes in the geographical distribution of States parties; and that automatic periodic revisions should be envisaged to avoid amending the text of the instrument when the quotas were revised.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3939)


Addendum 2 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/63/430/Add.2) contains 23 draft resolutions on human rights questions.


Draft resolution I on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty, approved on 20 November by a recorded vote of 105 in favour to 48 against, with 31 abstentions, would have the Assembly reaffirm its resolution 62/149 of December 2007 on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty, and would welcome the decisions taken by an increasing number of States to apply a moratorium on executions, or to restrict the application of the death penalty to the most serious crimes.  The Assembly would welcome the Secretary-General’s report on the implementation of resolution 62/149 and its recommendations, and request him to provide a progress report at its sixty-fifth session.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3938 and GA/SHC/3939)


Draft resolution II on the role of the Ombudsman, mediator and other national human rights institutions in the promotion and protection of human rights, approved without a vote on 6 November, would have the Assembly recognize the important role those persons and institutions played, and underline the importance of their autonomy and independence.  It would also have the Assembly encourage Member States to consider the creation or the strengthening of such roles to give serious consideration to implementing the recommendations and proposals of their Ombudsman, mediator and other national human rights institutions, with the aim of addressing claims of the complainants, consistent with the principles of justice, equality and rule of law.  The draft includes a request that would have the Secretary-General report on the implementation of the resolution at the sixty-fifth session of the General Assembly.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3936)


Draft resolution III on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights, approved without a vote as orally revised on 11 November, would have the Assembly reaffirm the important role that regional arrangements play in promoting and protecting human rights, while also recognizing that progress in promoting and protecting all human rights depends primarily on efforts made at the national and local levels.  As such, it would invite States in areas in which regional arrangements in the field of human rights do not yet exist to consider establishing suitable regional machinery, and would request the Secretary-General to strengthen exchanges between the United Nations and regional intergovernmental human rights organizations and to make adequate resources available to the activities of the Office of the High Commissioner to promote regional arrangements.  The draft would also request the Office of the High Commissioner to continue to pay special attention to the most appropriate ways of assisting countries of the various regions.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3937)


Draft resolution IV on combating defamation of religions, approved as orally revised by a recorded vote of 85 in favour to 50 against, with 42 abstentions, on 24 November, would have the Assembly recognize that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred had become aggravating factors that contribute to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target groups, as well as their economic and social exclusion.  In that respect, the Assembly would also express a deep concern that Islam was frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism, and would reiterate the commitment of all States to the implementation of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.  The text would have the Assembly note, with deep concern, the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions, and deplore the use of print, audio-visual and electronic media to incite acts of violence, as well as targeting of religious symbols.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3940 and GA/SHC/3941)


Draft resolution V on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, approved without a vote on 20 November, would have the Assembly acknowledge the role of national institutions in the strengthening of the rule of law and the promotion and protection of human rights in all sectors, and encourage cooperation with the United Nations system, as well as with the World Bank, other international financial institutions and non-governmental organizations.  It would also urge the Secretary-General to continue to give high priority to requests from Member States for assistance in the establishment and strengthening of national human rights institutions and to continue to provide the necessary assistance for holding international and regional meetings of national institutions.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3938 and GA/SHC/3939)


Draft resolution VI on the International Year of Human Rights Learning, recalls General Assembly resolution 62/171, which proclaimed the year commencing on 10 December 2008 the International Year of Human Rights Learning, and would have the Assembly reaffirm its conviction that every woman, man, youth and child can realize his or her full human potential through learning about all human rights and fundamental freedoms.  It would also have the Assembly urge Member States to develop international strategies and/or regional, national and local plans of action aimed at broad-based and sustained human rights learning at all levels, in coordination with civil society, the private sector, academia and parliamentarians, and with the support of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Human Rights Council.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3936)


Draft resolution VII on the effective promotion of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, approved without a vote as orally revised on 20 November, would have the Assembly urge States and the international community to promote and protect the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, through the encouragement of conditions for the promotion of their identity, the provision of adequate education and the facilitation of their participation in all aspects of the political, economic, social, religious and cultural life of society.  It would also urge States to take all necessary constitutional, legislative and administrative measures to give effect to the Declaration, and would call upon them to cooperate with the independent expert on minority issues.  The draft also welcomes the establishment of the Forum on Minority Issues and all relevant actors to participate actively in its inaugural session.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3938 and GA/SHC/3939)


Draft resolution VIII on human rights and extreme poverty, approved without a vote on 11 November, would have the General Assembly recognize that the eradication of extreme poverty was a major challenge within the process of globalization and that it required coordinated and continued policies through decisive national action and international cooperation.  While expressing concern over today’s challenges, including those derived from the food crisis, the energy crisis and the financial crisis, the draft would have the Assembly encourage the international community to strengthen its efforts to address challenges that are contributing to extreme poverty, and would call upon States, United Nations bodies, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations to continue to give appropriate attention to the links between human rights and extreme poverty.  It also invites relevant parties to contribute further to the consultations led by the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the draft guiding principles on extreme poverty and human rights: the rights of the poor.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3937)


Draft resolution IX on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights, approved by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 53 against, with 3 abstentions (Brazil, Chile, Singapore), on 20 November, would have the Assembly recognize that, while globalization offers great opportunities, the fact that its benefits are very unevenly shared and its costs unevenly distributed represents an aspect of the process that affects the full enjoyment of all human rights, in particular in developing countries.  The Assembly would underline the urgent need to establish an equitable, transparent and democratic international system to strengthen and broaden the participation of developing countries in international economic decision-making and norm-setting, and underline the need to continue to analyse the consequences of globalization for the full enjoyment of all human rights.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3939)


Draft resolution X on the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa, approved without a vote on 20 November, would have the Assembly note efforts of the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to ensure the full implementation of relevant resolutions of the General Assembly to provide sufficient funds and human resources for the Centre’s missions.  It would request the two officials to continue to provide additional funds and human resources within existing resources of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to enable the Centre to respond effectively to growing needs in the promotion and protection of human rights and in developing a culture of democracy and rule of law in the Central African subregion.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3939)


Draft resolution XI on the right to development, approved by a recorded vote of 177 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 2 abstentions (Canada, Israel), on 24 November, would have the Assembly endorse the conclusions and recommendations adopted by consensus by the Working Group on the Right to Development of the Human Rights Council at its ninth session, and have it support the realization of the mandate of the high-level task force on the implementation of the Working Group, as renewed by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 9/3.  It would stress the importance of the endorsement of the workplan for the task force for the period 2008-2010, which would require that the criteria for the periodic evaluation of global partnerships be used, as appropriate, in the elaboration of a comprehensive and coherent set of standards for the implementation of the right to development.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3941)


Draft resolution XII on human rights and unilateral coercive measures, approved by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 52 against, with no abstentions, on 21 November, would have the Assembly reaffirm the right of all peoples to self-determination, by virtue of which they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.  Underlining that unilateral coercive measures were one of the major obstacles to the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development, the draft resolution would also have the Assembly call on all States to avoid the unilateral imposition of economic coercive measures and the extraterritorial application of domestic laws that run counter to the principles of free trade and hamper the development of developing countries.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3939 and GA/SHC/3940)


Draft resolution XIII on the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, approved without a vote as orally revised on 21 November, would have the Assembly recognize that, in addition to individual responsibilities, States had a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity at the global level and, as such, it would have the Assembly urge all international actors to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equality and equity, human dignity, mutual understanding and promotion and respect for cultural diversity and universal human rights.  It would also have the Assembly invite States and relevant United Nations human rights mechanisms and procedures to continue to pay attention to the importance of mutual cooperation, and request the Secretary-General to undertake consultations on ways and means to enhance international cooperation in the United Nations human rights machinery.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3939 and GA/SHC/3940)


Draft resolution XIV on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, approved without a vote on 25 November, would have the Assembly urge States to step up efforts to eliminate discrimination based on religion or belief.  To that end, the Assembly would have States ensure that their constitutional and legislative systems provided adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, without distinction, by providing effective remedies in cases of violations of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, or the right to practise one’s religion freely, including the right to change one’s religion or belief.  Among other things, the resolution would have States ensure that no official documents were withheld for reasons grounded in a person’s religion or belief, and that, if religious affiliation was mentioned in such documents, the individual had the right to refrain from disclosing that type of information, or to indicate “other religion” or “no religion”.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3940 and GA/SHC/3942)


Draft resolution XV on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, approved on 24 November by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to none against, with 57 abstentions, would have the Assembly reiterate the obligation of all States to conduct exhaustive and impartial investigations into all suspected cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, to identify and bring to justice those responsible, while ensuring the right of every person to a fair and public hearing.  It would call upon all States in which the death penalty has not been abolished to prevent extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions by complying with their obligations under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3939 and GA/SHC/3941)


Draft resolution XVI on missing persons, approved without a vote as orally amended on 20 November, would have the Assembly call on States party to an armed conflict to take measures to prevent persons from going missing in connection with such conflict and account for persons reported missing as a result of such situations.  It would further call on those States to determine the identity and fate of persons reported missing in connection with armed conflict and, to the greatest extent possible, provide their family members with information on their fate.  It would further urge States to encourage intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to provide appropriate assistance as requested by concerned States, and would welcome, in that regard, the establishment and efforts of commissions and working groups on missing persons.  Without prejudice to States’ efforts to determine the fate of missing persons in connection with armed conflicts, the draft resolution would have States take appropriate steps in terms of the legal situation of missing persons and the needs of their family members -- their social welfare, financial matters, family law and property rights.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3938 and GA/SHC/3939)


Draft resolution XVII on the protection of migrants, approved without a vote as orally revised on 21 November, would have the Assembly express concern about legislation and measures adopted by some States that may restrict the human rights and fundamental freedoms of migrants.  It would strongly condemn the manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them, and would reinforce the existing laws in order to eradicate impunity for those who commit xenophobic and racist acts.  At the same time, the draft would have the Assembly encourage all States to remove obstacles that may prevent the safe, unrestricted and expeditious transfer of remittances of migrants to their country of origin or to any other countries, and to consider measures to solve other problems that may impede such transfers.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3939 and GA/SHC/3940)


Draft resolution XVIII on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, approved without a vote as orally revised on 25 November, would have the Assembly call on States not to resort to profiling based on stereotypes founded on grounds of discrimination prohibited by international law, including on racial, ethnic and/or religious grounds.  It would urge States, while countering terrorism, to ensure due process guarantees.  The Assembly would emphasize that targeted sanctions were a “significant tool” in countering terrorism and had a direct impact on targeted individuals and entities.  It would recognize the need to continue ensuring the efficiency and transparency of the United Nations targeted sanctions regime, and in that regard, continue enhancement of efforts in support of these objectives as contained in Security Council resolution 1822 of 30 June 2008.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3941 and GA/SHC/3942)


Draft resolution XIX on the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, approved without a vote on 21 November, would have the Assembly call on States that had not yet done so to consider signing and ratifying the Convention as a matter of priority, and to consider the option provided for in articles 31 and 32 of the Convention regarding the Committee on Enforced Disappearances.  It would request United Nations agencies and organizations, and invite intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, to continue undertaking efforts to disseminate information on the Convention, to promote its understanding, to prepare for its entry into force and to assist States parties in implementing their obligations under that instrument.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3939 and GA/SHC/3940)


Draft resolution XX on the right to food, approved on 24 November by a recorded vote of 180 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions, would have the Assembly reaffirm that hunger constitutes an outrage and a violation of human dignity, requiring the adoption of urgent measures at the national, regional and international level, for its elimination.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3940 and GA/SHC/3941)


Draft resolution XXI on respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the vital importance of family reunification, approved on 20 November by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Palau, United States), with 60 abstentions, would have the Assembly call on all States to guarantee the universally recognized freedom of travel to all foreign nationals legally residing in their territory, and reaffirm that all Governments -- particularly of receiving countries -- must recognize the vital importance of family reunification and promote its incorporation into national legislation, so as to ensure protection of the unity of families of documented migrants.  It would call on States to allow, in conformity with international legislation, the free flow of financial remittances by foreign nationals residing in their territory to relatives in the country of origin, and further call on States to refrain from enacting, or to repeal existing laws, that adversely affect family reunification and the right to send remittances.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3938 and GA/SHC/3939)


Draft resolution XXII on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, approved as orally revised by a vote of 120 in favour to 52 against, with 7 abstentions (Argentina, Armenia, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Timor-Leste, Vanuatu), on 21 November, would have the Assembly affirm that everyone is entitled to a democratic and equitable international order, and would also affirm that such an international order will foster the full realization of all human rights for all.  It would call on Member States to fulfil their commitment expressed at the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, to maximize the benefits of globalization by enhancing international cooperation to increase equality of opportunities for trade, economic growth and sustainable development, among other things.  It would have the Assembly request the Human Rights Council, human rights treaty bodies, OHCHR and United Nations special mechanisms to make contributions towards the implementation of the present resolution.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3939 and GA/SHC/3940)


Draft resolution XXIII, approved as orally revised on 25 November, would have the Assembly take note of a decision taken by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, in which it requests approval to meet in parallel chambers.  It would have the Assembly authorize that request for 10 working days during each of its three regular sessions, and for five working days during the weeks of its pre-sessional meetings, between October 2009 and January 2011.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3941 and GA/SHC/3942)


Addendum 3 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/63/430/Add.3) contains three draft resolutions on human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives.


Draft resolution I, on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, approved by a recorded vote of 95 in favour to 24 against, with 62 abstentions, on 21 November, would have the Assembly urge the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to respect fully all human rights and fundamental freedoms by, among other things, immediately putting an end to the systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights mentioned in the resolution; by addressing the issue of impunity and ensuring that those responsible for violations of human rights are brought to justice before an independent judiciary; by tackling the root causes leading to refugee outflows and prosecuting those who exploited refugees by human smuggling, trafficking and extortion, while not criminalizing the victims; and by extending its full cooperation to the Special Rapporteur on the issue and to other United Nations human rights mechanisms.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3939 and GA/SHC/3940)


Draft resolution II, on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, approved by a vote of 89 in favour to 29 against, with 63 abstentions, on 21 November, would have the Assembly call on the Government of Myanmar to reveal the whereabouts of persons detained or missing and to seize the opportunity of the Secretary-General’s good offices to cooperate fully with the good offices mission in the fulfilment of its responsibilities, namely, the release of political prisoners and the commencement of a substantive dialogue on a democratic transition.  It would also have the Assembly call strongly on the Government to ensure safe and unhindered access to all parts of Myanmar for the United Nations, international humanitarian organizations and their partners, to ensure that humanitarian assistance was delivered to all persons in need.  At the same time, it would call for all political representatives and representatives of ethnic nationalities to be allowed to participate fully in the political transition process and, to that end, for the Government to immediately resume a dialogue with all political actors.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3939 and GA/SHC/3940)


Draft resolution III on the situation of human rights in Iran, approved by a recorded vote of 70 in favour to 51 against, with 60 abstentions, on 21 November, would have the Assembly take note of the Secretary-General’s report on that matter and call on the Government to address concerns such as eliminating the use of cruel or inhuman punishments; abolishing public executions and the executions of persons who were under 18 years at the time of their offence; abolishing the use of stoning as a method of execution; and eliminating discrimination against women and minorities, including by implementing the report of the Special Rapporteur on ways in which Iran could emancipate the Baha’i community.  It would also have the Assembly call on the Government to end the harassment, intimidation and persecution of political opponents and human rights defenders, including by releasing persons imprisoned arbitrarily or on the basis of their political views.  It would further have the Assembly call on the Government to uphold the rights to due process and to end impunity for human rights violations.  The draft would further call on the Government of Iran to facilitate visits to its territory of special procedures mandate holders, and encourage the Government to continue exploring cooperation on human rights and justice reform with the United Nations, including OHCHR.  (Press Releases GA/SHC/3939 and GA/SHC/3940)


Addendum 4 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/63/430/Add.4) says that no action was taken by the Committee under the sub-item on the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.


Addendum 5 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/63/430/Add.5) contains one draft resolution, on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol thereto, approved without a vote on 11 November.  It would have the Assembly welcome the entry into force of the Convention and its Optional Protocol, in May 2008, and welcome the fact that, to date, 136 States have already signed the Convention and 41 States have ratified it.  States that have not yet done so would be called on to consider signing and ratifying the Convention and Protocol as a matter of priority and the Secretary-General would be invited to intensify efforts to assist States in doing so, including by providing assistance with a view to achieving universal adherence.  The draft would also have the Assembly request further actions by the Secretary-General to promote the rights of persons with disabilities in the United Nations system, in accordance with the Convention, and request United Nations agencies to strengthen efforts undertaken to disseminate accessible information on the Convention and its Optional Protocol and to assist States parties with implementation, while inviting intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to do the same.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3937)


Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice


The Committee’s report on crime prevention and criminal justice (document A/63/431) contains four draft resolutions and one draft decision.


Draft resolution I on preparations for the Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, approved without a vote on 23 October, would have the Assembly decide to hold the Twelfth Congress in Salvador, Brazil, from 12 to 19 April 2010 and also decide that the high-level segment of the Congress be held during the last two days.  It would further decide that the theme of the Twelfth Congress shall be “Comprehensive strategies for global challenges:  crime prevention and criminal justice systems and their development in a changing world”.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3926)


Draft resolution II on improving the coordination of efforts against trafficking in persons, approved without a vote and as orally revised on 20 November, would have the Assembly call upon Governments to criminalize trafficking in persons in all its forms, to take measures to criminalize child sex tourism, and to investigate, prosecute, condemn and penalize traffickers and intermediaries, while providing protection and assistance to the victims of trafficking with full respect for their human rights.  It would invite Member States to continue consideration of the advisability of a global plan of action on preventing trafficking in persons, prosecuting traffickers and protecting and assisting victims of trafficking, which would achieve the full and effective coordination of efforts against trafficking in persons, and ensure the full and effective implementation of all legal instruments relevant to trafficking in persons. (Press Releases GA/SHC/3938 and GA/SHC/3939)


Draft resolution III on strengthening the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme, in particular its technical cooperation capacity, approved without a vote on 1 November, would have the Assembly urge the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to increase collaboration with intergovernmental, international and regional organizations with transnational organized crime mandates, so as to share best practices, while drawing attention to emerging policy issues identified in the Secretary-General’s report, which included, among other things, the sexual exploitation of children, economic fraud and identity theft, international trafficking in forest products, and -- within the context of advisory services and technical assistance – cybercrime, and would invite UNODC to explore ways to address those issues.  Further by the text, it would request UNODC to enhance its technical assistance to Member States to strengthen international cooperation in preventing and combating terrorism by facilitating of the ratification and implementation of the universal conventions and protocols related to terrorism, in close consultation with the Counter-Terrorism Committee and its Executive Directorate.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3937)


Draft resolution IV on the United Nations African Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, approved as orally revised without a vote on 23 October, would have the Assembly urge Member States and civil society organizations to continue adopting practical measures to support the Institute and urge all States that had not already done so to consider ratifying or acceding to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3926)


The draft decision would have the Assembly takes note of the reports of the Secretary-General on assistance in implementing the universal conventions and protocols related to terrorism (document A/63/89) and on improving the coordination of efforts against trafficking in persons (document A/63/90).


International Drug Control


The Committee’s report on international drug control (document A/63/432) contains a draft resolution on international cooperation against the world drug problem, approved without a vote on 11 November.  It would have the Assembly urge States and the United Nations to undertake actions to counter the world drug problem, based on a grave concern over the serious threat that the problem continues to pose to public health, safety and the well-being of humanity.  It would urge all States to continue to promote and implement the outcomes of the twentieth special session of the General Assembly, held in June 1998, including the allocation of adequate resources and the development of clear and consistent national policies.  The Assembly would encourage Member States to take adequate national, regional and international measures to prevent criminal organizations involved in drug trafficking from acquiring and using firearms and ammunition, with a view to guaranteeing security in all nations.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3937)


Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly


The Committee’s report on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly (document A/63/433) contains one draft decision on the programme of work for the Third Committee for the sixty-fourth session of the General Assembly (document A/C.3/63/L.76).  It was approved without a vote on 26 November, subject to modifications by the Secretary of the Committee, and would have the Committee take up 11 agenda items at its next session.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3943)


Programme Planning


A report on programme planning (document A/63/434) contains one draft decision, approved on 26 November by a recorded vote of 167 in favour to 2 against ( Israel, United States), with 2 abstentions ( Australia, Canada).  The text would have the Assembly decide to approve programme 19, Human rights, of the proposed strategic framework for the period 2010-2011.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3943)


Report of the Human Rights Council


A report on the report of the Human Rights Council (document A/63/435), contains a draft resolution approved by the Committee without a vote on 18 November, recommending the adoption of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  The Protocol was adopted by the Assembly on 10 December. (Press Releases GA/SHC/3938 and GA/10795)


Addendum 1 of that report (A/63/435/Add.1) contains a draft resolution on the report of the Human Rights Council, approved on 25 November as orally revised, by a recorded vote of 117 to 5 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Palau, United States), with 55 abstentions.  It would have the Assembly take note of the report and acknowledge its recommendations.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3942)


Action on Plenary Texts


The General Assembly began by adopting by consensus a resolution on the election by the General Assembly of seven members of the Organizational Committee of the Peacebuilding Commission: term of office (document A/63/L.58), by which it decided that, beginning with the election to be held during the sixty-third session, the terms for the General Assembly members on the Organizational Committee shall begin from 1 January, rather than 23 June.


It also decided that the terms of office of the two Assembly members on the Committee due to expire on 22 June 2009 -– Georgia and Jamaica -– shall be extended to 31 December 2009.  Finally by the text, the Assembly invited other bodies with members on the Committee that have not yet done so to adjust the term of office of their respective members so that the terms of all members can start from 1 January.


Welcoming the adoption, the representative of Japan thanked delegations for demonstrating flexibility during negotiations on the text.  The agreed upon arrangement was provisional, and would be applicable from 2009 to 2010.  The arrangement beyond 2011 would be reviewed in conjunction with the general review of the Peacebuilding Commission in 2010.  The Chairmanship of country-specific configurations would be determined by the Commission’s Organizational Committee next year, but it was understood that Belgium would be slated to Chair the Central African Republic configuration, and Brazil the Guinea-Bissau configuration.


Action on Third Committee Texts


The Assembly then moved to take action on the Committee’s reports, introduced by Rapporteur KHALID ALWAFI ( Saudi Arabia).  He said he understood that action would be deferred on the following resolutions pending receipt of relevant Fifth Committee reports: “Global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action”; “International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination”; “Committee on the rights of the child”; and “Situation of human rights in Myanmar”.


He made an oral revision to the text of document A/63/430/Add.2, where “43rd meeting” should read “38th meeting” on page 27.  In document A/63/430/Add.5, on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, he provided revised numbers on the total number of State Signatories (137) and States Parties (45); as well as State Signatories (80), and States Parties (27) to the Optional Protocol.


Refugees


The Assembly first took up the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions (document A/63/423), which contained four draft resolutions.


Draft resolution I on “enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees” was adopted without a vote.


Draft resolution II on a “new international humanitarian order” was adopted without a vote.


Draft resolution III on the “Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)” was adopted without a vote.


Draft resolution IV on “assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa” was also adopted with a vote.


Social Development


Next, the Assembly took up the Committee’s report on Social development (document A/63/424), which contained five draft resolutions.


Draft resolution I on “realizing the Millennium Development Goals for persons with disabilities through the implementation of the World Programme of Action concerning Disabled Persons and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities” was adopted without a vote.


Speaking after action, the representative of the United States referred to the statements made by his delegation during Third Committee negotiations on the draft.  In particular, he noted that preambular paragraph 5 had been voted upon in the Committee and that 93 Members had voted against or abstained on including that paragraph in the resolution.


The representative of Israel, speaking on the same text, said that, while Israel was fully committed to advancing the rights of persons with disabilities, it held reservations regarding the resolution before the Assembly.  She expressed regret that certain elements of politicization were included in the text, in particular preambular paragraph 5, and attempts to draw parallels between two different legal regimes -- human rights law and the law of armed conflict -- were not welcome.


The Chair of the Assembly then reminded Member States that explanations should take place after all drafts under the sub-item had been acted upon.


Draft resolution II on “follow-up to the Second World Assembly on Ageing” was adopted without a vote.


Also without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft resolution III on the “implementation of the outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly”.


Draft resolution IV on “follow-up to the implementation of the International Year of Volunteers” was also adopted without a vote.


Finally, draft resolution V on “the United Nations Literacy Decade:  Education for all” was adopted without a vote.


Advancement of Women


The Assembly then took up the Committee’s report on advancement of women (document A/63/425) containing five draft resolutions.


The representative of Senegal took the floor to inform the Assembly that two preambular paragraphs, 5 and 12, had been left out of the resolution on obstetric fistula (document A/C.3/63/L.15/Rev.1), when it had been approved in the Third Committee.  He read into the record the text of those two paragraphs, one of which took note, with appreciation, of the Secretary-General’s report on obstetric fistula and welcomed its conclusions and recommendations.  The other paragraph, preambular 12, further welcomed ongoing partnerships between stakeholders to address the multifaceted determinants of maternal mortality and the commitments announced at the 2008 high-level event on the Millennium Development Goals to accelerate progress on Goal 5.  While noting that the draft had been approved by consensus, he asked that the two additional paragraphs be integrated into the text, before its adoption by the Assembly.


Draft resolution I on “intensification of efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women” was adopted without a vote.


Draft resolution II on “trafficking in women and girls” was adopted without a vote.


The Assembly then adopted without a vote draft resolution III on the “future operation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW)”.


Draft resolution IV on “supporting efforts to end obstetric fistula” was adopted without vote, as orally revised.


Draft resolution V on “follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly” was adopted without a vote.


After action, the representative of the United States said his delegation would dissociate itself from the decision taken on the draft resolution on follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly, for the reasons it had stated in the Third Committee sessions on 24 November.


Report of the Human Rights Council


The Committee’s report on the report of the Human Rights Council (document A/63/435), contained a draft resolution recommending the adoption of on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (document A/C.3/63/L.47), which was approved by the Committee without a vote on 18 November.  The Optional Protocol was adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December.


The representative of Canada said that, as a State Party to two international covenants on human rights, it was committed to the progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights.  All human rights were universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.  The communications procedures for economic, social and cultural rights gave her some concern, particularly since the Optional Protocol did not take account of the need to defer to States when assessing policy choices and resource allocations.  Some rights in the Covenant were set out in such a broad manner that they could not be subjected to quasi-judicial assessments.


She said she understood that part I of the Covenant was not included within the scope of Optional Protocol.  The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights should follow the views of the Human Rights Council in declining to consider communications relating to article I of the two covenants, including the provision on self-determination, which was subject to State reporting processes as set out by the Covenant.  It was a process she supported.  In view of the Protocol’s importance to many States, she had joined consensus despite those concerns.


The representative of Finland said his country attached great importance to the Protocol, which constituted a significant step towards the full realization of human rights.  He regarded the carefully drafted text as being well balanced.  All human rights were universal and indivisible; civil and political rights and economic, social and political rights could not be separated from each other, since they were mutually reinforcing.  The Protocol was an important contribution to the human rights of individuals and took account of the interrelated nature of all rights.  He hoped that signatures and ratifications would follow speedily.  His country would sign the Protocol soon.


The representative of the United Kingdom expressed several concerns about the Protocol.  It had put on record its position on certain aspects, including when the report had been approved in the Third Committee.  All human rights were universal, indivisible and mutually reinforcing, whether they were civil, political, economic, social or cultural rights.  However, economic, social and cultural rights did not lend themselves easily to third party adjudication in the same way as civil and political rights.  She was sceptical of a complaints mechanism in view of the varying degrees of specifity with which the rights were drawn.  She favoured an a la carte approach in that manner to which such rights could apply.  The Protocol would make it difficult for the United Kingdom to become a State Party to the Covenant.


She added that the United Kingdom’s views on articles 8, 4.1 and amendments to articles 2 and 11 still held, and referred States to previous statements made on record in that regard.


The representative of Slovenia welcomed the adoption of the Optional Protocol during the sixtieth anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, calling it an impressive step forward in the full realization of human rights.  It had taken 60 years to catch up to the vision of human rights that had been laid out in the Universal Declaration.  The Optional Protocol would help build upon the progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights, and he commended all parties who had worked, over the years, to bring it to fruition.


The representative of Austria welcomed the creation of an individual communications procedure, as a means to further strengthen economic, social and cultural rights.  However, the mechanism could only be truly viable if it had a broad membership and was fully implemented, and the text, therefore, should stress that matter.  While recognizing the work of Working Group on the matter, he underscored the fact that Austria understood that the text on the Protocol recognized the variety of means available to States to implement the various elements of the Covenant.


The representative of Australia said the purpose of the Optional Protocol was to establish an avenue for redress for individual violations of economic, social and cultural rights.  Its jurisdiction did not, therefore, cover alleged violations having to do with collective rights, such as the right to self-determination.  In those matters, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights should not be called upon to adjudicate.  It should also decline to adjudicate on matters where the complainant had not suffered any clear damage or disadvantage, to ensure that the Committee’s time was not wasted on spurious cases.


Continuing, she said that an individual complaint might reveal a serious issue of general importance, which could then be considered under articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant itself, or through the inquiry procedure set out in article 11 of the Optional Protocol, as those mechanisms were designed specifically for those issues.  In addition, she drew attention to the “reasonableness test”, which said that States could choose from a range of options to implement the rights laid out in the Covenant, in accordance with the progressive realization of those rights.  By their nature, the fulfilment of those rights required a balancing of State resources, and Australia acknowledged the discretion of States parties to adopt a wide range of policy measures to implement those rights.


The representative of the United States said that his delegation, while sceptical of the need for a protocol, sought to engage constructively in producing an outcome coherent with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  The proponents of an Optional Protocol had long argued that the absence of a complaints procedure for those rights relegated them to a type of second-class status.  Those arguments were premised on the view that economic, social and cultural rights were substantively identical to civil and political rights and, therefore, must be “justiciable” in the same manner.  Yet, while all rights were equally important, the nature of rights was fundamentally different.


The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that those rights are to be progressively realized, in accordance with available resources, he continued.  Significant qualifications were not contained in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  Further, the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights set forth rights that were, at face value, difficult to adjudicate, such as “an adequate standard of living” and the “highest attainable standard of health”; violations of those rights were not apparent, nor was it easy to determine when they had been satisfactorily achieved.


That fundamental fact was not to say that the rights set out in the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights were not important, as billions suffered daily from inadequate food, housing, water, sanitation and other basic needs, he continued.  Rather, it was apparent that the Covenant on those rights took a different approach to rights, as confirmed in the texts of the respective covenants.  At the same time, the United States did not want to stand in the way of those States parties that might choose to avail themselves of the non-binding communication procedure set out in the Optional Protocol, and it had, therefore, not stood in the way of consensus.


That said, his delegation continued to believe that an international committee of experts, no matter how qualified, would struggle to adjudicate individual complaints in a manner that was consistent with the provisions of the Covenant itself and respectful of the sovereign right of Governments to make difficult decisions with respect to the allocation of scarce resources.  He requested that his explanation be entered into the official records.


The representative of Sweden recalled his delegation’s explanation of position at the time of approval in the Third Committee.


The representative of Turkey said his country was fully committed to the progressive realization of the rights set forth in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  However, he asked to have it placed on record Turkey’s concerns regarding the amended article 2.  Also, Turkey would have preferred for the opt-out approach to be maintained in article 2, since that option would have facilitated States to expand the range of rights covered by the complaints procedure over time, as they progressively evolved with greater clarity in domestic systems.  Turkey would have also preferred to maintain the compromise reached in the Working Group on the limited approach in articles 2 and 11.  It was also the understanding of Turkey that the rights set forth in part I of the Covenant were conferred upon peoples and could not be invoked in an individual complaints mechanism.


The representative of Norway expressed concerns regarding the Protocol, referring to a statement made on 18 November in the Third Committee.


The representative of Denmark said her country was strongly committed to the full realization of economic, social and cultural rights, and believed that all rights were universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.  However, she was sceptical about the wisdom of a complaints mechanism for economic, social and cultural rights, and found that a majority of rights in the Covenant did not carry legal effects.  The progressive nature of their realization made them insufficiently justiciable.  Also, due to their broad and vague nature, she feared that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights would function as a legislator in the area of economic, social and cultural rights, and would play too strong a role in determining the allocation of resources within that sphere.  The allocation of resources was a national matter and the responsibility and prerogative of democratic and popularly legitimate institutions.


The representative of Argentina repeated in all terms the explanation of vote made in the Third Committee on 18 November.


Algeria’s representative said she was happy to see that the Human Rights Council and General Assembly had adopted the Protocol and congratulated the lead negotiator for efforts made to obtain consensus on it.  It was an “asset” that made it possible for economic, social and cultural rights to benefit from the same treatment given to civil and political rights through the justiciability of those rights.  That achievement demonstrated the international community’s will to protect human rights for all.


The Assembly then took up addendum 1 of the Committee’s report on the report of the Human Rights Council (document A/63/435/Add.1), containing a draft resolution on the “report of the Human Rights Council”.


The Assembly adopted the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 58 abstentions.  (For details of the vote, see annex I)


The resolution had the Assembly take note of the report of the Human Rights Council of its sixth, seventh and eighth session, as well as fifth, sixth and seventh special session (document A/63/53), and the report of its ninth session (document A/63/53/Add.1) and acknowledges the recommendations contained therein.


Promotion, Protection of Children’s Rights


Next, the Assembly took up the Committee’s report on promotion and protection of the rights of children (document A/63/426), containing a draft resolution on “the rights of the child”, which the Assembly deferred pending receipt of a Fifth Committee report.


The Assembly also adopted a draft decision on “documents considered by the General Assembly in connection with the promotion of the rights of children”.


Indigenous Issues


The Assembly next turned to the Committee’s report on indigenous issues (document A/63/427), which contained one draft resolution and one draft decision.


The Assembly adopted both the draft resolution on “indigenous issues” and the draft decision taking note of the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the status of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations (document A/63/166).


Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination


The Assembly then took up the Third Committee’s report on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination (document A/63/428), which contained three draft resolutions.


Action on draft resolution II on “global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action” and draft resolution III on the “International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination” were deferred pending receipt of a Fifth Committee report.


The Assembly then adopted draft resolution I on the “inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” by a recorded vote of 129 in favour to 2 against ( Marshall Islands, United States), with 54 abstentions.  (annex II)


Right of Peoples to Self-Determination


Next, the Assembly took up the Committee’s report on the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/63/429), which contained three draft resolutions.


Draft resolution I on the “universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination” was adopted without a vote.


Draft resolution II on “the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination” was adopted by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 52 against, with 5 abstentions ( Chile, Fiji, New Zealand, Switzerland, Tonga).  (annex III)


Draft resolution III on “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” was adopted by a recorded vote of 173 in favour to 5 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 7 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Fiji, Nauru, Tonga, Vanuatu).  (annex IV)


The representative of Peru explained that his delegation had missed the round of voting, but would have voted in favour.


Promotion and Protection of Human Rights


The Assembly then took up the Third Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/63/430), and adopted the decision taking note of reports submitted under the item entitled “promotion and protection of human rights”.


The Assembly then took up addendum 1 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/63/430/Add.1), which contained two draft resolutions on implementation of human rights instruments.


Draft resolution I on “torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” was adopted without a vote.


Draft resolution II on “equitable geographical distribution in the membership of the human rights treaty bodies” was adopted by a recorded vote of 128 in favour to 55 against, with 2 abstentions ( Brazil, Cape Verde).  (annex V)


The representative of the United Kingdom drew attention to explanation of position regarding the resolution on torture given in the Third Committee, which outlined understanding on legal matters pertaining to the resolution.


The Assembly then moved to take up addendum 2 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/63/430/Add.2), which contained 23 draft resolutions.


The Vice-President reminded the Assembly that action on the “Committee on the Rights of the Child” would be deferred pending receipt of the associated Fifth Committee report.


Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote on the draft resolution on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty, the representative of Syria said that United Nations Member States enjoyed the right to equality and sovereignty.  The exercise of that sovereign right must be conducted in full respect of all States.  The resolution before the Assembly was a clear intervention in the sovereign rights of States, as each State had the sovereign right to choose its juridical, political, social and cultural systems.  Asking States to stop the use of the death penalty was a specific request to change a national system and, therefore, interfered with their sovereign rights. 


Further, she said it ignored completely the human dignity of the victim -– or, in some cases, a large number of victims -- and disregarded their rights.  The implementation of the death penalty was something to be determined by the legislative authorities of each State.  The abolition of the penalty could be seen as a reward for the perpetrators of crimes, those who took the lives of others.  When Member States joined the United Nations they were admitted on the basis of equality, sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs, and those basic principles should be maintained.  If they were not, it would be a violation of the United Nations Charter.  As such, her delegation would vote against the draft resolution and encouraged others to do the same, in accordance with the Charter.


The Assembly then took up draft resolution I on “moratorium on the use of the death penalty”, which was adopted by a recorded vote of 106 in favour to 46 against, with 34 abstentions.  (annex VI)


Next, the Assembly took up draft resolution II on the “role of the Ombudsman, mediator and other national human rights institutions in the promotion and protection of human rights”, which was adopted without a vote.


Draft resolution III on “regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights” was also adopted without a vote.


Draft resolution IV on “combating defamation of religions” was adopted by a recorded vote of 86 in favour to 53 against, with 42 abstentions.  (annex VII)


The Assembly then adopted draft resolution V on “national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights” without a vote.


Draft resolution VI on the “International Year of Human Rights Learning” was also adopted without a vote.


Also adopted without a vote was draft resolution VII on “the effective promotion of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities”.


Draft resolution VIII on “human rights and extreme poverty” was adopted without a vote.


Draft resolution IX on “globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights” was adopted by a recorded vote of 129 in favour to 54 against, with 4 abstentions ( Brazil, Chile, Singapore, Timor-Leste).  (annex VIII)


Draft resolution X on “the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa” was adopted without a vote.


By a recorded vote of 182 in favour to 4 against ( Marshall Islands, Palau, Ukraine, United States), with 2 abstentions ( Canada, Israel), the Assembly adopted draft resolution XI on the “right to development”.  (annex IX)


Draft resolution XII on “human rights and unilateral coercive measures” was adopted by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to 54 against, with no abstentions.  (annex X)


Draft resolution XIII on the “enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights” was adopted without a vote.


Also adopted without a vote was draft resolution XIV on the “elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief”.


The Committee next turned to draft resolution XV on “extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions”.


The representative of Uganda, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, proposed an oral amendment to paragraph 6(b), involving the insertion of the words “peoples under foreign occupation” after the word “refugees”.  She requested another amendment, where the words “including sexual orientation” would be replace by the word “whatsoever”.


The representative of Sweden said she regretted the call to amend the text, explaining that those same amendments had been voted on -- and defeated -- in the Third Committee.  To make it easier for all delegations to state their positions, she proposed that the amendments be voted on.  Along with the other co-sponsors to the resolution, she intended to vote “no” to those amendments and appealed to others to do likewise.


The representative of Egypt, aligning himself with the statement by the Organization of Islamic Conference, noted that the amendments just made were reflected on page 60 in document A/63/430/Add.2.  He observed that those amendments had been voted on separately by the Third Committee.


At the Vice-President’s request, the representative of Uganda repeated the proposed amendments, and said she would not object to separate votes on each of those amendments.


Sweden’s representative noted the sudden nature of the call for a vote on amendments, but nevertheless explained the serious concerns she and other co-sponsors had with such amendments, as had been explained in the Third Committee.  A reference to foreign occupation was already in the paragraph in question.  As for the proposal to add the term “whatsoever” in place of “including sexual orientation”, she raised objections to that proposal, saying it was important to make a reference to killings based on sexual orientation, which was an “extensive problem”.  She appealed to all delegations to vote “no” to the proposed amendments.


The first oral amendment to paragraph 6(b) of draft resolution XV on “extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” was rejected by a vote of 75 against to 71 in favour, with 22 abstentions.  (annex XI)


The second oral amendment to the same paragraph was rejected by a vote of 78 against to 60 in favour, with 28 abstentions.  (annex XII)


Draft resolution XV on “extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” was then adopted by a vote of 127 in favour to none against, with 58 abstentions..  (annex XIII)


Draft resolution XVI on “missing persons” was adopted without a vote.


The Assembly then moved to adopt draft resolution XVII on the “protection of migrants”, without a vote.


Turning to draft resolution XVIII on the “protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism”, the representative of Mexico corrected an error in the Spanish version of the draft text.  Paragraph 29 should have been deleted.   The text was then adopted without a vote as orally revised.


Draft resolution XIX on the “International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance” was also adopted without a vote.


Draft resolution XX on the “right to food” was adopted by a recorded vote of 184 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions.  (annex XIV)


Draft resolution XXI on “respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the vital importance of family reunification” was adopted by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 4 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 60 abstentions.  (annex XV)


Draft resolution XXII on the “promotion of a democratic and equitable international order” was adopted by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 55 against, with 7 abstentions ( Argentina, Armenia, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Timor-Leste, Vanuatu).  (annex XVI)


The representative of Syria, speaking in explanation of vote after the vote on the resolution on the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the context of counter-terrorism, said that Syria would continue to cooperate with the United Nations system on the issue and in light of its national law.  It was Syria’s understanding that the lists of individuals and entities in operative paragraphs 18 and 19 referred to the lists issued by the Security Council.


The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking to the resolution on the right to development, recalled the statement made by his country in Third Committee deliberations regarding the reference to indigenous peoples in the text.  Such wording could be seen as to establish collective rights within the resolution.  Similarly, on the resolution before the Assembly on the right to food, he also referred to his delegation’s explanation given in the Third Committee on the draft and the establishment of collective rights.


The representative of Singapore, speaking in explanation of vote on the resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, noted that there was no international consensus on the death penalty and, for many countries, the penalty was used in an effort to further protect its citizens.  The use of the death penalty was not a human rights issue, but rather a criminal justice issue.  Further, the issue was divisive and controversial and should not be taken up by the General Assembly.  Nothing in the Charter authorized the United Nations to interfere in the domestic matters of any State, as each country had the sovereign right to decide on the matter for themselves and to establish their own national systems.  Countries on either side of the argument had no right to impose their points of view on others and she asked that Singapore’s opposition to the resolution and any attempt by one Member State to impose its own values or beliefs on another be put on record.


The representative of Cape Verde, speaking on resolution IV on defamation of religions, said that was a text which, at first glance, might draw easy agreement, since manhunts for religious or ethnic reasons, or murders due to race or faith, were heinous problems.  However, currently, there was a new political confrontation under way and there were signs of a setback in overall discussions.  There was a need to move forward on the issue and for the entire international community to come together on the issue.  Having reread the text and carefully looked at the fine print, he noted a troubling reality of “dual language”, and said his delegation was frustrated by a long drafting procedure that had led to such meagre results.  The text did not strike the proper balance on the subject and there needed to be greater impartiality on delicate issues.  There was a need to guarantee the full freedom of religion and belief, along with the freedom of choice for those who wanted to change their religions.  For all those reasons, Cape Verde had voted against the text.


Turning to resolution XX on the right to food, he said his delegation had been unable to vote and it would have voted for that resolution.


The representative of Egypt said he had voted against the resolution on a moratorium on the death penalty because it went against the religious beliefs of some societies, as well as certain international legal documents.  Islam believed in the sanctity of life, and Islamic nations used the death penalty only for the most serious crimes and with regard to due process.  He noted that no international accord prohibited the death penalty, and the right to seek pardon or a commutation was provided for under international law.


He said he believed the text should have centred on ensuring due process and ensuring that it was used correctly.  Indeed, international law restricted the use of the death penalty against minors.  It was also not permitted against pregnant women, in order to protect the right to life of the unborn child.


He said he believed that the resolution had been aimed at reinterpreting the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in light of developments within certain countries, and reflected a narrow viewpoint.  The argument that this year’s resolution was “procedural” was not supportable by its title and provisions.  Indeed, the text dealt with the use of the death penalty and not its application, implying that its use by States that still retained it was to serve certain political interests.


In addition, he said the text claimed that there was a trend towards abolition, based on the Secretary-General’s report.  That report had been based on unauthenticated information and used questionable methodology.  Moreover, the resolution failed to deal with extrajudicial executions.  It disregarded the diversity in the world with regard to societal rules.  While some societies had chosen to abolish or apply a moratorium on the death penalty, others had chosen to retain it, in full compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  No side was more right than the other.  All sides had decided freely, based on their sovereign right and based on specific social and cultural needs.  Neither side should be able to impose its views on the other.  Human rights considerations with regard to the death penalty could only be reconciled by the Human Rights Council through a comprehensive debate and negotiation at the multilateral level.


The representative of Barbados drew attention to his Government’s explanation of vote on 20 November in the Third Committee.  Capital punishment was lawful under international law and a national matter.


Tunisia’s representative said he would have voted “yes” to the second amendment on the resolution on extrajudicial killings.


The representative of Chile, who spoke on behalf of the co-sponsors of the resolution on a moratorium, said the text’s adoption was a milestone in the move to improve human rights.  Many countries had already abolished the death penalty, either de jure or de facto, confirming a world trend towards its abolishment.  That trend should not be allowed to go in reverse. 


He said the text had been widely negotiated through a new focus that was geared towards constructive dialogue.  That philosophy was reflected in the text’s simplicity and brevity.  The reference to the item’s biennial nature was due to the proposals of some delegations.


China’s representative expressed regret over the draft’s adoption, saying that imposing the views of one side would not do anything to help resolve disagreements over the issue, but would further politicize the issue.  For that reason, China had voted against it in the Third Committee and had voted against it once again in the Assembly.  The decision to apply, limit or abolish the application of the death penalty was a national matter and not a question of human rights.


She said the draft ran counter to the principle of non-interference and had set States against one another.  International law did not ban the death penalty and, indeed, there was no consensus on the issue.  Article 6, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights said the death penalty could be used for serious crimes, and that nations were free to decide when to suspend or abolish penalties in light of their needs.  The death penalty was a powerful deterrent in the case of the most serious crimes and enjoyed broad public support in China.  Its use was subject to strict control and was used for a narrow band of crimes.  Further, minors below 18 years at the time of crimes and pregnant women were not subject to it.  In some cases, execution was delayed by two years, during which the sentence could be commuted to a life sentence, if the accused did not commit any new crimes within that time.  Very few criminals had actually been put to death.


Limitations on its use were also imposed in the approval process, to ensure fairness, she said.  The authority to review the death penalty and exercise it fell to the Supreme People’s Court.


The representative of Algeria, explaining her delegation’s vote in favour of the resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and in favour of the amendments introduced by Uganda, expressed hope that, in the future, the resolution would be amended so as to garner the broadest possible support and to be adopted by consensus.


In a general statement, the representative of Argentina, speaking on behalf of a list of associated countries, reaffirmed the principle of the universality of human rights, as established by the Universal Declaration.  All human beings were born free and equal in dignity and rights and all individuals had the right to enjoy their rights without distinction.  The principle of non-discrimination required that all human rights be applied to all human beings, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.  As such, he expressed a deep concern and alarm at the ongoing exclusion, harassment, stigmatization and prejudice against individuals because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.


Continuing, he condemned all human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity, whenever or wherever they might occur, especially when those violations involved the use of the death penalty or the use of torture or other cruel or inhuman treatment against the victims.  He recalled the remarks made by 54 countries in 2006 asking the President of the Human Rights Council to provide an opportunity at a future session of the Council for a discussion of those violations and welcomed the resolution adopted by the Organization of American States on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity.  Further, he urged all States to take all necessary steps to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity did not become the reason for criminal punishment, especially executions, arrests or detention.  Human rights violations due to sexual orientation or gender identity must be thoroughly investigated and those responsible be held accountable.


The representative of Syria, making a general statement on behalf of a list of associated countries, responded to Argentina’s statement on the “so-called” notions of sexual orientation and gender identity.  All human rights were universal, indivisible, interrelated, interdependent and mutually reinforcing, and no country could claim that, within its borders, all human rights were fully realized at all times and for all individuals.  Indeed, Member States had jointly declared that the full realization of human rights for all remained a challenge, but that they would not shy away from its magnitude.  In that context, he expressed serious concern over attempts to introduce some notions that had no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument.  Even more disturbing was the attempt to focus on certain persons, based on their sexual orientation and behaviours, while ignoring the intolerance and discrimination that existed in all parts of the world, based on many other factors.


There was no legal ground for the statement of Argentina, he said, adding that it fell into matters that were in the domestic jurisdiction of States.  The “ominous usage” of the notion of orientation could be seen as to go beyond an individual’s sexual interest and could possibly legitimize many deplorable acts, such as paedophilia.  The idea that some behaviours were the result of genetic factors had been scientifically rebuffed and, as such, the two notions of sexual orientation and gender identity should not be linked to existing human rights instruments.  While strongly deploring any form of discrimination, stigmatization or violence directed against communities or individuals on any grounds, he reaffirmed article 29 of the Universal Declaration and the rights of Member States to decide on morality, public order and the general welfare in society.


The universal rights laid out in the Declaration had been codified in other international human rights instruments and he expressed his concern, once more, at attempts to create new rights that had not been agreed upon by the general membership.  Such an attempt seriously jeopardized the entire international human rights framework.  He called on all Member States to step up their efforts to eliminate all forms of racism, racial intolerance, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination and to avoid giving priority to the rights of certain individuals, especially when that might come at the expense of others.  In closing, he called for the family to be further protected and promoted as the main unit of society and urged all States to intensify their efforts to consolidate their commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights for all, on an equal footing and without exception.


The representative of Ethiopia noted that, on the resolution on the death penalty, his delegation had mistakenly voted in favour, whereas it had meant to vote against the resolution.


The representative of the Russian Federation said that, to overcome negative trends in promoting and protecting human rights, there was a need for international goodwill among all parties.  International cooperation in the human rights arena was imperative and such discussions should serve as a unifying factor in international relations.  Therefore, no subject should be injected into the agenda that could lead to confrontation or divisiveness, and his delegation shared many of the concerns expressed in Syria’s statement on behalf of associated States.  The approach to the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity should be constructed within the context of already existing international human rights instruments, since separating such discussion into discussions on an individual group could lead to a greater burden in the workload of the Assembly.


The representative of Belarus said the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity was sensitive in nature, complex and varied, and should not, therefore, be considered hastily.  A prudent and considered approach was most necessary in such a situation.  Human rights should not lead to riffs or confrontations among Member States and the discussion of those issues should take place in the context of equitable and mutually respectful dialogue. 


The observer for the Holy See, speaking in reference to the statement made by Argentina, expressed appreciation for the attempts made in that declaration to condemn all forms of violence against homosexual persons and its effort to urge States to take necessary measures to put an end to all criminal penalties against them.  At the same time, the wording of that statement went well beyond the above mentioned and shared intent.  In particular, the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity had no clear definition under international law.  If they were included in proclamations on fundamental rights or in their implementation, it could create serious uncertainty and could undermine a State’s ability to enter into and enforce new and existing human rights conventions and standards.  That said, the Holy See continued to advocate that discrimination against homosexual persons should be avoided and he urged States to do away with criminal penalties against those groups.


The Assembly then took up addendum 3 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/63/430/Add.3), which contained three draft resolutions on human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives.  The Vice-President reminded the Assembly that draft resolution II on the “situation of human rights in Myanmar” had been deferred pending receipt of a Fifth Committee report.


Turning to draft resolution I on the “situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”, the Assembly adopted it by a recorded vote of 94 in favour to 22 against, with 63 abstentions.  (annex XVII)


It then took up draft resolution III on the “situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran”.


Before action was taken, the representative of Iran called for a motion of no action on the text.  Citing voting rule 116 of the rules of procedure, he said his country believed the Human Rights Council was the most competent body to consider and monitor human rights, especially through its Universal Periodic Review mechanism.  Consideration by the Assembly of questions such as that contained in the draft resolution on Iran was unwarranted, and should be excluded from the agenda today.  The Assembly should resist Canada’s and other country’s manipulation of the United Nations system for their own political use, which affected the Organization’s credibility.


The representative of Venezuela said his delegation would express its firm disagreement with States that sought to individually condemn others in a manner that was political and selective.  Any action within the United Nations framework should be oriented towards the promotion and protection of human rights, based on the principle of dialogue.  He asked the Assembly to consider the merits of conducting a comprehensive, exhaustive and neutral investigation to determine human rights violations, as opposed to simply condemning them.  Indeed, the Human Rights Council had opened such a process of investigation, giving all parties the chance to objectively present their cases without pressure.   He went on to note that, in the case of the Gaza Strip, it would seem that the Assembly had chosen to deal with the humanitarian crisis there, not by condemning anyone, but by launching an investigation. 


He would support the no-action motion proposed by the representative of Iran and appealed for support from all other delegates.


The representative of Canada expressed deep disappointment over the introduction of a no-action motion in the plenary debate, an extraordinary action that was designed to stifle debate.  A no-action motion had already been introduced during Third Committee deliberations and had been rejected.  The Committee had then decided to recommend the draft for adoption by the General Assembly.  The use of the no-action motion in the Assembly, after an identical motion had been attempted and failed in the Committee, signified a deep disregard for the Third Committee and its procedures.  While there may be different views on the substance of the resolution, Member States should be united in its support for the work of the Third Committee and for the General Assembly as a whole.  Member States had consistently rejected no-action motions in similar circumstances in the past, and he encouraged all States to vote against the no-action motion in order to allow the Assembly to vote on the merit of the resolution as a whole.


The representative of Australia, speaking on behalf of associated countries, said United Nations bodies should continue to be forums for addressing human rights situations wherever they occurred.  She expressed disappointment over the introduction of the no-action motion, saying that each resolution should be considered on its merits and such motions should not be allowed to undermine the credibility of the Third Committee and of the General Assembly.  For those reasons, she opposed the introduction of the no-action motion and encouraged other delegations to join hers in voting against the motion.


The representative of Pakistan expressed support for the no-action motion introduced by Iran.  All human rights were universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.  The international human rights agenda should be addressed in a fair and balanced manner, based on dialogue and cooperation.  Country-specific resolutions did not encourage the better promotion of human rights or international cooperation.  Instead, they reflected the politicization of human rights issues and created artificial barriers to equal and constructive dialogue among Member States.  He urged other delegations to support the motion.


The Assembly then rejected the no-action motion by a recorded vote of 84 against to 69 in favour, with 25 abstentions.  (annex XVIII)


The representative of Iran then proposed two oral amendments -- to delete the operative paragraph 6, in which the Secretary-General was requested to prepare a report on the situation in his country, and operative paragraph 7, to request the continuation of the Assembly’s consideration of the agenda item.  The campaign against his country was of a political nature.  Human rights could not be safeguarded through the application of double standards.


The representative of Canada said he would vote against the proposed amendment for procedural and substantive reasons.  Procedurally, the last-minute amendment addressed concerns that had never before been raised in the Third Committee, despite numerous opportunities to have done so.  He questioned the opposition to paragraph 6, since the representative of Iran had often argued that information on human rights in the country, and upon which discussions on the item was based, was inaccurate or out of date.  There was no better way to resolve the debate than to ask the Secretary-General to provide an update on the situation in the country.  He also noted that, last year, the General Assembly had rejected a similar late amendment to the plenary.  He would vote “no” and encouraged others to do the same.


The representative of France said the Third Committee had had an opportunity to consider the present resolution during its session, and delegations could have presented amendments at that time.  The lack of progress on human rights in Iran would seem to justify a report, and for the General Assembly to take up that item at its next session.  She would vote against both amendments.


The oral amendment proposed to operative paragraph 6 of the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Iran was rejected by a vote of 72 against to 50 in favour, with 50 abstentions.  (annex XIX)


The representative of Canada said that, once again, his delegation would vote against the amendment for both the procedural reasons he had laid out in his previous statement and for substantive reasons.  In terms of the substance of the amendment before the Assembly, he noted that the resolution expressed its deep concern for the human rights situation in the country, called on Iran to address those concerns and asked for a follow-up report on the situation.  With that in mind, it would be highly irregular for the General Assembly to not continue to examine the issue at an upcoming session.


The oral amendment to operative paragraph 7 of the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Iran was rejected by a recorded vote of 71 against to 50 in favour, with 51 abstentions.  (annex XX)


The Assembly then moved to consider the text as a whole.  Draft resolution III on the “situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran” was adopted by a recorded vote of 69 in favour to 54 against, with 57 abstentions.  (annex XXI)


Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea totally rejected the resolution on his country that had just been passed.  The resolution was the culmination of selectivity, politicization and double standards and had little to do with the promotion and protection of human rights.  Instead, the resolution was nothing but a pretext for a change in the ideology, the system and the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  Such resolutions had no value and no meaning.  Though they continued to be adopted, his country would continue to provide for and support the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea through its own appropriate social systems.


Addendum 4 of the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/430/Add.4) stated that no action was taken by the Committee on the Assembly item entitled comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.  The Assembly took note of the addendum.


The Assembly then considered addendum 5 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/63/430/Add.5), containing a draft resolution on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol, which was adopted without a vote and as orally corrected by the Rapporteur.


Next, the Assembly considered the Third Committee’s report on crime prevention and criminal justice (document A/63/431), which contained four draft resolutions and one draft decision.


Draft resolution I on “preparations for the Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice” was adopted without a vote.


Draft resolution II on “improving the coordination of efforts against trafficking in persons” was adopted without a vote.


The Assembly also adopted draft resolution III on “strengthening the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme, in particular its technical cooperation capacity”, without a vote.


It also adopted draft resolution IV without a vote, on the “United Nations African Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders”.


The Assembly then adopted the draft decision to take note of documents in connection with the question of crime prevention and criminal justice.


The Assembly then took up the Committee’s report on international drug control (document A/63/432) containing a draft resolution on “international cooperation against the world drug problem”, which was adopted without a vote.


The Assembly then took up the Committee’s report on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly (document A/63/433), adopting without a vote a draft decision to take note of the draft programme of work for the Third Committee for the sixty-third session of the General Assembly.


Finally, the Assembly took up the Committee’s report on programme planning (document A/63/434), which contained one draft decision on programme 19, human rights, of the proposed strategic framework for the period 2010-2011.  The draft was adopted by a recorded vote of 175 in favour to 3 against ( Israel, Marshall Islands, United States), with 2 abstentions ( Australia, Canada).  (annex XXII)


The Assembly Vice-President thanked the Chairman of the Third Committee, Frank Majoor of the Netherlands, as well as delegates, for “a job well done.”


The Assembly then resumed its consideration of agenda item 45 on the Culture of Peace.  During a high-level meeting on the item on 12 and 13 November 2008, the Assembly had considered draft resolutions A/63/L.24/Rev.1 and A/63/L.23.  (See Press Releases GA/10782 and GA/10784)


The representative of Singapore then introduced a third draft resolution, on behalf of Egypt and the other co-sponsors, on supporting the United Nations International School in enhancing international education and promoting multicultural interaction (document A/63/L.55).  The International School was dear to the hearts of many within the United Nations family and was as culturally diverse as the United Nations itself, he said.  Indeed, it employed a multinational staff representing more than 70 countries and, although English was the primary medium of instruction, all students studied French and Spanish, and had the option to study other languages, as well.  The School strived to promote an appreciation for the diverse cultural heritage of the student body, in line with principles of the United Nations.  After five years of planning, the Board of Trustees of the School had initiated a phased renovation plan and the current resolution was aimed at supporting the fundraising efforts of the School, both symbolically and practically.  He stressed that the resolution did not oblige any Member State to contribute to the School, but it did encourage those who could, to do so at will.  He expressed hope that the resolution could be adopted by consensus.


The Assembly then adopted the resolution without a vote.


ANNEX I


Vote on Report of Human Rights Council


The draft resolution on the report of the Human Rights Council (document A/63/435/Add.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 7 against, with 58 abstentions, as follows:


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


Against:  Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United States.


Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu.


Absent:  Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Seychelles, Tuvalu.


ANNEX II


Vote on Practices Fuelling Racism


The draft resolution on the inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/63/428) was adopted by a recorded vote of 129 in favour to 2 against, with 54 abstentions, as follows:


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


Against:  Marshall Islands, United States.


Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom.


Absent:  Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Seychelles.


ANNEX III


Vote on Mercenaries


The draft resolution on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights (document A/63/429) was adopted by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 52 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:


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


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


Abstain:  Chile, Fiji, New Zealand, Switzerland, Tonga.


Absent:  Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Nauru, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu.


ANNEX IV


Vote on Self-Determination of Palestinian People


The draft resolution on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (document A/63/429) was adopted by a recorded vote of 173 in favour to 5 against, with 7 abstentions, as follows:


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


Against:  Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United States.


Abstain:  Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Fiji, Nauru, Tonga, Vanuatu.


Absent:  Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles.


ANNEX V


Vote on Geographical Distribution on Treaty Bodies


The draft resolution on equitable geographical distribution in the membership of human rights treaty bodies (document A/63/430/Add.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 128 in favour to 55 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:


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


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


Abstain:  Brazil, Cape Verde.


Absent:  Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Micronesia (Federated States of), Seychelles.


ANNEX VI


Vote on Death Penalty Moratorium


The draft resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (document A/63/430/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 106 in favour to 46 against, with 34 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela.


Against:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Egypt, Grenada, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United States, Yemen, Zimbabwe.


Abstain:  Bahrain, Belarus, Bhutan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Cuba, Djibouti, Eritrea, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Togo, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Zambia.


Absent:  Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Seychelles, Tunisia.


ANNEX VII


Vote on Combating Defamation of Religion


The draft resolution on combating defamation of religion (document A/63/430/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 86 in favour to 53 against, with 42 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.


Against:  Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belize, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.


Abstain:  Argentina, Armenia, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Nauru, Nepal, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Zambia.


Absent:  Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, New Zealand, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Solomon Islands.


ANNEX VIII


Vote on Globalization


The draft resolution on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights (document A/63/430/A.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 129 in favour to 54 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:


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


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


Abstain:  Brazil, Chile, Singapore, Timor-Leste.


Absent:  Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Nauru, Seychelles.


ANNEX IX


Vote on Right to Development


The draft resolution on the right to development (document A/63/430/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 182 in favour to 4 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:


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


Against:  Marshall Islands, Palau, Ukraine, United States.


Abstain:  Canada, Israel.


Absent:  Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Seychelles.


ANNEX X


Vote on Unilateral Coercive Measures


The draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/63/430/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to 54 against, with no abstentions, as follows:


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


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


Abstain:  None.


Absent:  Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles.


ANNEX XI


Vote on Oral Amendment I to Extrajudicial Executions


The first oral amendment to the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/63/430/Add.2) was rejected by a recorded vote of 75 against to 71 in favour, with 22 abstentions, as follows:


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay.


In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, China, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Guinea, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Abstain:  Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Congo, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mongolia, Rwanda, Timor-Leste, Tonga, United Republic of Tanzania.


Absent:  Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.


ANNEX XII


Vote on Oral Amendment II to Extrajudicial Executions


The second oral amendment to the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/63/430/Add.2) was rejected by a recorded vote of 78 against to 60 in favour, with 28 abstentions, as follows:


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


In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Abstain:  Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Bolivia, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mongolia, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Togo, Tonga, United Republic of Tanzania.


Absent:  Central African Republic, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ghana, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Suriname, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.


ANNEX XIII


Vote on Extrajudicial Executions


The draft resolution on extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions (document A/63/430/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 127 in favour to none against, with 58 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela.


Against:  None.


Abstain:  Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Absent:  Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Turkmenistan.


ANNEX XIV


Vote on Right to Food


The draft resolution on the right to food (document A/63/430/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 184 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:


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


Against:  United States.


Abstain:  None.


Absent:  Cape Verde, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Seychelles, Uganda.


ANNEX XV


Vote on Family Reunification


The draft resolution on respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the vital importance of family reunification (document A/63/430/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 4 against, with 60 abstentions, as follows:


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


Against:  Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States.


Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Vanuatu.


Absent:  Benin, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Trinidad and Tobago.


ANNEX XVI


Vote on Equitable International Order


The draft resolution on promotion of a democratic and equitable international order (document A/63/430/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 55 against, with 7 abstentions, as follows:


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


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


Abstain:  Argentina, Armenia, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Timor-Leste, Vanuatu.


Absent:  Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Nauru, Seychelles.


ANNEX XVII


Vote on Human Rights in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea


The draft resolution on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document A/63/430/Add.3) was adopted by a recorded vote of 94 in favour to 22 against, with 63 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu.


Against:  Algeria, Belarus, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Oman, Russian Federation, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.


Abstain:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zambia.


Absent:  Armenia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Mongolia, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tuvalu.


ANNEX XVIII


Vote on No-Action Motion on Iran


The no-action motion on the draft resolution on human rights in Iran (document A/63/430/Add.3) was rejected by a recorded vote of 84 against to 69 in favour, with 25 abstentions, as follows:


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu.


In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, China, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.


Abstain:  Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Jordan, Lesotho, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, United Republic of Tanzania.


Absent:  Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iraq, Libya, Madagascar, Maldives, Morocco, Seychelles, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Yemen.


ANNEX XIX


Vote on Oral Amendment to OP Para 6/Iran


The oral amendment to operate paragraph 6 of the draft resolution on human rights in Iran (document A/63/430/Add.3) was rejected by a recorded vote of 72 against to 50 in favour, with 50 abstentions, as follows:


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu.


In favour:  Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, China, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.


Abstain:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Suriname, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Zambia.


Absent:  Cambodia, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Georgia, Iraq, Madagascar, Maldives, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Yemen.


ANNEX XX


Vote on Oral Amendment to OP Para 7/Iran


The oral amendment of operative paragraph 7 of the draft resolution on human rights in Iran (document A/63/430/Add.3) was rejected by a recorded vote of 71 against to 50 in favour, with 51 abstentions, as follows:


Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu.


In favour:  Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, China, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.


Abstain:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Suriname, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Zambia.


Absent:  Cambodia, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Georgia, Iraq, Madagascar, Maldives, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Yemen.


ANNEX XXI


Vote on Human Rights in Iran


The draft resolution on human rights in Iran (document A/63/430/Add.3) was adopted by a recorded vote of 69 in favour to 54 against, with 57 abstentions, as follows:


In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu.


Against:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.


Abstain:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Zambia.


Absent:  Cambodia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iraq, Madagascar, Maldives, Seychelles, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey.


ANNEX XXII


Vote on Programme Planning


The draft decision on programme planning (document A/63/434) was adopted by a recorded vote of 175 in favour to 3 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:


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


Against:  Israel, Marshall Islands, United States.


Abstain:  Australia, Canada.


Absent:  Bahrain, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan.


* *** *

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