General Assembly Strongly Condemns Widespread, Systematic Human Rights Violations in Syria, as It Adopts 56 Resolutions Recommended by Third Committee

20 December 2012
GA/11331

General Assembly Strongly Condemns Widespread, Systematic Human Rights Violations in Syria, as It Adopts 56 Resolutions Recommended by Third Committee

20 December 2012
General Assembly
GA/11331
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixty-seventh General Assembly

Plenary

60th Meeting (AM)

General Assembly Strongly Condemns Widespread, Systematic Human Rights Violations

in Syria, as it Adopts 56 Resolutions Recommended by Third Committee

Also Calls for Elimination of Female Genital Mutilation, Death Penalty Moratorium;

Other Resolutions Address Broad Range of Human Rights, Humanitarian, Social Issues

The General Assembly today adopted 56 resolutions and 9 decisions recommended by its Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), including a text strongly condemning “widespread and systematic” gross human rights violations by Syrian authorities and calling on them to immediately end such abuse.

By the resolution on Syria — adopted by a recorded vote of 135 in favour to 12 against, with 36 abstentions (Annex XV) — the Assembly called on that country to protect the population and fully comply with its international law obligations.  It urged the immediate release of all persons arbitrarily detained, stressing its support for a peaceful, democratic and pluralistic society, and demanding that Syria provide the international commission of inquiry unfettered access to all areas of the country.

Speaking before action, Syria’s delegate said the politicized resolution on her country hindered the search for peaceful solutions based on the six-point plan and work of the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi.  She refuted the text’s allegations, saying that its co-sponsors — Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Morocco —had escalated the violence by their intervention in Syria’s internal affairs.  Their support of terrorism had led to the deaths of thousands of Syrians.  Armed groups, backed by the co-sponsors, continued to target pipelines, strategic food crops and railways, aiming only to create conditions conducive to the collapse of State institutions, and ultimately, anarchy.  “This is tantamount to a military attack,” she said.

In other notable action, the Assembly adopted its first-ever text aimed at ending female genital mutilation, concluding a determined effort by African States.  By its terms, the Assembly recognized that such mutilations were an irreparable, irreversible abuse of the human rights of woman and girls, and reaffirmed it as a serious threat to their health.  States were urged to condemn all such practices, whether committed within or outside a medical institution, and take measures — including legislation — to prohibit female genital mutilations, and protect women and girls from that form of violence.  By other terms, the Assembly called for the continued observance of 6 February as the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation.

Speaking after action, the representative of Burkina Faso said the degrading practice of female genital mutilation harmed women’s physical and moral integrity, and was falsely justified under religious and cultural pretences.  The text’s adoption sent a strong political message, and one of hope for the millions of women and girls facing that odious practice.

Africa — the resolution’s standard bearer — had mobilized to combat female genital mutilation, he said, with Governments showing political will to free women from its yoke by launching programmes, adopting laws and releasing both human and financial resources.  Civil society was raising awareness and he welcomed the campaign for a global ban on female genital mutilations launched by the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices.  Indeed, the time had come to recognize women’s rights, break the silence surrounding female genital mutilation and move towards its elimination.  He called on all co-sponsors to play an active role in creating a world free of female genital mutilation.

The Assembly also advanced its call to end the use of the death penalty with the passage — by recorded vote of 111 in favour to 41 against, with 34 abstentions — of a text calling on States to establish a moratorium on executions, with a view to abolishing the practice (Annex XIII).  It was the fourth such text adopted since 2007.  By its terms, the Assembly called on States to progressively restrict the death penalty’s use and not impose capital punishment for offences committed by persons below 18 years of age and pregnant women.  States were also called on to reduce the number of offences for which the death penalty might be imposed.

Forty-one texts enjoyed consensus, including those dealing with social development, women’s advancement, children’s rights, indigenous peoples, crime prevention and criminal justice and international drug control.  Among them was an annual omnibus text on rights of the child, which contained a section devoted to indigenous children.  By its terms, the Assembly called on States to take measures to protect the rights of indigenous children against all forms of discrimination, violence, abuse and exploitation, and safeguard their right to access education.

For a second year, the Assembly adopted a consensus text on combating intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief.  Tabled again by the representative of the United Arab Emirates on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Assembly, by the text, called on States to adopt measures that criminalized incitement to violence based on religion or belief.

A similarly titled consensus text on freedom of religion or belief had the Assembly recognize with deep concern rising violence against members of religious and other communities in various parts of the world, including cases motivated by Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia.  States were urged to ensure that no one was discriminated against on the basis of religion or belief when accessing education, medical care, employment, humanitarian assistance or social benefits.

Of the other two country-specific texts adopted today, the historically contentious resolution on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea passed for the first time without a vote.  The other text on Iran was adopted by a vote of 86 in favour to 32 against, with 65 abstentions (Annex XIV).  A similar text on Myanmar was postponed pending a statement on budget implications by the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary), as was a resolution on the Committee against torture.

Recorded votes were also required on resolutions concerning an international legal instrument for older persons (54-5-118) (Annex I); glorification of Nazism (129-3-54) (Annex II); follow-up to Durban Declaration (133-7-48) (Annex III); Palestinian self-determination (179-7-3) (Annex IV); use of mercenaries (128-54-7) (Annex V); human rights training centre (174-1-10) (Annex VI); globalization (133-54-2) (Annex VII); extrajudicial executions (117-0-67) (Annex VIII); unilateral coercive measures (128-54-4) (Annex IX); the right to development (154-4-28) (Annex X); promotion of peace (127-54-6) (Annex XI); and an equitable international order (126-53-6) (Annex XII).  A decision on programme planning also required a record vote (174-4-5) (Annex XVI).

The representatives of the Philippines, Belarus, Iran, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Nigeria, China, Cuba and Venezuela spoke during action today.

The representatives of Chile, Uruguay, Malawi, Belgium, Kenya, Viet Nam, Somalia, South Sudan, Bahrain and South Africa spoke in a point of order.

The General Assembly will reconvene at 10 a.m. Friday, 21 December, to take action on the reports of its Second Committee (Economic and Financial).

Background

The General Assembly met to consider the 17 reports of the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) and to take action on 58 draft resolutions and 9 draft decisions contained therein.

Action on Third Committee Texts

The Assembly moved to take action on the Committee’s reports, which were introduced by Rapporteur Suljuk Mustansar Tarar ( Pakistan).

Social Development

The Assembly first took up the Committee’s report on social development (document A/67/449), which contains six draft resolutions.

Draft resolution I on integrating volunteering in the next decade was adopted without a vote, with the Assembly urging the United Nations Volunteers to promote a youth volunteer programme called for in the five-year action agenda of the Secretary-General.  The Secretary-General was requested to report to the seventieth session on the implementation of the present resolution, including an action plan to be developed by the United Nations Volunteers to integrate volunteering in peace and development in the next decade and beyond.

Draft resolution II, entitled towards a comprehensive and integral international legal instrument to promote and protect the rights and dignity of older persons, was adopted by a recorded vote of 54 in favour to 5 against (Canada, Israel, Seychelles, South Sudan, United States), with 118 abstentions (see Annex I).

By its terms, the Assembly decided that the open-ended working group on ageing shall — starting from its fourth session, to be held in 2013 — consider proposals for such an instrument, based on the holistic approach in the fields of social development, human rights and non-discrimination, and gender equality.  The working group was requested to propose the main elements that such an instrument should include.  For his part, the Secretary-General was requested to submit to the working group — by its fourth session — existing international legal instruments, documents and programmes addressing the situation of older persons.

Draft resolution III on realizing the Millennium Development Goals and other internationally agreed development goals for persons with disabilities toward 2015 and beyond was adopted without a vote.  By its terms, the Assembly welcomed the holding of the high-level meeting on 23 September 2013 with the theme “The way forward:  a disability inclusive development agenda towards 2015 and beyond”.  States, international and regional organizations, and financial institutions were urged to include persons with disabilities and integrate the principle of accessibility in the monitoring of the Development Goals.  The United Nations was requested to facilitate technical assistance, within existing resources, for the collection of national and regional statistics on disability.

Draft resolution IV on implementation of the outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly also was adopted without a vote.  In so doing, the Assembly emphasized the need to enhance the role of the Commission for Social Development, expressing deep concern that attainment of social development objectives was being hindered by the adverse impact of the world financial and economic crisis, volatile energy and food prices and climate change challenges.  It called on international financial institutions to support developing countries in achieving their social development goals by providing debt relief.  Governments were urged to develop social protection systems that supported labour-market participation and reduced inequality and social exclusion.

Next, draft resolution V on Preparations for and observance of the twentieth anniversary of the International Year of the Family was adopted without a vote.  By its terms, the Assembly, recognizing that preparations for and observance of the twentieth anniversary in 2014 would draw attention to the Year’s objectives, urged States to create a conducive environment to strengthen all families.  Gender equality and respect for the rights of all family members was essential.

Draft resolution VI on Follow-up to the Second World Assembly on Ageing was also adopted without a vote.  In doing so, the Assembly reaffirmed the Political Declaration and the 2002 Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing, encouraging Governments to mainstream ageing issues into poverty eradication strategies and national development plans.  States should reaffirm the role of United Nations focal points on ageing, enhance technical cooperation and expand regional commissions’ role on such matters.  The Secretary-General was requested to support the Open-ended Working Group on Ageing within existing resources.

Speaking after action, the representative of the Philippines recalled an incident which occurred at the time of the adoption of the resolution entitled “Realizing the Millennium Development Goals and other internationally agreed development goals for persons with disabilities toward 2015 and beyond” in the Third Committee.  An oral statement of programme budget implications had been read in connection with the document, in particular operative paragraph 7(b).

The resolution, as originally tabled for adoption, had not had any programme budget implications.  The issuance of that statement had been made without consultation with relevant substantive offices, such as Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the Statistical Division, which had earlier assured that no budget implications would arise from any paragraph in the resolution.  His delegation appreciated that the error had been later rectified with the withdrawal of the oral statement.  However, such an oversight should have been avoided in the first place to ensure that delegations were not made to take action based on incorrect information, he said, requesting that such incidents be avoided in the future.

In a point of order, the delegate of Chile said he had voted in favour on that resolution, but it had not appeared on the screen, requesting his country’s vote reflected in the record.  The Secretariat said the results could not be changed, but his request would be reflected in written record.

Advancement of Women

The Assembly then turned to the Committee’s report on the Advancement of women (document A/67/450), which contains five draft resolutions and two draft decisions.

Draft resolution I on Intensification of efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women was adopted without a vote, with the Assembly stressing that “violence against women” meant any act of gender-based violence that resulted in or was likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women.  It strongly condemned all violence against women and girls, urging States to take a more systematic approach to eliminating all forms of violence against women by establishing an integrated national plan to combat such abuse.  More broadly, the Assembly called on all United Nations entities and Bretton Woods bodies to better coordinate their work through joint programming prepared by the Inter-Agency Task Force on Violence against Women.

Draft resolution II on Trafficking in women and girls, also adopted without a vote, had the Assembly urge States that had not yet done so to consider ratifying or acceding to the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children.  Governments were urged to devise, enforce and strengthen gender and age-sensitive measures to eliminate all forms of trafficking in women and girls, including for sexual and economic exploitation, as part of a comprehensive anti-trafficking strategy that integrated a human rights perspective.

Draft resolution III on Intensifying global efforts for the elimination of female genital mutilations was adopted without a vote, with the Assembly recognizing that female genital mutilations were an irreparable, irreversible abuse of the human rights of woman and girls, and a threat to their health.  States were urged to condemn all harmful practices affecting women and girls, whether committed within or outside a medical institution, and take all measures — including legislation — to protect women and girls from this form of violence and end impunity.  Punitive measures should be complemented by awareness-raising and educational processes to promote consensus towards the elimination of the practice.  International support was urged for a second phase of the Joint Programme on Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting, due to end in December 2013, and continued observance on 6 February of the International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation.

Draft resolution IV on Supporting efforts to end obstetric fistula, also adopted by consensus, had the Assembly stress the need to address the social issues contributing to obstetric fistula, such as poverty, lack of education for women and girls and lack of access to sexual and reproductive health.  States were called on to take all measures to ensure the right to women and girls to enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, including sexual and reproductive health, and develop health systems, with a view to ensuring access without discrimination.  States and United Nations agencies were called on to make treatment geographically and financially accessible, invest in health systems and mobilize funds to provide free or subsidized maternal health care and obstetric fistula repair.

Draft resolutionV 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 also adopted without a vote.  By the text, the Assembly reaffirmed the commitments to gender equality and women’s advancement made at the Millennium Summit and the 2005 World Summit.  Further, it welcomed the integration of a gender perspective into the outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, commending the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-Women) on its efforts to ensure coherence throughout the United Nations in that regard.  It reiterated the call for the Development Cooperation Forum of the Economic and Social Council to increase efforts to mainstream a gender perspective into all issues under their consideration.

In a related draft decision I, the Assembly, without a vote, decided to consider the issue of ending female genital mutilation at its sixty-seventh session under the agenda item on “Advancement of women”.

In draft decision II, the Assembly, also without a vote, took note of the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on its forty-ninth, fiftieth and fifty-first sessions, as well as the Secretary-General’s note transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences.

Speaking after action on the resolution concerning female genital mutilation, the representative of Burkina Faso said female genital mutilation was among the degrading practices that harmed women’s physical and moral integrity.  It had been justified under false religious and cultural pretences.  The text’s adoption did not just send a strong political message, but also one of hope for millions of women and girls facing that odious practice in the name, falsely, of tradition and religion.

He said Africa — the resolution’s standard bearer — had mobilized to combat female genital mutilation at the Government level, which were showing more political will to free women from the yoke of that practice by putting in place programmes and projects, adopting laws and releasing both human and financial resources.  That mobilization was also taking place in civil society, which was raising awareness and he welcomed the campaign for a global ban on female genital mutilations launched by the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices in that regard.

More than ever, he said, the time had come to recognize women’s fundamental rights, break the silence surrounding female genital mutilation and move towards its elimination.  Burkina Faso firmly supported the text and he called on all co-sponsors to play an active role in the struggle to create a world free of female genital mutilation.

Refugees

The Committee’s report on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions (document A/67/451) contains two draft resolutions.

Draft resolution I on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was adopted without a vote.  By its terms, the Assembly took note of the activities to protect and assist internally displaced persons, emphasizing that they should not undermine the Office’s refugee mandate.  It strongly reaffirmed the humanitarian and non-political character of the Office’s work in providing protection to refugees and seeking permanent solutions to refugee problems, recalling that solutions included voluntary repatriation, local integration and resettlement in a third country.  States and others were urged to mobilize resources with a view to reducing the heavy burden borne by host countries.

Draft resolution II on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa was adopted without a vote.  By its terms, the Assembly called on African States that had not yet signed or ratified the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa to consider doing so as early as possible.  States and other parties to armed conflict were called on to observe international humanitarian law, bearing in mind that armed conflict was a principal cause of forced displacement in Africa.  Further, States of refuge, in cooperation with international organizations, were called on to take all measures to ensure respect for the principles of refugee protection.

Report of the Human Rights Council

The Assembly adopted the draft resolution contained in the Committee’s report on the Human Rights Council (document A/67/452), by which it took note of that report, including the addendum thereto and its recommendations.

After action, Belarus’ delegate disassociated her Government from consensus on the report, as it reflected the Council’s adoption of a politically motivated resolution on Belarus.  It had nothing to do with the actual human rights situation in her country.  The decision had been imposed by States trying to advance their own agenda.  She was concerned about the selective adoption of country-specific resolutions.  The Universal Periodic Review and dialogue of mutual respect had been replaced by double standards, which damaged the Council’s reputation.  She had high opinion of the African Group, which had put forward human rights resolutions.  Belarus would continue its constructive interaction with the Council and with States attempting to bring that body back to a path of neutrality and impartiality.

Promotion, Protection of Children’s Rights

The Committee’s report on promotion and protection of the rights of children (document A/67/453) contains one draft resolution and one draft decision.

The draft resolution on the rights of the child was adopted without a vote, by which the Assembly called on States to endeavour to ensure child well-being, eliminate violence against children, eradicate the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, and address the issues of children in armed conflict, child labour and children with disabilities.  The Assembly also called on States to take measures to protect the rights of indigenous children against all forms of discrimination, violence, abuse and exploitation, among other things.

The related draft decision was also adopted without a vote.  By its terms, the Assembly took note of two reports submitted under the item on “Promotion and protection of the rights of children”:  the Report of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

Indigenous Peoples

The Committee’s report on the rights of indigenous peoples (document A/67/454) contains one draft resolution on the rights of indigenous peoples, which the Assembly adopted without a vote.  In doing so, it reaffirmed past resolutions on the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, to be held on 22 and 23 September 2014, noting its concern about the extreme disadvantages that indigenous peoples faced across a range of social and economic indicators.  The Secretary-General was requested to prepare a report on the achievement of the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, to be submitted no later than May 2014.

By the related draft decision, also adopted without a vote, the Assembly took note of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples.

Elimination of Racism

The Committee’s report on elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/67/455) contains three draft resolutions and one draft decision.

Draft resolution I on glorification of Nazism: inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance was adopted by a recorded vote of 129 in favour to 3 against (Canada, Palau, United States), with 54 abstentions (Annex II).  By its terms, the Assembly expressed deep concern about the glorification of the Nazi movement and former members of the Waffen-SS organization, including by erecting monuments and memorials and holding public demonstrations that glorified the Nazi past, the Nazi movement and neo-Nazism.  It called on States to take more effective measures, in accordance with international human rights law, to combat those phenomena.  States also were called on to continue to invest in education, in order to transform attitudes and correct ideas of racial hierarchies and superiority promoted by extremist groups.

Malawi’s delegate said she had tried to push the voting button before the machine had locked but that had not worked.

The General Assembly President said he had taken note of Malawi’s vote in favour of the text.

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 was adopted by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States), with 48 abstentions (Annex III).

By that text, the Assembly expressed grave concern that the objective of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance had not been attained, notably due to a lack of progress in the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, in particular paragraphs 157 to 159 thereof, and that countless people continued to be victims of such abuses.

Among other measures laid out in the five-part text, the Assembly requested the Assembly President, in consultation with others, to launch a preparatory process for the proclamation of the Decade for People of African Descent, with the theme “People of African descent:  recognition, justice and development”, with a view to proclaiming it in 2013, and requesting the Secretary-General to report during the sixty-seventh session on steps to be taken to make the decade effective.

Draft resolution III on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was adopted without a vote, with the Assembly taking note of the reports of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, on its seventy-eighth, seventy-ninth and eightieth sessions; and the Secretary-General on the financial situation of that Committee.  It also urged States parties to fully comply with their obligations under the Convention and to formulate any reservation to it as narrowly as possible to ensure that none was incompatible with the Convention.

The Assembly then adopted the related draft decision without a vote, taking note of the Secretary-General’s report on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, as well as his note transmitting the interim report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

Self-Determination

Next, the Assembly turned to the Committee’s report on the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/67/456), which contains three draft resolutions.

Draft resolution I on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination was adopted without a vote.  By its terms, the Assembly declared its firm opposition to foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, since such acts had resulted in the suppression of the right to self-determination and other human rights in certain parts of the world.  It called on those States responsible to cease their military intervention in and occupation of foreign countries and territories and, in particular, the inhuman methods reportedly employed for the execution of those acts against the peoples concerned.

Draft resolution II on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination was adopted by a recorded vote of 179 in favour to 7 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 3 abstentions (Cameroon, Honduras, Tonga) (Annex IV).

By that text, the Assembly expressed the urgent need for the resumption of negotiations within the Middle East peace process, based on the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet road map to a permanent two-State solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and for the speedy achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement between the Palestinian and Israeli sides.  It stressed the need for preservation of the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and reaffirmed Palestinians’ right to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine.

Draft resolution III 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 128 in favour to 54 against, with 7 abstentions (Mexico, Tonga, Fiji, Colombia, Gabon, South Sudan, Switzerland) (Annex V).

By its terms, the Assembly urged States to exercise the utmost vigilance against the menace posed by mercenaries and take legislative measures to ensure that their territories — and territories under their control — were not used for the recruitment, assembly, financing, training, protection or transit of mercenaries.  It also condemned recent mercenary activities in developing countries, and requested both the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to provide the Working Group on the use of mercenaries with all support for the fulfilment of its mandate.

Promotion and protection of human rights

The Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights: implementation of human rights instruments (document A/67/457/Add.1) contains two draft resolutions.

Draft resolution I on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol thereto was adopted without a vote, with the Assembly authorizing for the Committee two annual pre-sessional working group meetings of one week each, starting in 2013, to be held after each of the Committee’s two annual sessions and allowing time for the consideration of additional reports.  The Assembly also authorized an additional two weeks of meeting time per year to the existing regular sessions, starting in 2014.

Draft resolution II on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was adopted without a vote.  By its terms, States were called upon to fully implement the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  They were also called upon to adopt a victim-oriented approach in the fight against such abuse, with the Assembly emphasizing that acts of torture in armed conflict were violations of international humanitarian law and constituted war crimes; that such acts could constitute crimes against humanity; and that perpetrators must be prosecuted.  The Assembly urged all States to become parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and consider signing and ratifying the Optional Protocol thereto.

The Assembly then turned to the Committee’s report on human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms (document A/67/457/Add.2), which contains 20 draft resolutions.  The Vice-President explained that action on the text entitled Committee against Torture had been postponed to allow time for review of its programme budget implications by the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary).

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, Syria’s delegate wondered why Qatar continued to finance the training and documentation centre for South-West Asia and the Arab Region through the United Nations budget, given the current financial crisis.  The Organization’s limited resources should be spent more effectively.  The centre had not been active in a way that justified its funding.  Choosing Doha as a host for the centre was not aligned with the resolution on its creation.  Qatar had used the centre to support the opposition of other countries, away from human rights and the United Nations Charter.  For such reasons, Syria would vote against the text.

Draft resolution I on the United Nations human rights training and documentation centre for South-West Asia and the Arab region was adopted by a recorded vote of 174 in favour, to 1 against (Syria) with 10 abstentions (Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bolivia, Botswana, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Ecuador, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Zimbabwe) (Annex VI).  By its terms, the Assembly welcomed the training activities and regional consultations conducted by the centre, and noted the support provided for its establishment by the host country.  The Secretary-General was requested to provide funds and human resources from the regular budget, beginning in the biennium 2014-2015, to enable the Centre to respond to the growing needs in South-West Asia and the Arab region.

Draft resolution II on the role of the Ombudsman, mediator and other national human rights institutions in the promotion and protection of human rights was adopted without a vote.  By that text, the Assembly encouraged States to consider the creation of such institutions at the national and, where applicable, the local level, and encourage them, where they exist, to operate in accordance with the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights and other relevant international instruments.

Draft resolution III on human rights and extreme poverty was adopted without a vote.  By that text, the Assembly expressed deep concern that extreme poverty persisted in all countries of the world, regardless of their economic, social and cultural situation.  Governments, United Nations bodies and others, including the private sector, were encouraged to consider the guiding principles on extreme poverty and human rights, adopted by the Human Rights Council in September 2012, in their policy formulation and implementation.

The Assembly then turned to draft resolution IV on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights, adopting it by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to 54 against, with 2 abstentions (South Sudan, Togo) (Annex VII).  By that text, the Assembly emphasized the need to fully implement the global partnership for development and enhance momentum generated by the 2005 World Summit to promote fair globalization and the development of productive sectors in developing countries.  It underlined the urgent need to establish an equitable, transparent and democratic international system to strengthen the participation of developing countries in international economic decision-making and norm-setting.

Draft resolution V on human rights in the administration of justice was also adopted without a vote.  By its terms, the Assembly drew attention to the numerous international standards in the field of the administration of justice, convinced that the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and the integrity of the judicial system were prerequisites for the protection of human rights, the rule of law, good governance and democracy.  States were invited to make use of technical assistance offered by the United Nations in order to strengthen national capacities in the field of the administration of justice.  As regards juveniles, the Assembly recognized that every child and juvenile in conflict with the law must be treated in a manner consistent with his or her rights.

Draft resolution VI on Committee on the Rights of the Child was also adopted without a vote, with the Assembly noting that that a backlog existed of more than 100 reports submitted by States parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocols.  As such, it authorized the Committee — without prejudice to the Assembly’s intergovernmental treaty body strengthening process — to meet in parallel chambers for the five working days of one of its three pre-sessional working group meetings in 2013, and 13 working days of one of its three regular sessions in 2014, for the purposes of considering State parties’ reports.

The Assembly then adopted draft resolution VII on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions by a recorded vote of 117 in favour to none against, with 67 abstentions (Annex VIII). By its terms, the Assembly noted with deep concern that impunity was a major cause of the perpetuation of human rights violations, including those practices.  It also was deeply concerned at acts that could amount to extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions committed against persons exercising their rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.  Convinced of the need for action to prevent, combat and eliminate the abhorrent practice of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Assembly strongly condemned all such practices, demanding that States ensured their end.  It also requested the Secretary-General to provide the Special Rapporteur with adequate human and financial resources.

Draft resolution VIII on enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, also adopted without a vote, had the Assembly call on States, specialized agencies and intergovernmental organizations to continue carrying out consultations for the enhancement of understanding and promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.  The Secretary-General, along with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, was requested to consult States and non-governmental organizations on ways to enhance cooperation and dialogue in the United Nations human rights machinery, including the Human Rights Council.

The Assembly adopted draft resolution IX on human rights and unilateral coercive measures by a recorded vote of 128 in favour to 54 against, with 4 abstentions (Chad, Paraguay, Togo, South Sudan) (Annex IX).  In doing so, it stressed that unilateral coercive measures and legislation were contrary to international law, international humanitarian law, the Charter of the United Nations and principles governing peaceful relations among States.  States were strongly urged to refrain from promulgating and applying any unilateral economic, financial or trade measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter.  It also condemned continuing unilateral application by certain Powers of unilateral coercive measures.

Draft resolution X on the right to development was adopted by a vote of 154 in favour to 4 against ( Canada, Israel, United Kingdom, United States), with 28 abstentions (Annex X).  By its terms, the Assembly stressed that the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action reaffirmed the right to development as a universal and inalienable right and integral to fundamental human rights.  It urged developed countries to make efforts to meet the target of 0.7 per cent of their gross national product (GNP) for official development assistance (ODA), and 0.15 to 0.2 per cent of their GNP to least developed countries.  It also encouraged developing countries to build on gains made in ensuring that ODA was used effectively.

Draft resolution XI on protection of migrants was adopted without a vote.  By its terms, the Assembly emphasized the global character of the migratory phenomenon, and the importance of international, regional and bilateral cooperation and dialogue in that regard.  It called on States to promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, regardless of their migration status.  It also encouraged States to take measures to achieve policy coherence on migration at the national, regional and international levels, including by ensuring coordinated child protection policies and systems across borders.

Speaking before action, Belgium’s delegate said that his Government had wished to abstain on the resolution concerning the right to development.

Draft resolution XII on promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of all human rights by all was adopted by a vote of 127 in favour to 54 against, with 6 abstentions (Armenia, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Singapore, South Sudan, Tonga) (Annex XI).  By that text, the Assembly reaffirmed that peoples had a sacred right to peace and that preservation of that right was a fundamental State obligation.  It stressed that the deep fault line between rich and poor posed a major threat to global prosperity, peace and security, and stability.  It also welcomed the Human Rights Council’s decision to establish an open-ended working group with the mandate of negotiating a draft United Nations declaration on the right to peace.

Acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft resolution XIII on the right to food, reaffirming that hunger violated human dignity and required urgent measures at the national, regional and international levels for its elimination.  It also reaffirmed the right of everyone to have access to safe, sufficient, nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food, and to be free from hunger.  States were encouraged to take steps to achieve full realization of the right to food.

Draft resolution XIV on promotion of a democratic and equitable international order was adopted by a vote of 126 in favour to 53 against, with 6 abstentions (Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, Samoa, Togo) (Annex XII).  In so doing, the Assembly expressed deep concern that the global economic, financial, energy and food crises represented a scenario that threatened the adequate enjoyment of all human rights and was widening the gap between developed and developing countries.  Efforts to make globalization fully inclusive and equitable must include policies and measures at the global level that corresponded to the needs of developing countries and economies in transition, and that were formulated and implemented with their effective participation.

Draft resolution XV on moratorium on the use of the death penalty was adopted by a recorded vote of111 in favour to 41 against, with 34 abstentions.  By its terms, the Assembly expressed its deep concern about the application of the death penalty, calling on States to respect international standards providing safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the rights of persons facing the death penalty, as set out in the annex to Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 (1984).  States were called on to not impose capital punishment for offences committed by persons below 18 years of age and pregnant women.  States were also called on to reduce the number of offences for which the death penalty might be imposed and establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty.

Speaking after action, Kenya’s delegate, on the resolution concerning the United Nations human rights training and documentation centre for South-West Asia and the Arab region, wished to have his Government’s vote in favour reflected in the record.

Draft resolution XVII on missing persons was adopted without a vote, with the Assembly urging States to respect and ensure respect for international law, as set out in the 1949 Geneva Conventions.  States parties to armed conflict were called on to take all measures to prevent persons from going missing, account for persons reported missing, and ensure the investigation and prosecution of offences linked to missing persons.  They also were called on to take timely measures to determine the identity and fate of persons reported missing in connection with the conflict, recognizing that the means of identification and collection of data must be in line with international and national legal norms.

Draft resolution XVIII on combating intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief was adopted without a vote.  By its terms, the Assembly expressed deep concern at derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief, condemning any advocacy of religious hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.  States were called on to encourage the creation of networks to build mutual understanding and inspire action towards shared policy goals.  They were also called on to adopt measures criminalizing incitement to violence based on religion or belief.

Draft resolution XIX on freedom of religion or belief was adopted without a vote, with the Assembly strongly condemning all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, as well as violations of freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief.  The right to such freedoms applied equally to all persons.  No religion should be equated with terrorism.  States were urged to ensure that legislation was not implemented in a discriminatory manner, to end violations of women’s rights, and ensure that no one was discriminated against on the basis of religion or belief when accessing education, medical care, employment, humanitarian assistance or social benefits.

Draft resolution XX on International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance was adopted without a vote.  By that text, the Assembly recalled that no exceptional circumstance may be invoked to justify enforced disappearance, and that no one shall be held in secret detention.  It expressed deep concern at the increase in enforced or involuntary disappearances around the world, and in reports of harassment, ill-treatment and intimidation of witnesses of disappearances or relatives of persons who have disappeared.  The Convention outlined victims rights to know the truth regarding the circumstances of enforced disappearance, results of the investigation and fate of disappeared persons, setting forth State obligations to take measures in that regard.

Human Rights Situations

The Assembly then took up the Committee’s report on Promotion and protection of human rights:  human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives (document A/67/457/Add.3), which contains four draft resolutions.

Before proceeding further, Assembly Vice President said that the draft resolution on “Situation of human rights in Myanmar” had been postponed to a later date to allow time for the review of its programme budget implications by the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary).  The Assembly would take action on that text as soon as the Fifth Committee report on the budget implications became available.

Speaking before action on a resolution on the human rights situation in his country, Iran’s representative said the best approach to promote and protect human rights across the globe was to engage in a meaningful and sincere cooperation.  “We have a choice of whether to advance the promotion and protection of human rights through serious engagement, or to set it back with politicized and unbalanced resolutions,” he said, adding:  “Every distinguished representative here is well aware that the resolution L.51 is not about human rights, but an abuse of the integrity and procedures of this august body for political purposes.”

The resolution had avoided any reference to human rights policies of Iran.  It was deploring that, despite the existence of the universal periodic review mechanism in the Human Rights Council, so-called champions of human rights advocacy, mainly the United States, Canada and the European Union member states, continued to abuse the United Nations human rights mechanisms for short-sighted political expediencies by tabling that selective country-specific resolution to satiate their political desires.

Canada had been a relentless supporter of the Israeli regime’s crimes against the Palestinians, and had a very questionable human rights record on the rights of immigrants and indigenous peoples in its territory, he said.  Yet, it now pursued a worn-out policy of introducing the resolution on the human rights situation in Iran.  That text did not change the ongoing systematic violations of the fundamental principles of human rights in Canada.  “ Iran is a dynamic and progressive society which has taken a genuine approach to safeguard human rights by ensuring its full compliance with the national and relevant international commitments, while upholding the promotion of principles enshrined in our Constitution,” he said.

Explaining her Government’s position, Syria’s delegate recalled that the international legal framework was based on the principle of non-interference in State affairs under any pretext.  That had been consecrated in the United Nations Charter and resolutions.  Adopting politicized resolutions violated Charter provisions and hindered peaceful solutions in Syria, based on the six-point plan and the work of Lakhdar Brahimi’s mission.

She reiterated what had been said on 27 November by Syria’s representative in the Third Committee.  That delegate refuted allegations against her country that were contained in that text.  The sponsors of the text, namely Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Morocco, were not renowned for their desire to promote and protect human rights in her country.  They had escalated violence there by their intervention in Syria’s internal affairs.  Their support of terrorism had led to the death of thousands of Syrians and displacement of tens of thousands of people.  They were accomplices in the killing of thousands of Syrians.  They had attempted to implicate Syrians in the domestic Syrian crisis, to serve the number one enemy of Syria and Palestinians:  Israel.

Armed groups, backed by the text’s co-sponsors, continued to target fuel and oil pipelines, strategic food crops and railways.  They plundered supermarket depots.  The purpose of that was clear:  to create conditions conducive to the collapse of State institutions and reduce citizens’ trust in the State and to create anarchy.  “This is tantamount to a military attack,” she said, asking whether resolutions enhanced human rights in Syria.  She wondered about the impact on Syrians of the deprivation of electricity, food, water, transport, education and health care, wondering how that promoted human rights in her country.  Syria had called for a vote on the text and she called for Governments to vote against it.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said he had categorically rejected the resolution on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, as it had nothing to do with human rights in his country.  Violations mentioned in the text had not been allowed to exist in his country.  The United States and Western countries attacked others, with a view to imposing their values on them.  The text was clearly propaganda for a fabricated human right situation and created pressure on his social system.  That constituted interference in his internal affairs.

It was an act of political terrorism, he said.  It showed double standards.  Any consideration of human rights must be carried out with the principles of objectivity under the universal periodic review.  Developing countries were targets.  The text misled public opinion.  He hadn’t seen mass killings by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan called into question.  The same was true with their human rights violations, such as sexual violence or racial discrimination and maltreatment of indigenous peoples.  The main sponsors had worked to destabilize his country by picking on human rights issues.  While it had been adopted without a vote, it could not be interpreted as by consensus.  He opposed the text and those against Syria, Iran and Myanmar.

Nigeria’s delegate said that situations of genocide, gender-based violence, systematic exclusion of segments of societies from participation in Governments, and racial or ethnic discrimination, cases of torture or other degrading treatment — those distinctions had been made, mindful of the universality of human rights.  All must be afforded the most serious consideration.  She underlined the importance of the thematic debate holders who investigated on a case-by-case basis.  Those special rapporteurs should be guided by the code of conduct adopted in the Human Rights Council.  The universal periodic review was another mechanism offering an opportunity for States to prove their human rights credentials to the world.

On the Iran text, she said there had been a visible determination to address issues brought to that Government’s attention.  It had been working with the Human Rights Council, with six mandate holders having visited the country.  She urged Iran to continue with its cooperation with the United Nations to address human rights cases.  She believed in full enjoyment of women’s rights in all societies.  Cases outstanding would be treated fairly and expeditiously.  The rights of minorities and women were enshrined in Nigeria’s Constitution.  Nigeria would abstain in voting on the texts on Iran and Syria.

Proceeding to action, the Assembly adopted draft resolution II on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by consensus, with the 193-member body expressing its deep concern at the significant deterioration of the human rights situation in that country, as well as at reports of systematic and grave violations of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including torture, prison camps, limits on the freedom of movement, and sanctions imposed on citizens who had been repatriated from abroad.  It strongly urged the Government to protect inhabitants, address impunity, tackle the root causes of refugee outflows, and extend full cooperation to the Special Rapporteur.

Draft resolution III on the situation of human rights in Iran was adopted by a recorded vote of 86 in favour, to 32 against, with 65 abstentions (Annex XIV). By its terms, the Assembly expressed deep concern at serious human rights violations relating to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the “alarming” high frequency of use of the death penalty in the absence of internationally recognized safeguards, and failure to abolish the execution of minors and persons who were under the age of 18 at the time of their offence.  It strongly urged Iran to ensure free, fair, transparent and inclusive presidential elections in 2013, calling on it to respect its human rights obligations, in law and in practice.

Speaking on a point of order after the vote, the delegate of Viet Nam clarified her delegation’s position, saying that she had voted against the resolution.

The delegate of Somalia, also speaking on a point of order, said he had voted against, but the results on the electronic board had shown the opposite.

The Assembly then proceeded to take action on draft resolution IV on the situation of human rights in Syria.

Taking the floor on a point of order during the voting, the delegate of Viet Nam said she wanted to abstain, instead of a dissenting vote being shown on the electronic board.  The delegate of Somalia said he abstained, but the board was showing he voted in favour.

The text on Syria was then adopted by a recorded vote of 135 in favour to 12 against, with 36 abstentions (Annex XV).  By its terms, the Assembly strongly condemned widespread and systematic gross human rights violations by Syrian authorities, calling on them to immediately end such abuse.  Further, it called on Syria to protect the population and fully comply with its international law obligations.  It also urged the immediate release all persons arbitrarily detained, stressing its support for a peaceful, democratic and pluralistic society, and demanding that Syria provide the international commission of inquiry immediate and unfettered access to all areas of the country.  It also expressed grave concern at the increasing numbers of refugees and internally displaced persons as a result of the violence, urging United Nations agencies to provide coordinated support.

Explaining his position after action, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said all human rights issues must be considered in the Universal Periodic Review.  The United Nations could no longer be abused to use human rights records against others.  The resolution against his country would contribute to the deterioration of relations, including on the Korean peninsula.  The resolution was a political trick that could not be accepted.  As such, his Government did not recognize it.

China’s delegate disassociated her Government from the resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Syria’s delegate regretted that some States had insisted on submitting a resolution on her country for political reasons, which jeopardized the legal terms of reference in international relations and undermined the credibility of human rights.  Syria was detached from the consensus as regards the resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Cuba’s delegate said her Government was against resolutions that accused other countries, as they were aimed at political ends.  There was no point in politicizing such issues.  Such human rights questions had discredited the former Human Rights Commission.  The Human Rights Council had considered those issues in good faith.  Indeed, the principle of non-selectivity must be followed.  That had not been done today, which was why Cuba had voted against the texts on Syria and Iran, and had disassociated from consensus on the text related to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Venezuela’s delegate said she had voted against “L.51” and “L.52” and had disassociated from “L.50”.  Political motivations had prompted some countries to submit resolutions against others.  The principles of non-selectivity and non-politicization should guide human rights work.  The Universal Periodic Review should consider human rights issues following the principle of non-selectivity.

South Sudan’s delegate wished corrected his votes to “yes” on the resolutions concerning the glorification of Nazism, and on globalization and its impacts.

Bahrain’s delegate said the voting sheet for the resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions was incorrect.  She asked that it reflect Bahrain’s abstention on the vote.

South Africa’s delegate said her Government had voted in favour of the resolution on a democratic and equitable world order.

The Committee’s report on Promotion and protection of human rights:  comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/67/457/Add.4) outlines that the Assembly decided to allocate a sub-item of the same name, under its item entitled “Promotion and protection of human rights”, to the Third Committee.  The Committee considered that subitem on 23 October and 6 November 2012.

The Committee’s report on the Promotion and protection of human rights (document A/67/457) contains one draft decision.  The Assembly adopted that decision by consensus, and thereby took note of a number of reports considered in connection with that agenda item.

The Committee’s report on Crime prevention and criminal justice (document A/67/458) contains nine draft resolutions and one draft decision.

Draft resolution I on the Follow-up to the Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice and preparations for the thirteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice was adopted without a vote.  By its terms, the Assembly decided that the thirteenth Congress should not exceed eight days, including pre-Congress consultations, and that its main theme should be:  “Integrating crime prevention and criminal justice into the wider United Nations agenda to address social and economic challenges and to promote the rule of law at the national and international levels, and public participation”.  The Congress would adopt a single declaration, to be submitted to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.

Also without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft resolution II on Promoting efforts to eliminate violence against migrants, migrant workers and their families, by which it strongly condemned criminal acts against migrants, migrant workers and their families in all regions, including those motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.  Among other things, the Assembly urged States to adopt measures to prevent and effectively address violence against migrants and ensure that victims received humane treatment.

Draft resolution III on Strengthening the rule of law and the reform of criminal justice institutions, particularly in the areas related to the United Nations system-wide approach to fighting transnational organized crime and drug trafficking was also adopted without a vote.  In doing so, the Assembly stressed the importance of a well-functioning and humane criminal justice system as the basis for a successful strategy against transnational organized crime, corruption, terrorism, drug trafficking and other forms of drug trafficking.

Draft resolution IV on United Nations Principles and Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid in Criminal Justice Systems, adopted without a vote, had the Assembly adopt the Principles and Guidelines annexed to the present text as a framework for guiding States in that regard.  States would be invited to strengthen measures to ensure legal aid was provided in line with the Principles and Guidelines, bearing in mind the diversity of criminal justice systems among countries and regions.

Draft resolution V on Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners was also adopted without a vote.  By its terms, the Assembly recognized that some areas of the Rules could be reviewed so they reflected the latest advances in correctional science and good practices, provided that any changes not lower any existing standards.  The Expert Group was authorized to continue its work, with a view to reporting progress to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its twenty-second session.  States were recommended to reduce overcrowding in pre-trial detention and promote access to justice mechanisms.

Next, the Assembly adopted without a vote draft resolution VI on Strengthening the United Nations crime prevention and criminal justice programme, in particular its technical cooperation capacity.  In so doing, it expressed grave concern at the negative effects of transnational organized crime — including smuggling of and trafficking in human beings, narcotic drugs and small arms and light weapons — on development, peace and security and human rights.  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), in consultation with States and within existing resources, was requested to continue to support the enhancement of capacity and skills in the field of forensic sciences.  The importance of providing stable funding to the United Nations crime prevention and criminal justice programme was reiterated.

Again acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft resolution VII on Improving the coordination of efforts against trafficking in persons, calling on Governments to continue their efforts to criminalize trafficking in persons in all its forms, and investigate, prosecute, condemn and penalize traffickers and intermediaries, while providing protection and assistance to victims.  It also welcomed the launch of the UNODC report on “Trafficking in persons:  Global Patterns”, no later than January 2013.

Recalling its 2010 decision to appraise progress in the implementation of the Global Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Persons, the Assembly decided to convene, within existing resources, a high-level meeting no later than July 2013, to assess achievements and challenges, including in the implementation of the relevant legal instruments.

Draft resolution VIII on the United Nations African Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders was also adopted without a vote.  By its terms, the Assembly noted with concern that the Institute’s financial situation had greatly affected its capacity to deliver services in an effective and comprehensive manner, urging its State members to make every possible effort to meet their obligations.  The Secretary-General was requested to intensify efforts to mobilize all relevant United Nations entities to provide financial and technical support to the Institute.

Draft resolution IX on Preventing and combating corrupt practices and the transfer of proceeds of corruption, facilitating asset recovery and returning such assets to legitimate owners, in particular to countries of origin, in accordance with the United Nations Convention against Corruption was also adopted without a vote.  By its terms, the Assembly condemned corruption in all its forms, calling on States parties to the Convention that have not yet done so to designate a central authority for international cooperation and, where appropriate, focal points for asset recovery.  It also stressed the need for transparency in financial institutions, and invited States to work on identifying and tracing of financial flows linked to corruption.

The Assembly then decided to take note of the Secretary-General’s report on the follow-up to the twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice and preparations for the thirteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, as well as his note transmitting the report of the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption on its fourth session.

The Assembly then turned to the Committee’s report on International drug control (document A/67/459), which contains one draft resolution on international cooperation against the world drug problem.  Adopting that text without a vote, the Assembly called on States to address that problem on the basis of common and shared responsibility.  It decided to convene a special session in 2016 to assess the achievements and limits of current policy to counter the world drug problem, including the violence that the production, trafficking and consumption of drugs generated throughout the world.

Taking up the Committee’s report on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly (document A/67/460), the Assembly adopted by consensus the draft decision contained therein on the programme of work of the Third Committee for the sixty-eighth session.

Finally, the Assembly took up the Committee’s report on programme planning (document A/67/461), adopting by a recorded vote of 174 in favour, to 4 against (Canada, Israel, Palau, United States), with 5 abstentions (Australia, Belarus, Eritrea, Iran, Syria), the draft decision of the same name contained therein without a vote, and thereby approving programme 20, human rights, of the proposed strategic framework for 2014-2015, as contained in the report’s annex.

The Assembly agreed to extend the work of its Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) until Friday, 21 December.

Kenya’s delegate wished to have his vote of “yes” on the programme planning text reflected in the record.

ANNEX I

Vote on Legal Instrument for Older Persons

The draft resolution on an international legal instrument to protect the rights of older persons (document A/67/449) was adopted by a recorded vote of 54 in favour to 5 against, with 118 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Argentina, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Turkmenistan, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Against:  Canada, Israel, Seychelles, South Sudan, United States.

Abstain:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malta, Mauritania, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Armenia, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Grenada, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Namibia, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia, Suriname.

ANNEX II

Vote on Glorification of Nazism

The draft resolution on glorification of Nazism: inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to contemporary forms of racism (document A/67/455) was adopted by a recorded vote of 129 in favour to 3 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, 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, 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, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, 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:  Canada, Palau, United States.

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

Absent:  Ghana, Kiribati, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Sao Tome and Principe.

ANNEX III

Vote on Follow-Up to Durban Declaration

The draft resolution on the follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/67/455) was adopted by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to 7 against, with 48 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, 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, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, 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:  Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, 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.

Absent:  Ghana, Kiribati, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Sao Tome and Principe.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Palestinian Self-Determination

The draft resolution on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (document A/67/456) was adopted by a recorded vote of 179 in favour to 7 against, with 3 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, 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, 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 Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, 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, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain:  Cameroon, Honduras, Tonga.

Absent:  Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Kiribati, Sao Tome and Principe.

ANNEX V

Vote on Use of Mercenaries

The draft resolution on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights (document A/67/456) was adopted by a recorded vote of 128 in favour to 54 against, with 7 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, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, 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, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, 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, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, 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:  Colombia, Fiji, Gabon, Mexico, South Sudan, Switzerland, Tonga.

Absent:  Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Kiribati, Sao Tome and Principe.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Human Rights Training Centre

The draft resolution on the United Nations Human Rights Training and Documentation Centre for South-West Asia and the Arab Region (document A/67/457/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 174 in favour to 1 against, with 10 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  Syria.

Abstain:  Angola, Bolivia, Botswana, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Zimbabwe.

Absent:   Barbados, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Globalization

The draft resolution on globalization and its impact on human rights (document A/67/457/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 133 in favour to 54 against, with 2 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, 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, Nauru, 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, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, 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:  South Sudan, Togo.

Absent:  Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Kiribati, Sao Tome and Principe.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Extrajudicial Executions

The draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/67/457/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 117 in favour to none against, with 67 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, China, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Azerbaijan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Haiti, Kiribati, Mauritius, Nauru, Sao Tome and Principe.

ANNEX IX

Vote on Unilateral Coercive Measures

The draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/67/457/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 128 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, 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, 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, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, 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:  Chad, Paraguay, South Sudan, Togo.

Absent:  Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Kiribati, Mozambique, Nauru, Sao Tome and Principe.

ANNEX X

Vote on Right to Development

The draft resolution on the right to development (document A/67/457/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 154 in favour to 4 against, with 28 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 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, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, France, Gabon, Gambia, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, 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:  Canada, Israel, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Australia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine.

Absent:  Belgium, Ghana, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, Sao Tome and Principe.

ANNEX XI

Vote on Promotion of Peace

The draft resolution on the promotion of peace as a vital requirement for full enjoyment of human rights (document A/67/457/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 127 in favour to 54 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, 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, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, 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:  Armenia, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Singapore, South Sudan, Tonga.

Absent:  Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Kiribati, Sao Tome and Principe.

ANNEX XII

Vote on Equitable International Order

The draft resolution on promoting a democratic and equitable international order (document A/67/457/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 126 in favour to 53 against, with 6 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, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, 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, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, 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, 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:  Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, Samoa, Togo.

Absent:  Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Kiribati, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Sao Tome and Principe, South Africa, South Sudan.

ANNEX XIII

Vote on Moratorium of Death Penalty

The draft resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (document A/67/457/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 41 against, with 34 abstentions, as follows:

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

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

Abstain:  Belarus, Cameroon, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Fiji, Guinea, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Zambia.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Ghana, Kiribati, Mauritius, Sao Tome and Principe.

ANNEX XIV

Vote on Human Rights in Iran

The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran (document A/67/457/Add.3) was adopted by a recorded vote of 86 in favour to 32 against, with 65 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, 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, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu.

Against:  Afghanistan, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Indonesia, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Yemen, Zambia.

Absent:  Azerbaijan, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Georgia, Ghana, Kiribati, Madagascar, Myanmar, Sao Tome and Principe, Turkey.

ANNEX XV

Vote on Human Rights in Syria

The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Syria (document A/67/457/Add.3) was adopted by a recorded vote of 135 in favour to 12 against, with 36 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia.

Against:  Belarus, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Syria, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Angola, Armenia, Bhutan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Ecuador, Eritrea, Fiji, Guyana, India, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Mali, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam.

Absent:  Algeria, Cambodia, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kiribati, Myanmar, Sao Tome and Principe.

ANNEX XVI

Vote on Programme Planning

The draft decision on programme planning (document A/67/461) was adopted by a recorded vote of 174 in favour to 4 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, 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 Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Canada, Israel, Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Australia, Belarus, Eritrea, Iran, Syria.

Absent:  Chad, Ghana, Kenya, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Sao Tome and Principe, South Sudan, Tuvalu.

* *** *

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