Third Committee Passes 11 Texts, Including One on Protecting Women Human Rights Defenders, as Members Conclude Their Work

27 November 2013
GA/SHC/4095

Third Committee Passes 11 Texts, Including One on Protecting Women Human Rights Defenders, as Members Conclude Their Work

27 November 2013
General Assembly
GA/SHC/4095
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Sixty-eighth General Assembly

Third Committee

53rd & 54th Meetings (AM & PM)

Third Committee Passes 11 Texts, Including One on Protecting Women Human Rights

Defenders, as Members Conclude Their Work

 

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) concluded its work today, having approved 72 draft resolutions that are expected to be taken up by the General Assembly plenary next month.

Today alone, the Committee passed 11 drafts, including one on protecting women human rights defenders, which it approved without a vote.  By its terms, the General Assembly would call upon all States to promote, translate and give full effect to the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, including by taking appropriate, robust and practical steps to protect women human rights defenders.

After eleventh-hour negotiations, all proposed amendments to the text had been withdrawn in an effort to ensure consensus.

In other action, the Committee took up a text titled “Report of the Human Rights Council”, approving it by a recorded vote of 87 in favour to 66 against, with 22 abstentions.  It rejected a proposed amendment by a recorded 76 votes against to 74 in favour, with 18 abstentions.

By the terms of that text, the Assembly would defer consideration of and action on Human Rights Council resolution 24/24 of 27 September 2013 on cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights, in order to allow time for further consultations.

The Committee was deeply divided over the proposal, with many delegates saying they opposed it because it would reopen the decision made by the Human Rights Council.  Those supporting it said that body was a subsidiary of the General Assembly, and the parent body could therefore discuss further the issues contained in the text.

Also approved without a vote was an annual omnibus text titled “Rights of the child”.  By its terms, the General Assembly would urge States that had not yet done so to become parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, its Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, and its Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, as a matter of priority.

By a recorded vote of 126 in favour to 9 against (Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Palau, United Kingdom, United States), with 46 abstentions, the Committee also approved a draft resolution titled “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”.

Several delegations expressed concerns over the budgetary consequences of approving the text and called for a more inclusive and transparent negotiation process.

The Committee also approved, without a vote, a draft on “Strengthening collaboration on child protection within the United Nations system”.  By its terms, the General Assembly would request the Secretary-General to submit to its seventy-first session a report on the current collaboration within the United Nations system on child protection, taking into account information provided by Member States and other relevant actors.

Lithuania’s representative, speaking on behalf of the European Union, joined several other delegates in emphasizing that an additional report by the Secretary-General was unnecessary.  She said good coordination already existed among United Nations mechanisms addressing issues of children.

Other texts approved today related to the follow-up to the Second World Assembly on Ageing; the follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action; the right to the truth; combating intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief; and freedom of religion or belief.

Before concluding its work, the Committee approved a tentative programme of work for its 2014 session.

Also speaking today were representatives of Albania, United States, El Salvador, Malaysia (on behalf of the Association of South-East Asian Nations), Belarus, Guatemala, Canada, Chile, Switzerland, Israel, Djibouti, Sudan, Trinidad and Tobago, India, Indonesia, Bahrain, Iraq, Russian Federation, Qatar, Bangladesh, Singapore, Libya, Yemen, Nigeria, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jamaica, Gabon, Barbados, Liechtenstein, Costa Rica, Syria, Mexico, Cameroon, Norway, Ireland, Sweden, France, Uruguay, Gabon, and Iceland, as well as an observer for the Holy See.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this morning to take action on pending draft resolutions and conclude its work for the sixty-eighth session.

Action on Drafts

Acting without a vote, the Committee first approved a draft titled “Follow-up to the Second World Assembly on Ageing” (document A/C.3/68/L.14/Rev.1), as orally amended.

The representative of Albania stressed the importance of avoiding overlap between different mandates on the rights of older persons, particularly those of the open-ended working group and the independent expert, respectively.  Albania looked forward to constructive engagement by the former.

The representative of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the rights of older persons were high on the bloc’s agenda.  Continuing its active constructive engagement, the European Union had agreed to the creation of an independent expert, he recalled, emphasizing, however, that the work of various mechanisms should complement each other rather than overlap.  She expressed regret over the text’s outdated language on the economic and financial crisis.

The representative of the United States reiterated that avoiding duplication among different mandates was essential, saying her delegation was pleased that the text highlighted the importance of coordination.  Regarding preambular paragraph 9, she said the text did not reflect language agreed in the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) on the economic crisis.

The representative of El Salvador said the independent expert created in Geneva should not be understood as superior to the General Assembly’s open-ended working group on ageing.

Acting again without a vote, the Committee approved the text, as orally amended.

The Committee then took note of the report of the Secretary-General “The way forward: a disability-inclusive development agenda towards 2015 and beyond” (document A/68/95).

It went on to approve, without a vote, a draft resolution titled “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” (document A/C.3/68/L.78).

The Committee then took note of the report of the Secretary-General “Measures taken and progress achieved in the promotion of women and political participation” (document A/68/184), and his note transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against women, its causes and consequences (document A/68/340).

The Committee then took up a draft resolution titled “Strengthening collaboration on child protection within the United Nations system” (document A/C.3/68/L.26/Rev.1).

The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), welcomed the improved coordination mentioned in the draft, as well as the strengthening of the child protection mechanism.  He then encouraged special mandate holders to seek genuine dialogue with Member States.

The representative of Belarus expressed regret that the text did not mention the importance of the family, whose responsibility it was to raise children.  Any text intended to protect children should therefore include a reference to the family, she emphasized.

The Committee then approved the draft without a vote, as orally revised.

The representative of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the European Union, expressed confusion over the purpose of the draft and the problem it was trying to address.  Good coordination already existed among United Nations mechanisms addressing issues relating to children, she noted, asking why the text requested another report.  Compiling a report would divert precious resources, she said, pointing out that the information requested was already available in existing reports.  She expressed hope that the request for a report would be the final one because another similar draft would not be supported.

The representative of Guatemala, speaking on behalf of an interregional group of countries, said that reports issued by existing child-protection mechanisms already provided accounts of the issue.  A specific draft resolution and a related report were not necessary, and the language contained in the draft should not be interpreted as questioning the work carried out by United Nations mechanisms.

The representative of Canada said she did not see the need for the draft since the key child-protection stakeholders in the United Nations already operated in a coordinated manner.  Canada also did not see the need for an additional report of the Secretary-General because those actors already reported to many other bodies.

The representative of Chile noted the different competencies of United Nations agencies dealing with human rights protection, urging respect for their independence.

The representative of the United States said the draft was not necessary and called for safeguards to protect the independence of special mandate holders.  Rejecting any interpretation of the draft’s language as a lack of confidence in them, she questioned the need for the Secretary-General to produce another report, expressing hope that the current report would be the last one.

The representative of Switzerland, speaking on behalf of a cross-regional group of countries, said “child protection is one of the success stories of the United Nations”, but voiced doubts about the need for another report on child protection, saying it could divert resources that could be invested in child protection activities.  Since it was the responsibility of mandate holders to coordinate their activities, the text could undermine their independence.

The Committee then took up a text titled “Right to the Truth” (document A/C.3/68/L.43/Rev.1), approving it without a vote, as orally revised.

The representative of Canada said her delegation had joined the consensus but understood that, in an armed conflict, the right to the truth encompassed the right to the freedom of expression and the right of access to information, as described in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution titled “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” (document A/C.3/68/L.69/Rev.1).

The representative of Israel said the Durban Declaration and its Programme of Action delegitimized the rights of the State of Israel.  As for the draft, amendments had been suggested but not taken into consideration.  For those reasons, she said, her delegation could not join the consensus and called for a recorded vote.

The representative of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said she had wished for a more inclusive and transparent negotiating process.  Listing the bloc’s proposed changes, she said they included the need to respect the independence of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).  Efforts and resources should have been devoted to actions on the ground, she added, saying the text was too focused on process rather than action.

The representative of Switzerland, speaking on behalf of a cross-regional group of States, voiced regret that informal negotiations had not allowed discussions to address the concerns of Member States, as hardly any proposal was reflected in the draft.  Emphasizing that fighting racism was a primary responsibility of the State, she noted that the draft called for additional follow-up activities which had budget implications and were not directly combating racism.  The cross-regional group would therefore abstain.

The representative of the United States expressed concern over the prolonged divisions caused by Durban as well as the additional costs they would place on the United Nations budget.

By a recorded vote of 126 in favour to 9 against (Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Palau, United Kingdom, United States), with 46 abstentions, the Committee approved the text, as orally revised.

Under agenda item 67 (a) and 67 (b), the Committee took note of three reports of the Secretary-General relating, respectively, to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; the elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; and the International Decade for People of African Descent.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution titled “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief” (document A/C.3/68/L.48/Rev.1), approving it without a vote, as orally corrected.

The representative of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said she had joined the consensus but the draft was not sufficiently clear as to what action States should take to counter acts described in the title.  While condemning such actions, the European Union had a strong attachment to the freedom of expression as an effective means to combat them.  States and local authorities should never divert attention from their responsibility to counter religious intolerance, he stressed.

The representative of Albania said he had joined the consensus and hoped the text would become the blueprint for further action on the ground.  However, future negotiations could be concluded earlier.

Taking up a text on “Freedom of religion or belief” (document A/C.3/68/L.49/Rev.1), the Committee approved it without a vote, as orally revised.

The representative of Djibouti, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), said the resolution welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, which contained many controversial and worrying aspects, including its lack of evidence linking freedom of religion or belief to gender equality.

An observer for the Holy See expressed reservations about operative paragraph 19, which welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.  The report went beyond the scope of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate and was based on his personal opinions, he said, adding that the informal consultation process did not reflect true multilateralism.

The representative of Sudan said he had joined the consensus but expressed reservations about a reference to the right to change one’s religion or belief in operative paragraph 1.

STEPHAN TAFROV ( Bulgaria), Committee Chair, suspended the meeting.

When the meeting resumed, the representative of Sudan asked why it had been suspended.

The Chair responded by reading out the functions of his office.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution titled “Rights of the child” (document A/C.3/68/L.28/Rev.1).

The representative of Trinidad and Tobago, speaking on behalf of an interregional group of countries, entered a reservation on the rights of children in relation to sexual and reproductive health, noting that the reference in the current draft was too broad and inconsistent with national obligations.

The Committee approved the text without a vote, as orally amended.

The representative of India voiced disappointment that there had not been enough consultations during negotiations and new paragraphs had been introduced at the last minute.  Additionally, the draft singled out children who lost their parents due to capital punishment and long-term imprisonment.  Asking whether national criminal systems should treat criminals differently because they had children, he said he was also disappointed that the issue of primary health care had not been given importance.

The representative of El Salvador expressed concern over the draft’s reference to sexual and reproductive health services and the rights of children.  He said he wished to place on record that the paragraph on sexual and reproductive rights of children contravened his country’s laws on the protection of the child.

The representative of the United States said too many young people lacked access to sexual and reproductive information and education.  For women to develop their sexual rights in full, they needed accurate information and education to foster equal partnerships and relations.  The United States did not recognize the creation of new rights, she emphasized, urging the draft’s main sponsor to aim for a more streamlined text in 2014.

The representative of Indonesia entered reservations on several paragraphs, underlining the need to use child-sensitive language in relation to sexual and reproductive health.  While information and education were instrumental, the family was the heart and foundation of society, and must protect children by strengthening family mechanisms, she stressed.  Such measures should be taken in an age-appropriate manner and under parental guidance, she said, expressing deep concern over the late introduction of language without due regard to the principles of transparency and dialogue in intergovernmental negotiations.

The representative of Bahrain, speaking on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council, underscored the need to take the cultural and religious backgrounds of different countries into consideration.

The representative of Iraq entered reservations on different paragraphs, saying the education of children on sexual and reproductive health contradicted his nation’s values.

The representative of the Russian Federation expressed concern that the main sponsors had not been open to consultations with other delegations, and had introduced new issues at the last minute.  Hopefully, future draft resolutions would be elaborated in a more balanced fashion.

The representative of Iran disassociated herself from operational paragraph 9d, saying it did not enjoy agreed language and was not aimed at protecting children.  She also reiterated the prior right of parents to guide the education of their children.

The representative of Qatar, associating herself with the Gulf Cooperation Council, said criminal punishment was a sovereign right of all countries and part of national legislation.

The representative of Bangladesh said the draft should have focused on children from all over the world, with their different requirements in their different countries.  It was a text “for all children” with different religious and cultural background.

The representative of Singapore entered a reservation on a paragraph relating to sexual and reproductive health and the rights of children, which had been introduced at a late stage.  She also underlined the lack of open negotiations that could have led to agreed language on the human right to water, among other issues.  Singling out the negative impact of capital punishment on children was another issue of concern, she said.

The representative of Libya reiterated that the family had the primary role in raising children, in line with the principles of respect for religion.  She then entered reservations on all paragraphs referring to sexual and reproductive education and health, and on references to capital punishment, emphasizing that the latter was a sovereign right of the State.  Expressing dissatisfaction over attempts to impose elements that had not been internationally agreed and recognized, she urged respect for national cultural and religious values.

The representative of Sudan entered a reservation on references to sexual and reproductive health, saying they were incompatible with the draft’s subject matter.  He noted that gender was understood to mean only male and female.  In addition, the draft should have taken into consideration special features of national law, including capital punishment.  He also entered a reservation on a reference to the International Criminal Court, saying that institution was not part of the United Nations and did not have the same membership.

The representative of Yemen reaffirmed the need to protect national laws and customs, as well as habits and specific religious and cultural aspects.  The controversy and lack of transparency during negotiations were regrettable.

The observer for the Holy See expressed concern over the recourse to abortion, adding that the draft did not offer real protection to the child, as defined before and after birth.  He then underlined the prior right of the parents, over that of the State, to choose the education of their children, including their religion, which was concomitant with the right to freedom of religion.  He also voiced disappointment with the negotiations, pointing out that there had been inadequate consultations and that language had been introduced at the last minute.  He then emphasized that gender was to be understood only as male and female.

The representative of Nigeria said she was against references to human rights when discussing sexual and reproductive health because they could be used to further other issues, lifestyles and practices that were against the national belief and were not human rights.  Such tendencies could undermine Nigeria’s family structure, belief and religion, she said, noting that the United Nations was not the appropriate forum to discuss “new rights”.  She underlined the sovereign right of States to interpret and implement conventions, which should not be imposed.  Sexual and reproductive health and rights were not pertinent to children, she emphasized, pointing out that the Convention on the Rights of the Child made no such mention.  It was important to preserve the sanctity children by sustaining their innocence, and parents had the right and responsibility for their children’s health.  Family was understood as the basic social unity of parents — of a man and a woman.

The representative of Kenya specifically addressed operational paragraph 63, saying that perpetrators of violence against children should be investigated and prosecuted in accordance with national law.  It was disappointing that the draft failed to recognize that primary responsibility for addressing that matter lay with States, she said.

The representative of Saudi Arabia, associating herself with the Gulf Cooperation Council, entered a reservation on references to sexual and reproductive health and the rights of children, as well as on sexual education, expressed in operational paragraph 24c.

The representative of Pakistan said the draft should have taken the peculiar religious and cultural context of different countries into consideration, and entered a reservation on paragraphs relating to sexual and reproductive health and the rights of children.  Its implementation would be done at the discretion of national law.

The representative of Jamaica clarified that the main sponsors of the draft were the European Union and various Latin American and Caribbean States, but not on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC).

The Committee then took note of several reports and notes of the Secretary-General relating to children and armed conflict, violence against children, sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

As the Committee took up a text titled “Report of the Human Rights Council” (document A/C.3/68/L.75), the Chair called attention to proposed amendments (document A/C.3/68/L.77) that would delete operative paragraphs 2 and 3 from the main draft.

The representative of Gabon, speaking on behalf of the African Group, requested a recorded vote on the proposed amendments.

The representative of Cameroon, associating himself with the African Group, said lengthy consultations had already taken place since the publication of L.75, and the insistence of some delegations that African States were closed-minded was therefore not true.  The Africa Group was not rejecting the work of the Human Rights Council, but its subsidiary status relative to the General Assembly made it possible for the main body to discuss the relevant issues further, he said, stressing that the Group was not trying to dismantle the established human rights architecture.

The representative of Barbados said she would vote for L.75 because the Human Rights Council’s resolution in question needed the General Assembly’s attention.

The Committee then rejected the proposed amendments by a recorded vote of 76 against to 74 in favour, with 18 abstentions.

The representative of Ecuador said he had voted against the amendments, but that did not mean his delegation did not respect the work of the Human Rights Council.

The representative of Singapore said she had voted against the proposed amendments because she had no concerns about operative paragraphs 2 and 3.

The representative of the United States said she was disappointed with the result, which could undermine the work of the Human Rights Council and its decisions.

The Committee then turned to the main draft.

The representative of Liechtenstein asked whether his counterpart from the United States was asking for a recorded vote.

The representative of the United States said she was calling for a recorded vote and would vote “no”.  Approving the draft had been a simple annual procedural text, and singling out a particular Human Rights Council resolution was not appropriate, she added.

The representative of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said she would vote against the draft, emphasizing the institutional relations between the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council.  The latter’s resolution did not include a recommendation by the Council to the Assembly, she noted.

The representative of Liechtenstein, speaking also for Iceland, Switzerland and Norway, said he would vote against the draft because singling out a Council resolution that did not contain recommendations to the Assembly was not appropriate.

The representative of Costa Rica said she would vote “no” because the issue in question should be considered not by the Third Committee, but the plenary of the General Assembly.

By a recorded vote of 87 in favour to 66 against, with 22 abstentions, the Committee approved the text.

The representative of Syria said she had abstained because the report of the Human Rights Council contained erroneous, unilateral information on her country, but made no mention of States financially supporting armed groups there.

The representative of Iran said she had also abstained because that report “named and shamed” certain countries, including her own.  Such practices undermined the Human Rights Council’s credibility.

The representative of Belarus said he had voted “no” because he did not accept country-specific resolutions adopted by the Council.

The representative of Qatar said she had abstained because the draft would reopen decisions made by the Council and undermine its work.

The representative of Canada said she had voted “no” in opposition to paragraphs 2 and 3, stressing that the issue should be discussed in the Assembly plenary rather than the Third Committee.

The representative of India said he had joined the consensus because the establishment of a senior-level focal point, mentioned in the Human Rights Council’s resolution, was outside that body’s mandate and therefore should be discussed by the competent body with universal representation.

The representative of Chile, explaining his delegation’s negative vote, said the draft would set a negative precedent.

The representative of Mexico said the draft just approved should not set a precedent for the future.

The representative of Hungary said he had voted against it to defend the integrity of the Human Rights Council.  That body had acted within its mandate, and the Third Committee had never before reopened decisions taken by the Council, he noted, cautioning that the action would create tension between Geneva and New York.

The representative of Ecuador said his delegation supported the work of the Council but had cast a “yes” vote.

The representative of Cameroon emphasized that 87 States supported the text, stressing that the door for negotiations had not been closed, and that L.77 would have closed it.

The Committee then took up a draft resolution titled “Promotion of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms:  protecting women human rights defenders” (document A/C.3/68/L.64/Rev.1*).

The Committee Chair called attention to several proposed amendments.

The representative of Cameroon requested the Chair to suspend the meeting in order for members to review the oral amendments read out by the draft’s main sponsor.

The Chair then suspended the meeting.

After it resumed, the representative of Singapore requested more time to seek consensus.

The Chair then suspended the meeting again.

The representative of Singapore asked the representative of Cameroon to take the floor.

The representative of Cameroon said she would withdraw the amendments.

The Chair said the amendments had been removed from consideration.

The representative of Norway clarified that preambular paragraph 13 had been removed.

The representative of Ireland said a key paragraph from his delegation had been removed, forcing it to withdraw as a co-sponsor of the main draft.

The representative of Sweden requested the removal of her delegation from the list of co-sponsors.

The representative of Switzerland requested a recess.

The Chair then suspended the meeting.

After it resumed its work, a number of Member States withdrew as co-sponsors.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution without a vote, as orally revised.

The representative of Lithuania, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the deletion of preambular paragraph 13 was the high price her delegation had been compelled to pay for the sake of consensus.

The representative of France said that continuing the Committee’s work without interpreters was unacceptable.

The representative of Uruguay, speaking on behalf of several Latin American countries, said the draft was far from original expectations, and he looked forward to improving its language in 2014.

The representative of the United States said she was pleased to co-sponsor the text, but expressed concern over the misuse of laws to target women human rights defenders.  She added that she would provide her full statement to the Secretariat.

The observer for the Holy See, expressing regret at the creeping manner in which some delegations were trying to insert their views into the Committee’s work, entered a reservation on operative paragraph 2.

The representative of Gabon, speaking on behalf of the African Group, extended an invitation to a party.

The representative of Iceland said her delegation had decided not to withdraw as a co-sponsor, but described the deletion of preambular paragraph 13 as unfortunate.

The representative of Canada praised the Committee’s spirit of compromise.

The representative of the Russian Federation said it was regrettable that the Committee could not complete its work in the six official languages.

The representative of Bahrain said her delegation would present her full statement to the Secretariat.

The representative of Australia said she attached importance to the draft resolution and had remained as a co-sponsor.

The representative of Israel said she regretted the deletion of preambular paragraph 13 but had co-sponsored the draft.

The representative of Switzerland said she was concerned about the deletion of preambular paragraph 13 but remained a co-sponsor.

The Committee then took note of dozens of reports and notes of the Secretary-General, and of special mandate holders on the promotion and protection of human rights.

The Committee then took up a text titled “Tentative programme of work of the Third Committee for the sixty-ninth session of the General Assembly, submitted by the Chair of the Committee” (document A/C.3/68/L.79), approving it without a vote.

The representative of Iran emphasized that the sea area between her own country and Arab States in that vicinity was called the “ Persian Gulf”.  All other names were fabricated and without legal value.

Closing Remarks

Mr. TAFROV ( Bulgaria), Committee Chair, thanked Secretariat staff for their professionalism, as well as the interpreters and his Co-Chairs.  He specifically asked members to applaud his Deputy Permanent Representative, Maria P. Tzotzorkova-Kaymaktchieva.

The representatives of the United Kingdom and Egypt read out poems to conclude the work of the Third Committee.

* *** *

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