Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Commission on Human Rights
COMMISSION ADOPTS CHAIRPERSON'S STATEMENT ON COLOMBIA
22 April 2005
Share
Commission on Human Rights
MORNING
22 April 2005
Establishes a Working Group to Reflect on the Secretary-General's
Proposed Reform of the United Nations Human Rights Bodies
The Commission on Human Rights this morning adopted a Chairperson's Statement on the situation of human rights in Colombia in which it expressed its alarm at reported violations of the rights to life, personal integrity, freedom and security, due process, privacy and intimacy, as well as reported breaches of fundamental freedoms of movement, residence, opinion and expression.
The text said the Commission was gravely concerned about the situation of human rights and international humanitarian law in Colombia. It condemned all breaches of international humanitarian law in the country and called on all parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law. It also strongly condemned all acts of terrorism and other criminal attacks.
The Commission also adopted a decision under the organization of the work of the session in which it decided to establish an open-ended Working Group, which would convene a five-day inter-sessional meeting in June 2005, to reflect on the recommendations on human rights contained in the report of the Secretary-General with a view to contributing to the intergovernmental deliberations on the proposed reform of the United Nations in the General Assembly. It also decided to convene a one-day special session to formally adopt the outcome of the open-ended Working Group and transmit it to the Secretary-General through the Economic and Social Council.
Also under its item on the organization of the work of the session, the Commission adopted a decision in which it took note with appreciation of the report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Liberia and decided to consider the question at its sixty-second session under the same agenda item. In another decision, it took note of the report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Chad and commended the cooperation by the Government of Chad with the Independent Expert and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding the promotion and protection of fundamental rights.
When the Commission reconvenes at 3 p.m. it will finalize its work and adjourn its sixty-first session.
Action on Decisions on Organization of Work of the Session
In a decision (E/CN.4/2005/L.101) on the proposed reform of the Secretary-General in the area of human rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 34 in favour to 15 against, with four abstentions, the Commission, taking into account the report of the Secretary-General entitled "In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all" (A/59/2005) on, among other things, the reform of the Commission, and bearing in mind the recommendations contained in the reports of the panels commissioned by the Secretary-General, including the report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, "A more secure world: Our shared responsibility" (A/59/565 and Corr.1), and the Millennium Project report "Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals", decided to establish an open-ended Working Group, to be chaired by the current Chairperson, which would convene a five-day inter-sessional meeting in June 2005 to reflect on the recommendations on human rights contained in the report of the Secretary-General with a view to contributing to the intergovernmental deliberations on the proposed reform of the United Nations in the General Assembly and, to this end, decided to convene a one-day special session to formally adopt the outcome of the open-ended Working Group and transmit it to the Secretary-General through the Economic and Social Council.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (34): Argentina, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe.
Against (15): Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.
Abstentions (4): Armenia, Gabon, Guatemala and Mexico.
Before the Commission voted on the decision, it rejected, by a roll call vote of 19 in favour to 28 against, with six abstentions, the contention that the European Union proposal was, in fact, an amendment. The Commission thus decided to consider it as a new proposal, and to take action on it after taking action on the original draft.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (19): Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.
Against (28): Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (6): Argentina, Armenia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador and Paraguay.
BRIDGITTE MABANDLA (South Africa), in a general comment, said the participants of the Commission should not be denied the collective opportunity to reflect on the reform of the Commission. What was needed was an open, transparent and conclusive session to discuss the body and its relations with other United Nations bodies. The outcome in the draft decision would be an input to the consultations. The Commission had already had an informal consultation, and there was no need for another, there was a need for a formal session including all actors in order to strengthen the New York process.
CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe), in a general comment, said it was the democratic right of every Member State of the United Nations, and of the Commission on Human Rights, to participate in the discussion about the reform of the Commission and other bodies. Zimbabwe wanted the views of all on the reform of the Commission, as presently constituted, to be sent to the Secretary-General and to the entire membership. An informal meeting was undesirable. The Commission must refuse to concede that someone else's idea was better. Zimbabwe rejected the idea of obliging nobility, and refused to be buried alive or to attend its own funeral. Why did some fear their participation and want to sideline it? Democracy should reign over the Commission on Human Rights.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), in a general comment, said the delegation of Cuba would join the co-sponsors of the text submitted by the African Group. The argument based on financial difficulties was unacceptable. A lot of money was being spent in other areas unnecessarily. It was unacceptable that some delegations announced that they would not support the proposal on the basis of lack of financial resources. The proposal of the Secretary-General benefited only a few countries. It was fundamental to reforge the whole work of the Commission. Some people were already working behind the stage without the full participation of the members of the Commission. Cuba believed that the African Group's proposal was essential and should be supported. The essence that the financial resources for the implementation of the proposal could not be found was only a pretext.
N.U.O. WADIBIA-ANYANWU (Nigeria), in a general comment, said the statement of the African Group as presented by Ethiopia was fully supported. The proposed draft decision represented an important initiative of the Commission. This was the right direction to follow as long as the cart was not put before the horse. The proposed reform by the Secretary-General had come at a critical point for the United Nations and its human rights work. Distressed and voiceless people around the world expected much more from the Commission. The institution had rendered invaluable services, built bridges between stakeholders and forged partnerships to enhance the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Commission should welcome positive changes to its institutional capacity to aid all States to fulfil their obligations in the field of human rights in a transparent manner. The success of the reform would be dependent on individual and collective efforts. The recommendation regarding the establishment of an open-ended Working Group was action in the right direction as it opened the possibility of consultations on crucial matters, and it was vital that a platform for States and non-governmental organizations was facilitated under the auspices of the Commission. Nigeria fully supported the decision, and called upon all States to do so. It was time to demonstrate the capacity to eschew the politicisation and selectivity undermining the work of the Commission, and to embrace reform and reinforce the indivisibility and complementarity of human rights. L.101 enjoyed overwhelming support from States across the regional groups, and it was hoped it would be adopted without a vote.
RUDOLPH E. BOSCHWITZ (United States), in a general comment, said the United States was committed to the reform of the Commission on Human Rights, and was encouraged that colleagues from Africa were similarly committed. This year, as in all years, the United States had taken action and principled stands in order to send a beacon of hope to those who suffered human rights abuses at the hands of their own Governments. The United States had also voted against those texts which were not within the mandate of the Commission, or which would incur an inappropriate use of scarce resources. The United States could not support the approach to reform recommended in the current draft resolution. The reform debate must take place at United Nations Headquarters in New York, he affirmed, where a coherent framework already existed through which to consider Commission reform, and United Nations reform more broadly. It would not be helpful to have an open-ended Working Group of the Commission meet in Geneva; intersessional cluster group meetings were ongoing in New York, and involved all States, and had a set process for participation. An open-ended Working Group such as was recommended in the draft would be a separate and redundant body, without clarification about how its discussion would be incorporated within the larger debate. The proposal could undermine all efforts for United Nations reform, and would raise budget implications. The Commission was a subsidiary body of the Economic and Social Council, he concluded, and had no mandate from the Council or the General Assembly to discuss its own reform. Any discussions that were held must be informal.
IAN DE JONG (Netherlands, in a general comment and speaking on behalf of the European Union), said the European Union would put forward amendments on the proposal submitted by the African Group. The European Union could not agree on a process in Genera to compete with the one already initiated in New York. The amendment would also be circulated in writing.
FISSEHA YIMER (Ethiopia), in a general comment, said the fact of calling a document a draft amendment did not mean it was one, it had to meet certain standards of the rules of procedure. The amendment did more than that, and the substantive difference between the two proposals was made clear. It was easy to see that by putting the two documents side by side. The so-called amendment was in fact a new proposal, and not an amendment, as it proposed informal consultations for two days, while the original proposal was an inter-sessional meeting for five days. This was a new proposal. Other new proposals were also contained. Thus the document should not be called an amendment - this would be being too clever by half. The European Union was allowed to make a new proposal, but the original one should be acted upon first. The European Union's document should be acted on consequently.
SHA ZUKANG (China), in a general comment, said he had no legal background, and was not a procedural expert, but he would trust what the delegate from Ethiopia had said. Reform of the Commission remained important; the BBC had reported today that the Commission's days were numbered. It was now up to the Commission to say "not yet". The Commission was an important institution that considered issues of relevance to all. Reform was necessary and, therefore, there must be a forum in which to discuss how to conduct that reform. On questions of format, the delegation of China was willing to be flexible. However, the output of the discussion must be formal. China supported the African proposal. With regard to the so-called amendment by the European Union, he wished to point out that if, following two days of informal discussions, all delegations were to return to their wives and children they would say only, "we talked for two days", without knowing what the facilitator would do with the output. There must be some means of ensuring what the output contained. And in response to the concerns about complexity voiced by the United States, China wished to state that his country loved democracy, transparency, and the freedom of expression. Why should discussion be feared?
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), in a general comment, said the amendment presented by the Netherlands, on behalf of the European Union, was in fact a proposal and not an amendment. The text produced by the European Union was not presented in other languages, such as Spanish. The proposal should also be presented 24 hours in advance, according to the rules of procedure.
IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), in a general comment, said the points of view put on the table were respected, although the issue of trust and how Confucius would have dealt with them were unclear. The changes had been read out, as was normal, and these were translated. Regarding the argument that this was a new proposal and not an amendment, this was not quite correct, as all key examples of the proposal had been reflected. Only minor changes were made. The text had been put forward, and it should be made clear that regarding the duration of the meeting, this was a question where flexibility could be implemented. However, cost was important. Regarding the intent to make the message arrive in New York, new words could be added to the end of the text: "and invites the Secretary-General to produce a summary report of the consultations". That would help the message pass. There was no problem with the discussion here. There were 53 Member States in the Commission and 190-odd Member States in New York. Prerogatives needed to be considered. Two days could be changed to five days, but the word informal could not be changed, as this would cause problems in New York. If the Ambassador of Ethiopia could not agree, then the proposal should be put to the vote.
FISSEHA YIMER (Ethiopia), in a general comment, said the Chair was precisely right, that the next step should be for the Commission to vote on whether or not the European Union proposal was an amendment or a new proposal. According to Ethiopia, it was a new proposal; according to the European Union, it was an amendment.
HENRI-PAUL NORMANDIN (Canada), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the delegation of Canada was in favour of a transparent discussion in the Commission allowing everyone to bring forward his or her opinion. The Commission wanted to concentrate on its goals rather than the form. The Canadian delegation preferred an informal debate on the process of the reform so that all opinions would be reflected.
LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA GONGORA (Mexico), in a general comment, said it would have been preferred to have a consensus agreement, and an agreement that would have enabled a debate that was at least initially informal, and that the possibility should have been left open to make it formal when the time was right. What was important at the moment was to build bridges between the different types of reforms. It was a time to make reasonable sacrifices with regard to expectations of change. It was not the time to polarise the situation. Mexico would abstain on the vote on the proposal, but despite that it would participate in as open and constructive a way as possible in the process proposed, as the objectives were shared, as was the idea that the Commission could discuss this problem here and make a contribution. But Mexico would not accept talk of Geneva positions as against positions taken in or by New York. Mexico would defend the same position wherever the issues were debated.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the delegation of Argentina would vote in favour of the draft. However, he wished to stress that the essential element of this exercise would be the real impact that the Geneva discussion would have on the discussions already underway in New York. Moreover, Argentina would have preferred for the Working Group to remit its conclusions directly to New York, without convening another meeting of the Commission. Argentina would vote in favour of the draft as it could make important contribution to the reform process.
IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union had been actively participating in the discussions of the proposed reforms of the Secretary-General. The Union estimated that the idea of reform concerning the protestation of human rights should be in the future stage of the reflection in the plan of work already set up in New York for the whole United Nations system. The Union attached great importance to a transparent and inclusive process in the treatment of human rights within the whole framework of the reform. The Union would vote against the proposal.
LUIS VARELA QUIROS (Costa Rica), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the delegation of Costa Rica regretted that it was not possible to reach consensus. As the question of human rights was a substantive issue in Geneva, it was important that the discussion take place where these issues were considered. Costa Rica would vote in favour of the proposal, as any debate on the issue of reform of the Commission should have input from everywhere. What Geneva produced was not a binding opinion, but a view reflecting the positions of Governments and individuals participating in the discussions. This would give New York a view of what those who participated in discussions thought.
ELIZABETH ASTETE RODRIGUEZ (Peru), speaking in an explanation of the vote, said the delegation of Peru regretted that the Commission had had to deal with so important an issue in a confrontational manner because the necessary consultations to avoid that situation had been omitted. It was important that Geneva contribute to the reform discussion being held in New York, for which reason Peru would vote in favour of the draft. However, the situation could have been avoided if the proper regional group consultations had been held.
ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN (Armenia), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said more discussions on the proposed text would have led to a consensus. The decision of Armenia in Geneva might not be taken on the same footing in New York. Armenia would abstain in the vote.
RUDOLPH E. BOSCHWITZ (United States), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said for the reasons stated earlier, there should be a vote on the decision, which had been authored in the last moments of the Commission, and the United States would vote "no".
In a decision on the situation of human rights in Liberia (E/CN.4/2005/L.102), adopted as amended and without a vote, the Commission, taking note with appreciation of the report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Liberia (E/CN.4/2005/119), decided to consider the question at its sixty-second session under the same agenda item.
In a decision (E/CN.4/2005/L.103) on technical cooperation and advisory services in the field of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Commission decided to take note of the report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Chad, to commend the cooperation by the Government of Chad, with the Independent Expert and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding the promotion and protection of fundamental rights, and welcomed with satisfaction the readiness of the Government of Chad to accept the opening of an office of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Chad.
Chairperson's Statement on Human Rights Situation in Colombia
The Commission adopted a Chairperson's Statement on the human rights situation in Colombia, without a vote, by which it welcomed the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on Colombia; strongly supported the activities of the Office the High Commissioner in Colombia; and trusted that the Government of Colombia would continue to actively support and promote the Office in carrying out its full mandate; and called upon the Government to make full use of the services of advice and technical cooperation of the Office. The Commission welcomed the cooperation of the Government with United Nations bodies and mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights.
The Commission expressed grave concerns at the situation of human rights and international humanitarian law. It was particularly alarmed at reported violations of the rights to life, personal integrity, freedom and security, due process, privacy and intimacy. It was also concerned about reported breaches of fundamental freedoms of movement, residence, opinion and expression. It recognized the efforts of the Government to strengthen respect for civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and took note of the efforts to investigate violations of human rights.
The Commission urged that dialogue and negotiations be pursued between the Government and all illegal armed groups, and supported the Government in its search for a negotiated solution to the internal armed conflict. It reaffirmed its support for the London Declaration of 10 July 2003, as well as the Cartagena Declaration adopted on 3 February 2005. It stressed its full support for the Government in its efforts to establish the rule of law, to fight against immunity, and to fight against terrorism and illicit drug production and trafficking in the framework of the rule of law and respect for human rights. Further, the Commission urged the Government to establish as soon as possible a comprehensive legal framework for the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration process of the illegal armed groups that fully recognized and guaranteed the rights to truth, justice and reparations.
Further, the Commission was concerned about continuing cases of problems relating to access to justice, judicial independence and impartiality, judicial guarantees and presumption of innocence. It appealed to the Government to increasingly address the issue of impunity and to take action to improve the capacity and effectiveness of the judicial system. It also urged that international human rights law and international humanitarian law be taken into account in the process of reform of the justice system.
The Commission condemned all breaches of international humanitarian law in Colombia and called on all parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law, including the humanitarian principles of distinction, limitation, proportionality and immunity of the civilian population. It also condemned massacres and cruel violence, the continued breaches by the paramilitary groups of the cessation of hostilities, and the fact that all illegal armed groups continued to use violent means and to commit serious and numerous breaches such as attacks on civilian population, discriminate attacks, homicides, massacres, hostage-taking or forced disappearances.
Further, the Commission strongly condemned all acts of terrorism and other criminal attacks, such as attacks against life, physical integrity and personal liberty and safety, committed by the illegal armed groups. It strongly urged all illegal armed groups to comply with international humanitarian law and to respect the legitimate exercise by the population of their human rights.
The Commission deplored that human rights defenders, including trade unionists, women's organizations, social leaders, as well as journalists, opinion makers and local officials continued to be affected by the armed conflict, and to be the victims of homicides and threats by the illegal armed groups. It remained deeply concerned by the still extremely high number of internally displaced persons. The Commission deplored the continued violence against indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities, and expressed grave concern at the situation of those communities that were being subjected to confinement. It further condemned the continuing violence of the rights of women and girls, and the climate of impunity. It also deplored violations to the right of children.
In conclusion, the Commission called upon the international community to continue to support the prompt implementation by all relevant parties of the recommendations of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and requested the High Commissioner to submit to it at its sixty-second session a detailed report on the human rights situation of Colombia.
Comments at the End of Taking Action Under the Agenda Item on the Organization of Work of the Session
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, regarding the text on the situation of detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, said Argentina had maintained a constant position in order to ensure that respect for human rights in the fight against terrorism was followed. At the present session, the United States delegation had shown the will to meet with the regional groups to give more information on this subject, and on United States judicial decisions which had clarified the position of the detainees, and had held a discussion with the relevant Special Rapporteurs regarding their possible visit to the base. Argentina sought to ensure full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and affirmed its full support for the international system for protecting universal human rights. It was prejudicial that some States used the Commission to criticize the situations in other States, or to avoid criticism of their own situations, as this undermined the contribution the Commission could make.
MOHAMED LOUTFY (Egypt), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said States should respect the human rights of all citizens while combating terrorism. The delegation of Egypt had abstained from voting on the resolution on the detainees in Guantanamo. Intense efforts had been continuing on the issue. Some detainees had already been released.
ALEXEY VLASOV (Russian Federation), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said regarding the general orientation of L.94 Rev 1, the problems referred to within went beyond the actual title and framework of the document. Russia was in favour of a pitiless war against international terrorism, but saw the legal aspects in ensuring that all should be protected from terrorism whilst observing human rights standards in combating it. Human rights observers should not be diminished because of a debate on governmental level on what practices might be considered under torture and unlimited detention without charges being brought. The possibility of using evidence that could have been derived through torture was also an issue. Certain Governments not observing human rights in this law could also be referred to in this connection. All of this was food for thought and areas where the new Special Rapporteur could work on in his report. At the same time, the wording to be found in paragraph 1 of the operative part of the resolution should be commensurate with an attempt to establish the facts, and this went beyond the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. This was why the Russian Federation had abstained from the vote. The United States was urged to cooperate with the special mechanisms of the Commission regarding those persons held in detention in Guantanamo, and the thematic procedures should be allowed to visit as rapidly as possible.
YUSUKE ARAI (Japan), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that, with respect to the decision taken yesterday on the organization of the work of the sixty-second session of the Commission and its programme budgetary implications, Japan wished to express concern at the situation in which new budgetary implications continued to increase in many areas of the Commission's work, while the United Nations' regular budget continued to decrease. Moreover, the current text had been circulated only shortly before its adoption, and the same had occurred at the sixtieth session of the Commission. The Secretariat should improve its work for circulation to allow States to have an appropriate length of time in which to consider programme budgetary implications.
* *** *
For use of information only; not an official record
MORNING
22 April 2005
Establishes a Working Group to Reflect on the Secretary-General's
Proposed Reform of the United Nations Human Rights Bodies
The Commission on Human Rights this morning adopted a Chairperson's Statement on the situation of human rights in Colombia in which it expressed its alarm at reported violations of the rights to life, personal integrity, freedom and security, due process, privacy and intimacy, as well as reported breaches of fundamental freedoms of movement, residence, opinion and expression.
The text said the Commission was gravely concerned about the situation of human rights and international humanitarian law in Colombia. It condemned all breaches of international humanitarian law in the country and called on all parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law. It also strongly condemned all acts of terrorism and other criminal attacks.
The Commission also adopted a decision under the organization of the work of the session in which it decided to establish an open-ended Working Group, which would convene a five-day inter-sessional meeting in June 2005, to reflect on the recommendations on human rights contained in the report of the Secretary-General with a view to contributing to the intergovernmental deliberations on the proposed reform of the United Nations in the General Assembly. It also decided to convene a one-day special session to formally adopt the outcome of the open-ended Working Group and transmit it to the Secretary-General through the Economic and Social Council.
Also under its item on the organization of the work of the session, the Commission adopted a decision in which it took note with appreciation of the report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Liberia and decided to consider the question at its sixty-second session under the same agenda item. In another decision, it took note of the report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Chad and commended the cooperation by the Government of Chad with the Independent Expert and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding the promotion and protection of fundamental rights.
When the Commission reconvenes at 3 p.m. it will finalize its work and adjourn its sixty-first session.
Action on Decisions on Organization of Work of the Session
In a decision (E/CN.4/2005/L.101) on the proposed reform of the Secretary-General in the area of human rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 34 in favour to 15 against, with four abstentions, the Commission, taking into account the report of the Secretary-General entitled "In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all" (A/59/2005) on, among other things, the reform of the Commission, and bearing in mind the recommendations contained in the reports of the panels commissioned by the Secretary-General, including the report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, "A more secure world: Our shared responsibility" (A/59/565 and Corr.1), and the Millennium Project report "Investing in Development: A Practical Plan to Achieve the Millennium Development Goals", decided to establish an open-ended Working Group, to be chaired by the current Chairperson, which would convene a five-day inter-sessional meeting in June 2005 to reflect on the recommendations on human rights contained in the report of the Secretary-General with a view to contributing to the intergovernmental deliberations on the proposed reform of the United Nations in the General Assembly and, to this end, decided to convene a one-day special session to formally adopt the outcome of the open-ended Working Group and transmit it to the Secretary-General through the Economic and Social Council.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (34): Argentina, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe.
Against (15): Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.
Abstentions (4): Armenia, Gabon, Guatemala and Mexico.
Before the Commission voted on the decision, it rejected, by a roll call vote of 19 in favour to 28 against, with six abstentions, the contention that the European Union proposal was, in fact, an amendment. The Commission thus decided to consider it as a new proposal, and to take action on it after taking action on the original draft.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (19): Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.
Against (28): Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (6): Argentina, Armenia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador and Paraguay.
BRIDGITTE MABANDLA (South Africa), in a general comment, said the participants of the Commission should not be denied the collective opportunity to reflect on the reform of the Commission. What was needed was an open, transparent and conclusive session to discuss the body and its relations with other United Nations bodies. The outcome in the draft decision would be an input to the consultations. The Commission had already had an informal consultation, and there was no need for another, there was a need for a formal session including all actors in order to strengthen the New York process.
CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe), in a general comment, said it was the democratic right of every Member State of the United Nations, and of the Commission on Human Rights, to participate in the discussion about the reform of the Commission and other bodies. Zimbabwe wanted the views of all on the reform of the Commission, as presently constituted, to be sent to the Secretary-General and to the entire membership. An informal meeting was undesirable. The Commission must refuse to concede that someone else's idea was better. Zimbabwe rejected the idea of obliging nobility, and refused to be buried alive or to attend its own funeral. Why did some fear their participation and want to sideline it? Democracy should reign over the Commission on Human Rights.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), in a general comment, said the delegation of Cuba would join the co-sponsors of the text submitted by the African Group. The argument based on financial difficulties was unacceptable. A lot of money was being spent in other areas unnecessarily. It was unacceptable that some delegations announced that they would not support the proposal on the basis of lack of financial resources. The proposal of the Secretary-General benefited only a few countries. It was fundamental to reforge the whole work of the Commission. Some people were already working behind the stage without the full participation of the members of the Commission. Cuba believed that the African Group's proposal was essential and should be supported. The essence that the financial resources for the implementation of the proposal could not be found was only a pretext.
N.U.O. WADIBIA-ANYANWU (Nigeria), in a general comment, said the statement of the African Group as presented by Ethiopia was fully supported. The proposed draft decision represented an important initiative of the Commission. This was the right direction to follow as long as the cart was not put before the horse. The proposed reform by the Secretary-General had come at a critical point for the United Nations and its human rights work. Distressed and voiceless people around the world expected much more from the Commission. The institution had rendered invaluable services, built bridges between stakeholders and forged partnerships to enhance the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Commission should welcome positive changes to its institutional capacity to aid all States to fulfil their obligations in the field of human rights in a transparent manner. The success of the reform would be dependent on individual and collective efforts. The recommendation regarding the establishment of an open-ended Working Group was action in the right direction as it opened the possibility of consultations on crucial matters, and it was vital that a platform for States and non-governmental organizations was facilitated under the auspices of the Commission. Nigeria fully supported the decision, and called upon all States to do so. It was time to demonstrate the capacity to eschew the politicisation and selectivity undermining the work of the Commission, and to embrace reform and reinforce the indivisibility and complementarity of human rights. L.101 enjoyed overwhelming support from States across the regional groups, and it was hoped it would be adopted without a vote.
RUDOLPH E. BOSCHWITZ (United States), in a general comment, said the United States was committed to the reform of the Commission on Human Rights, and was encouraged that colleagues from Africa were similarly committed. This year, as in all years, the United States had taken action and principled stands in order to send a beacon of hope to those who suffered human rights abuses at the hands of their own Governments. The United States had also voted against those texts which were not within the mandate of the Commission, or which would incur an inappropriate use of scarce resources. The United States could not support the approach to reform recommended in the current draft resolution. The reform debate must take place at United Nations Headquarters in New York, he affirmed, where a coherent framework already existed through which to consider Commission reform, and United Nations reform more broadly. It would not be helpful to have an open-ended Working Group of the Commission meet in Geneva; intersessional cluster group meetings were ongoing in New York, and involved all States, and had a set process for participation. An open-ended Working Group such as was recommended in the draft would be a separate and redundant body, without clarification about how its discussion would be incorporated within the larger debate. The proposal could undermine all efforts for United Nations reform, and would raise budget implications. The Commission was a subsidiary body of the Economic and Social Council, he concluded, and had no mandate from the Council or the General Assembly to discuss its own reform. Any discussions that were held must be informal.
IAN DE JONG (Netherlands, in a general comment and speaking on behalf of the European Union), said the European Union would put forward amendments on the proposal submitted by the African Group. The European Union could not agree on a process in Genera to compete with the one already initiated in New York. The amendment would also be circulated in writing.
FISSEHA YIMER (Ethiopia), in a general comment, said the fact of calling a document a draft amendment did not mean it was one, it had to meet certain standards of the rules of procedure. The amendment did more than that, and the substantive difference between the two proposals was made clear. It was easy to see that by putting the two documents side by side. The so-called amendment was in fact a new proposal, and not an amendment, as it proposed informal consultations for two days, while the original proposal was an inter-sessional meeting for five days. This was a new proposal. Other new proposals were also contained. Thus the document should not be called an amendment - this would be being too clever by half. The European Union was allowed to make a new proposal, but the original one should be acted upon first. The European Union's document should be acted on consequently.
SHA ZUKANG (China), in a general comment, said he had no legal background, and was not a procedural expert, but he would trust what the delegate from Ethiopia had said. Reform of the Commission remained important; the BBC had reported today that the Commission's days were numbered. It was now up to the Commission to say "not yet". The Commission was an important institution that considered issues of relevance to all. Reform was necessary and, therefore, there must be a forum in which to discuss how to conduct that reform. On questions of format, the delegation of China was willing to be flexible. However, the output of the discussion must be formal. China supported the African proposal. With regard to the so-called amendment by the European Union, he wished to point out that if, following two days of informal discussions, all delegations were to return to their wives and children they would say only, "we talked for two days", without knowing what the facilitator would do with the output. There must be some means of ensuring what the output contained. And in response to the concerns about complexity voiced by the United States, China wished to state that his country loved democracy, transparency, and the freedom of expression. Why should discussion be feared?
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), in a general comment, said the amendment presented by the Netherlands, on behalf of the European Union, was in fact a proposal and not an amendment. The text produced by the European Union was not presented in other languages, such as Spanish. The proposal should also be presented 24 hours in advance, according to the rules of procedure.
IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), in a general comment, said the points of view put on the table were respected, although the issue of trust and how Confucius would have dealt with them were unclear. The changes had been read out, as was normal, and these were translated. Regarding the argument that this was a new proposal and not an amendment, this was not quite correct, as all key examples of the proposal had been reflected. Only minor changes were made. The text had been put forward, and it should be made clear that regarding the duration of the meeting, this was a question where flexibility could be implemented. However, cost was important. Regarding the intent to make the message arrive in New York, new words could be added to the end of the text: "and invites the Secretary-General to produce a summary report of the consultations". That would help the message pass. There was no problem with the discussion here. There were 53 Member States in the Commission and 190-odd Member States in New York. Prerogatives needed to be considered. Two days could be changed to five days, but the word informal could not be changed, as this would cause problems in New York. If the Ambassador of Ethiopia could not agree, then the proposal should be put to the vote.
FISSEHA YIMER (Ethiopia), in a general comment, said the Chair was precisely right, that the next step should be for the Commission to vote on whether or not the European Union proposal was an amendment or a new proposal. According to Ethiopia, it was a new proposal; according to the European Union, it was an amendment.
HENRI-PAUL NORMANDIN (Canada), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the delegation of Canada was in favour of a transparent discussion in the Commission allowing everyone to bring forward his or her opinion. The Commission wanted to concentrate on its goals rather than the form. The Canadian delegation preferred an informal debate on the process of the reform so that all opinions would be reflected.
LUIS ALFONSO DE ALBA GONGORA (Mexico), in a general comment, said it would have been preferred to have a consensus agreement, and an agreement that would have enabled a debate that was at least initially informal, and that the possibility should have been left open to make it formal when the time was right. What was important at the moment was to build bridges between the different types of reforms. It was a time to make reasonable sacrifices with regard to expectations of change. It was not the time to polarise the situation. Mexico would abstain on the vote on the proposal, but despite that it would participate in as open and constructive a way as possible in the process proposed, as the objectives were shared, as was the idea that the Commission could discuss this problem here and make a contribution. But Mexico would not accept talk of Geneva positions as against positions taken in or by New York. Mexico would defend the same position wherever the issues were debated.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the delegation of Argentina would vote in favour of the draft. However, he wished to stress that the essential element of this exercise would be the real impact that the Geneva discussion would have on the discussions already underway in New York. Moreover, Argentina would have preferred for the Working Group to remit its conclusions directly to New York, without convening another meeting of the Commission. Argentina would vote in favour of the draft as it could make important contribution to the reform process.
IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union had been actively participating in the discussions of the proposed reforms of the Secretary-General. The Union estimated that the idea of reform concerning the protestation of human rights should be in the future stage of the reflection in the plan of work already set up in New York for the whole United Nations system. The Union attached great importance to a transparent and inclusive process in the treatment of human rights within the whole framework of the reform. The Union would vote against the proposal.
LUIS VARELA QUIROS (Costa Rica), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the delegation of Costa Rica regretted that it was not possible to reach consensus. As the question of human rights was a substantive issue in Geneva, it was important that the discussion take place where these issues were considered. Costa Rica would vote in favour of the proposal, as any debate on the issue of reform of the Commission should have input from everywhere. What Geneva produced was not a binding opinion, but a view reflecting the positions of Governments and individuals participating in the discussions. This would give New York a view of what those who participated in discussions thought.
ELIZABETH ASTETE RODRIGUEZ (Peru), speaking in an explanation of the vote, said the delegation of Peru regretted that the Commission had had to deal with so important an issue in a confrontational manner because the necessary consultations to avoid that situation had been omitted. It was important that Geneva contribute to the reform discussion being held in New York, for which reason Peru would vote in favour of the draft. However, the situation could have been avoided if the proper regional group consultations had been held.
ZOHRAB MNATSAKANIAN (Armenia), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said more discussions on the proposed text would have led to a consensus. The decision of Armenia in Geneva might not be taken on the same footing in New York. Armenia would abstain in the vote.
RUDOLPH E. BOSCHWITZ (United States), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said for the reasons stated earlier, there should be a vote on the decision, which had been authored in the last moments of the Commission, and the United States would vote "no".
In a decision on the situation of human rights in Liberia (E/CN.4/2005/L.102), adopted as amended and without a vote, the Commission, taking note with appreciation of the report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Liberia (E/CN.4/2005/119), decided to consider the question at its sixty-second session under the same agenda item.
In a decision (E/CN.4/2005/L.103) on technical cooperation and advisory services in the field of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Commission decided to take note of the report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Chad, to commend the cooperation by the Government of Chad, with the Independent Expert and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding the promotion and protection of fundamental rights, and welcomed with satisfaction the readiness of the Government of Chad to accept the opening of an office of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Chad.
Chairperson's Statement on Human Rights Situation in Colombia
The Commission adopted a Chairperson's Statement on the human rights situation in Colombia, without a vote, by which it welcomed the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on Colombia; strongly supported the activities of the Office the High Commissioner in Colombia; and trusted that the Government of Colombia would continue to actively support and promote the Office in carrying out its full mandate; and called upon the Government to make full use of the services of advice and technical cooperation of the Office. The Commission welcomed the cooperation of the Government with United Nations bodies and mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights.
The Commission expressed grave concerns at the situation of human rights and international humanitarian law. It was particularly alarmed at reported violations of the rights to life, personal integrity, freedom and security, due process, privacy and intimacy. It was also concerned about reported breaches of fundamental freedoms of movement, residence, opinion and expression. It recognized the efforts of the Government to strengthen respect for civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and took note of the efforts to investigate violations of human rights.
The Commission urged that dialogue and negotiations be pursued between the Government and all illegal armed groups, and supported the Government in its search for a negotiated solution to the internal armed conflict. It reaffirmed its support for the London Declaration of 10 July 2003, as well as the Cartagena Declaration adopted on 3 February 2005. It stressed its full support for the Government in its efforts to establish the rule of law, to fight against immunity, and to fight against terrorism and illicit drug production and trafficking in the framework of the rule of law and respect for human rights. Further, the Commission urged the Government to establish as soon as possible a comprehensive legal framework for the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration process of the illegal armed groups that fully recognized and guaranteed the rights to truth, justice and reparations.
Further, the Commission was concerned about continuing cases of problems relating to access to justice, judicial independence and impartiality, judicial guarantees and presumption of innocence. It appealed to the Government to increasingly address the issue of impunity and to take action to improve the capacity and effectiveness of the judicial system. It also urged that international human rights law and international humanitarian law be taken into account in the process of reform of the justice system.
The Commission condemned all breaches of international humanitarian law in Colombia and called on all parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law, including the humanitarian principles of distinction, limitation, proportionality and immunity of the civilian population. It also condemned massacres and cruel violence, the continued breaches by the paramilitary groups of the cessation of hostilities, and the fact that all illegal armed groups continued to use violent means and to commit serious and numerous breaches such as attacks on civilian population, discriminate attacks, homicides, massacres, hostage-taking or forced disappearances.
Further, the Commission strongly condemned all acts of terrorism and other criminal attacks, such as attacks against life, physical integrity and personal liberty and safety, committed by the illegal armed groups. It strongly urged all illegal armed groups to comply with international humanitarian law and to respect the legitimate exercise by the population of their human rights.
The Commission deplored that human rights defenders, including trade unionists, women's organizations, social leaders, as well as journalists, opinion makers and local officials continued to be affected by the armed conflict, and to be the victims of homicides and threats by the illegal armed groups. It remained deeply concerned by the still extremely high number of internally displaced persons. The Commission deplored the continued violence against indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities, and expressed grave concern at the situation of those communities that were being subjected to confinement. It further condemned the continuing violence of the rights of women and girls, and the climate of impunity. It also deplored violations to the right of children.
In conclusion, the Commission called upon the international community to continue to support the prompt implementation by all relevant parties of the recommendations of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and requested the High Commissioner to submit to it at its sixty-second session a detailed report on the human rights situation of Colombia.
Comments at the End of Taking Action Under the Agenda Item on the Organization of Work of the Session
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, regarding the text on the situation of detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, said Argentina had maintained a constant position in order to ensure that respect for human rights in the fight against terrorism was followed. At the present session, the United States delegation had shown the will to meet with the regional groups to give more information on this subject, and on United States judicial decisions which had clarified the position of the detainees, and had held a discussion with the relevant Special Rapporteurs regarding their possible visit to the base. Argentina sought to ensure full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and affirmed its full support for the international system for protecting universal human rights. It was prejudicial that some States used the Commission to criticize the situations in other States, or to avoid criticism of their own situations, as this undermined the contribution the Commission could make.
MOHAMED LOUTFY (Egypt), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said States should respect the human rights of all citizens while combating terrorism. The delegation of Egypt had abstained from voting on the resolution on the detainees in Guantanamo. Intense efforts had been continuing on the issue. Some detainees had already been released.
ALEXEY VLASOV (Russian Federation), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said regarding the general orientation of L.94 Rev 1, the problems referred to within went beyond the actual title and framework of the document. Russia was in favour of a pitiless war against international terrorism, but saw the legal aspects in ensuring that all should be protected from terrorism whilst observing human rights standards in combating it. Human rights observers should not be diminished because of a debate on governmental level on what practices might be considered under torture and unlimited detention without charges being brought. The possibility of using evidence that could have been derived through torture was also an issue. Certain Governments not observing human rights in this law could also be referred to in this connection. All of this was food for thought and areas where the new Special Rapporteur could work on in his report. At the same time, the wording to be found in paragraph 1 of the operative part of the resolution should be commensurate with an attempt to establish the facts, and this went beyond the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. This was why the Russian Federation had abstained from the vote. The United States was urged to cooperate with the special mechanisms of the Commission regarding those persons held in detention in Guantanamo, and the thematic procedures should be allowed to visit as rapidly as possible.
YUSUKE ARAI (Japan), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that, with respect to the decision taken yesterday on the organization of the work of the sixty-second session of the Commission and its programme budgetary implications, Japan wished to express concern at the situation in which new budgetary implications continued to increase in many areas of the Commission's work, while the United Nations' regular budget continued to decrease. Moreover, the current text had been circulated only shortly before its adoption, and the same had occurred at the sixtieth session of the Commission. The Secretariat should improve its work for circulation to allow States to have an appropriate length of time in which to consider programme budgetary implications.
* *** *
For use of information only; not an official record
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: