Commission adopts measures on racism, right to development, protection of human rights and effective functioning of human rights mechanisms

Commission on Human Rights
58th session
25 April 2002
Afternoon



The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon adopted 16 resolutions and decisions under its agenda items on racism and racial discrimination, the right to development, the promotion and protection of human rights, and the effective functioning of human rights mechanisms.
Concerning racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination, the Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 37 in favour and 11 opposed, with 5 abstentions, a resolution in which it called upon all States to formulate and implement plans of action to combat racism and related intolerance; to propose measures to ensure full and effective access to the justice system by people of African descent; and decided to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for three years and to appoint Doudou Diene in order to take advantage of his expertise in this field.
Under its agenda item on the right to development, the Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 38 in favour, none against, and 15 abstentions, a resolution in which it urged developed countries that had not done so to make concrete efforts towards meeting the targets of 0.7 per cent of their gross national products for official development assistance to developing countries; stressed that the basic responsibility for all human rights lay with the State, and reaffirmed that States had the primary responsibility for their own economic and social development; and decided to extend the mandate of the Working Group on the right to development for one year.
With regards to the promotion and protection of human rights, the Commission adopted a number of resolutions and decisions. In a resolution on the promotion of the right of peoples to peace, adopted by a roll-call vote of 33 in favour and 15 opposed, with 5 abstentions, the Commission urged all States to refrain from using weapons with indiscriminate effects on human health, the environment and economic and social well-being; called upon all States to contribute to the objective of the peaceful use of outer space and the prevention of an arms race in outer space; and urged all States to refrain from taking measures to encourage a resurgence of a new arms race.
In a resolution on the question of the death penalty, adopted with a roll-call vote of 25 in favour and 20 against, with 8 abstentions, the Commission urged all States to comply fully with their obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, notably not to impose the death penalty for any but the most serious crimes and only pursuant to a final judgement rendered by an independent and impartial competent court, not to impose it for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age, to exclude pregnant women from capital punishment and to ensure the right to a fair trial.
Also under the promotion and protection of human rights, the Commission adopted measures on human rights defenders, the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, human rights and international solidarity, human rights and human responsibilities, the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education, human rights, the environment and sustainable development, reservations to human rights treaties, fundamental standards of humanity, the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights, the status of the International Covenants on Human Rights, and impunity.
Under its agenda item on effective functioning of human rights mechanisms, the Commission adopted a resolution on the composition of the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights by a roll-call vote of 36 in favour and 14 opposed, with three abstentions, in which it expressed its concern that one region accounted for more than half of the posts of the Office and more posts than the four remaining regional groups combined; and requested the Joint Inspection Unit to undertake a comprehensive review of the management and administration of the Office, in particular with regard to its impact on recruitment policies and the composition of the staff, and to submit a report thereon to the Commission at its sixtieth session.
Speaking this afternoon were representatives of the Czech Republic, Spain (on behalf of the European Union), Venezuela, Canada, Pakistan, India, Algeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libya, Saudi Arabia ( on behalf of 44 countries) and the Russian Federation.
The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Friday, 26 April, to continue to take action on the remaining draft resolutions on its agenda and to conclude its fifty-eighth session.
Action on Resolution on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and All Forms of Discrimination
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002/L.12) on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, adopted by a roll-call vote of 37 in favour to 11 against, with 5 abstentions, the Commission called upon all States to formulate and implement plans of action to combat racism and related intolerance; invited them to give widespread publicity to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; invited all relevant bodies of the United Nations system to strengthen and adjust their activities, programmes and medium-term strategies to implement and follow up on the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; and emphasized that remembering the crimes and wrongs of the past, wherever and whenever they occurred, unequivocally condemning its racist tragedies and telling the truth about history were essential elements for international reconciliation and the creation of societies based on justice, equality and solidarity.
The Commission decided to establish an intergovernmental Working Group to make recommendations on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and to prepare complementary international standards to strengthen and update international instruments against racism; decided to establish a Working Group of five independent experts of people of African descent, to meet for two sessions of five working days each prior to the fifty-ninth session of the Commission to study the problems of racial discrimination faced by people of African descent living in the Diaspora; to propose measures to ensure full and effective access to the justice system by people of African descent; to submit recommendations on the design, implementation and enforcement of effective measures to eliminate racial profiling of people of African descent; and to elaborate short-, medium- and long-term proposals for elimination of racial discrimination against such people, including proposals for a mechanism to monitor and promote all their human rights.
The Commission recognized that the success of the Durban Programme of Action required political will and adequate funding at the national, regional and international levels, and international cooperation; decided to establish a voluntary fund to provide, among other things, additional resources for the effective implementation of the Declaration and Programme of Action; strongly appealed to all Governments and relevant organizations and individuals in a position to do so to contribute generously to the Trust Fund for the Programme of Action for the Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination; requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to submit an analytical report to the Commission at its next session on the extent of the implementation of the Programme of Action prior to its ending in 2003; urged States to ratify or accede to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; and decided to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for three years and to appoint Doudou Diene as Special Rapporteur.
The above resolution was accepted as a whole by a roll-call vote of 37 in favour to 11 against, with 5 abstentions after a separate vote on operative paragraph 38 was approved by a recorded vote of 26 in favour to 14 against, with 13 abstentions. Operative paragraph 38 should read as follows: "Decides to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for three years and to appoint Doudou Diene as Special Rapporteur, in order to take advantage of his expertise in this field."
The result of the vote on L.12 was as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.
Against:Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Abstentions:Armenia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Japan and Republic of Korea.
The result of the vote on operative paragraph 38 was as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Bahrain, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Viet Nam and Zambia.
Against: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Abstentions: Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Japan, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay and Venezuela.
ALEXANDER SLABY(the Czech Republic) said that it was the responsibility of all members of the international community to be united in the fight against racism. The Czech Republic felt that breaking the established rules was the most serious problem faced by the Commission in connection with draft L.12 and thus the Czech Republic had offered a remedy, which if accepted would have allowed it to support the text as a whole. The Czech Republic regretted that this attempt was refused by some countries. As a result the Czech Republic was not able to vote in favour of L.12 and would abstain.
INIGO DE PALACIO ESPANA (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union, regretted the use of this procedure in the appointment of the Special Rapporteur. Given the new Special Rapporteur's prestige and eminent position, the European Union would support him wholeheartedly, but it was hoped that this would not set a precedent for the future procedural work of the Commission.

Action on Resolution on the Right to Development
In a resolution on the right to development (E/CN.4/2002/L.14), adopted by a roll-call vote of 38 in favour to none against, with 15 abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed the need for an international environment which was conducive to the realization of the right to development; recognized the need for effective implementation and fulfilment of internationally agreed targets adopted at various international conferences and summits, with particular emphasis on those contained in the Millennium Declaration, within the agreed time frames; reaffirmed the commitment to and urged developed countries that had not done so to make concrete efforts towards meeting the targets of 0.7 per cent of their gross national products for official development assistance to developing countries; recognized the need to address market access for developing countries, including in agriculture, services and non-agricultural products, in particular those of interest to developing countries; recognized that historical injustices had undeniably contributed to the poverty, underdevelopment, marginalization and other negative factors that affected many people in different parts of the world, in particular in developing countries; considered that a desirable pace of meaningful trade liberalization was important for making progress towards implementation of the right to development; stressed that the basic responsibility for all human rights lay with the State, and reaffirmed that States had the primary responsibility for their own economic and social development; affirmed that while globalization offered both opportunities and challenges, the process remained deficient in achieving the objectives of integrating all countries in a globalized world; stressed the need for broadening the base of decision-making at the international level on issues of development concern and to fill organizational gaps; recognized that good governance and the rule of law assisted with development; recognized the important role and the rights of women in the process of realizing development; recognized that measures must be taken to fight HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases, taking into account ongoing efforts and programmes; recognized that there was considerable scope to further improve the activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in promoting the right to development; and decided to extend the mandate of the Working Group on the right to development for one year.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.
Against: None
Abstentions: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
WERNER CORRALES LEAL (Venezuela) said that the Working Group on the right to development had drafted a text that was adopted by consensus. However, Venezuela expressed concern over the fact that the consensus achieved in the Working Group had not been continued. It was hoped that it would be possible to move forward in the realization of the right to development
INIGO DE PALACIO ESPANA (Spain), on behalf of the European Union, said that the Union regretted that the draft resolution disregarded the integrity of the agreed conclusions of the Working Group. These conclusions must pave the way for the concrete implementation of the right to development and the resolution should have assisted in that regard simply by endorsing the Working Group conclusions and by extending the Working Group's mandate. Instead the sponsors chose to disregard the language painstakingly agreed upon. The European Union would not fail to bear this issue in mind when participating in the next session of the Working Group. The European Union called for a registered vote on this draft resolution and would abstain.
MARIE GERVAIS-VIDRICAIRE (Canada) said that it was pleased that the Working Group on the right to development was able to reach agreement on an outcome. The discussions at the Working Group were very productive, covering a vast range of issues. Canada was disappointed that the sponsors chose to present a draft resolution that was unbalanced and did not reflect properly the discussions in the Working Group. Canada continued to have several concerns regarding the text, including the imbalance in the consideration of the international and national dimensions.
Canada also continued to have doubts regarding the capacity of the Independent Expert to prepare a study on the impact of international financial and economic issues on the enjoyment of human rights. Canada also had concerns regarding the reference to core principles applicable to the international economic, commercial and financial spheres in operative paragraph 22. The proposal for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to undertake a study on the core principles was problematic as it was unclear what the focus or parameters of the report would be and whether in fact it would be useful.

Action on Resolutions and Decisions on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
In a resolution adopted without a vote (E/CN.4/2002/L.89) on human rights defenders, the Commission called upon all States to promote and give full effect to the Declaration on the Rights and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; condemned all human rights violations committed against human rights defenders around the world; called upon all States to ensure the protection of human rights defenders; urged States to address the question of impunity for threats, attacks and acts of intimidation against human rights defenders; urged all Governments to cooperate with the Special Representative on the topic; and urged those Governments that had not yet responded to communications from the Special Representative to do so without further delay.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002/L.90) on the promotion of the right of peoples to peace, adopted by a roll-call vote of 33 in favour and 15 against, with 5 abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed that the peoples of the planet had a sacred right to peace; declared that preservation of that right constituted a fundamental obligation of each State; emphasised that States should direct policies towards elimination of the threat of war, particularly nuclear war and the renunciation of the use or threat of use of force in international relations; urged the international community to devote part of the resources made available by the implementation of disarmament and arms-limitation agreements to economic and social development, with a view to reducing the ever-widening gap between developed and developing countries; urged all States to refrain from using weapons with indiscriminate effects on human health, the environment and economic and social well-being; called upon all States to contribute to the objective of the peaceful use of outer space and the prevention of an arms race in outer space; and urged all States to refrain from taking measures to encourage a resurgence of a new arms race.
The results of the vote were as follows:
In favour: In favour: Algeria, Armenia, Bahrain, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.
Against:Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Abstentions: Argentina, Brazil, Guatemala, India and Senegal.
JOAQUIN PEREZ VILLANUEVA Y TOVAR (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union and other countries, said that the European Union believed that some issues raised in the present resolution were better dealt with in other fora, which had the competence and which were already dealing with these issues. The draft resolution contained in document L.90 dealt with the relationship between States, and not with the relationship between the State and its citizens and the exercise of individuals' human rights vis-a-vis the State, which was the core mandate of the Commission on Human Rights. The European Union was also uncomfortable with the idea set out in the resolution that there was a right to peace, which was not established in any international human rights instrument.
MARIE GERVAIS-VIDRICAIRE (Canada) said that draft resolution L.90 reiterated several provisions and concepts from the Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace, adopted by the General Assembly in 1984. Canada did not support that resolution at that time. Canada had questions and concerns with respect to the concept of the "right to peace", including what the content of that right would be. Canada would be voting against L. 90.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002/L.91 on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, adopted by a roll-call vote of 32 in favour to 15 against, with 6 abstentions, the Commission called upon Member States to fulfil their commitment expressed during the World Conference against Racism to maximize the benefits of globalization through, among other things, strengthening and enhancement of international cooperation to increase equality of opportunities for trade, economic growth and sustainable development, global communications through the use of new technologies, and increased inter-cultural exchange through the preservation and promotion of cultural diversity, and reiterated that only through broad and sustained efforts to create a shared future could globalization be made fully inclusive and equitable; affirmed that a democratic and equitable international order required, among other things, the right to self-determination; permanent sovereignty of peoples and nations over their natural wealth and resources; the right to development; the right to peace; an international economic order based on equal participation in the decision-making process; solidarity; a free, effective and balanced international information and communication order; respect for cultural diversity and cultural rights; a healthy environment; and benefits from the international distribution of wealth through enhanced international cooperation; and urged States to continue their efforts, through enhanced international cooperation, towards the establishment of a democratic and equitable international order.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.
Against: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Abstentions: Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay.
JOAQUIN PEREZ VILLANUEVA Y TOVAR (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU), said that the EU continued to believe that some of the issues raised in L.91 were important. However, the EU believed that these issues went beyond the mandate as well as the competence and expertise of this Commission and that they therefore were more effectively dealt with in other fora.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002/L.92) on human rights and international solidarity, adopted by a roll-call vote of 38 in favour to 15 against, with no abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed the interdependence between the concepts of democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; welcomed the recognition set forth in the declaration adopted by the heads of State and Government at the Millennium Summit of the fundamental value of solidarity to international relations, in stating that global challenges must be managed in a way that distributed costs and burdens fairly, in accordance with the basic principles of equality and social justice, and that those who suffered, or who benefited least, deserved help from those who benefited most; expressed its determination to contribute towards the solution of current world problems through increased international cooperation; urged the international community to consider urgently ways to promote and consolidate international assistance to developing countries in their endeavours for development and for the promotion of conditions that made possible the full realization of all human rights; recognized that the so-called "third generation rights" or "right to solidarity" needed further development within the United Nations human rights machinery; and requested the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to undertake a study on the implementation of the present resolution.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.
Against: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
JOAQUIN PEREZ VILLANUEVA Y TOVAR (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU), said that L.92 dealt only with the relationship between States. The resolution also failed to reflect the advances and efforts made by the international community, including the EU, and the relevant international organizations in trying to address obstacles to development. The EU therefore doubted the value of promoting an initiative on international solidarity which failed to take account of consensus and decisions adopted in other fora. It would vote against the resolution.
MARIE GERVAIS-VIDRICAIRE (Canada) said international cooperation was important, however the Canadian delegation had concerns about the paragraphs on globalization, and the links made between international assistance, development and respect for human rights. Furthermore, the delegation was unclear about what certain provisions were supposed to entail. The draft resolution also referred to relations between States and not between States and their citizens, which was what the focus of the Commission should be. Canada would be voting against this resolution.
In a decision (E/CN.4/2002/L.95) on human rights and human responsibilities, adopted by a roll-call vote of 33 in favour to 14 against, with 6 abstentions, the Commission decided to recommend a draft decision to the Economic and Social Council that would request the Special Rapporteur on the topic of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to submit to the Commission his final report at the Commission's fifty-ninth session.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Bahrain, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.
Against: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Abstentions: Argentina, Armenia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Peru and Republic of Korea.
JOAQUIN PEREZ VILLANUEVA Y TOVAR (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU), said that the EU did not support the request for a study on the issue of human rights and human responsibilities, and believed that by asking the Subcommission expert to present his report directly to the Commission, the draft decision ignored normal practice whereby reports were first discussed by the Subcommission. Consequently, the EU would vote against the draft decision contained in document L.95
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002/L.97) on the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education, adopted without a vote, the Commission urged all Governments to contribute further to the implementation of the Plan of Action for the Decade, in particular by encouraging the establishment of national committees for human rights education and initiating and developing cultural and educational programmes aimed at countering racism and related intolerance; encouraged Governments to support further, through voluntary contributions, the education and public information efforts undertaken by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights within the framework of the Plan of Action; requested the Office of the High Commissioner to continue and expand the "Assisting Communities Together" project; invited the International Telecommunication Union to include the contribution of information technology to human rights education in the preparatory process of the World Summit on the Information Society, as well as the Summit itself, to be convened in Geneva in December 2003; and requested the Office of the High Commissioner to develop and present to the fifty-ninth session of the Commission a study, in cooperation with all relevant actors, on the follow up to the Decade for Human Rights Education which will include, inter alia, possible means to strengthen human rights education at the national, regional and international levels.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002/L.98) on human rights, the environment and sustainable development, adopted without a vote, the Commission recognized that human rights, the environment and sustainable development were interdependent and interrelated; reaffirmed that no persons promoting the protection of the environment should be penalized, persecuted or harassed for their activities and that effective mechanisms to prevent and redress any such harm must be established, including remedies for victims; expressed the need for environmental justice to combat all forms of environmental discrimination, as reflected in the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action; invited all concerned international institutions and agencies to exchange information and share expertise on environmental matters, poverty eradication and capacity-building; invited the World Summit on Sustainable Development to examine the progress achieved since the Conference on Environment and Development in promoting and protecting human rights in relation to environmental questions and sustainable development; requested the Secretary-General to submit to the Commission at its fifty-ninth session a report on the outcome of the World Summit and other international legal developments relating to human rights, the environment and sustainable development; and decided to continue its consideration of this question at its fifty-ninth session under the agenda item entitled "promotion and protection of human rights: 17 (d) Science and environment", taking into account the relevant outcome agreed at the World Summit on Social Development and the report of those special procedures of the Commission on Human Rights which were asked to participate and contributed to the World Summit on Social Development.
In a adopted without a vote resolution (E/CN.4/2002/L.100/Rev.1) on Subcommission resolution 2000/17 on reservations to human rights treaties, the Commission took note of resolution 2001/17 of 16 August 2001 of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and decided to reaffirm its decision 2001/113 of 25 April 2001, and in this regard requested the Subcommission to continue to keep in mind the work on reservations underway in the International Law Commission.
In a adopted without a vote resolution, (E/CN.4/2002/ L.101) on fundamental standards of humanity, the Commission on Human Rights, recalling its resolution 2000/69 of 26 April and its decision 2001/112 of 25 April 2001, taking note of the report of the Secretary-General on fundamental standards of humanity (E/CN.4/2002/103), decided to consider the question of fundamental standards of humanity at its sixtieth session and to request the Secretary-General, in consultation with the International Committee of the Red Cross, to submit to the Commission at its sixtieth session an analytical report which would consolidate and update previous reports and studies, cover relevant developments, including regional and international case law and the forthcoming study by the International Committee of the Red Cross on customary rules of international humanitarian law, and address the issue of securing implementation.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002/102) on the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights, adopted by adopted without a vote, the Commission recognized that transparent, responsible, accountable and participatory governance, responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people, was the foundation on which good governance rested, and that such a foundation was a sine qua non for the promotion of human rights, including the right to development; emphasized the need to promote partnership approaches to international development cooperation and to ensure that prescriptive approaches to good governance did not impede such cooperation; welcomed the provision by States of practical examples of activities that had strengthened good governance practices; and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights, using extra-budgetary funding and working jointly with the United Nations Development Programme, to convene a seminar on the issue of practical approaches and activities that had been effective in strengthening good governance practices.
FARRUKH IQBAL KHAN (Pakistan) said that it supported and joined the consensus on the resolution. However, it was concerned about operative paragraph 5, particularly with regard to a seminar on the issue of good governance. Pakistan was concerned some developing countries would not be able to participate and reiterated that all seminars on issues on good governance should be inclusive.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002/L.104) on the question of the death penalty, adopted by a roll-call vote of 25 in favour to 20 against, with 8 abstentions, the Commission called upon States parties to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights to consider acceding to or ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant, aimed at abolition of the death penalty; urged all States that still maintained the penalty to comply fully with their obligations under the Covenant and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, notably not to impose the death penalty for any but the most serious crimes and only pursuant to a final judgement rendered by an independent and impartial competent court, not to impose it for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age, to exclude pregnant women from capital punishment and to ensure the right to a fair trial and the right to seek pardon or commutation of sentence; not to impose the death penalty on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder or to execute such a person; progressively to restrict the number of offences for which the death penalty could be imposed; to establish a moratorium on executions; called upon States which no longer applied the death penalty but maintained it in their legislation to abolish it; and requested States that had received a request for extradition on a capital charge to reserve explicitly the right to refuse extradition in the absence of effective assurances that capital punishment would not be carried out.
The above resolution was adopted as a whole by a roll-call vote of 25 in favour to 20 against, with 8 abstentions, after a separate vote to delete operative paragraphs 4(g), 5(b) and 7 of the draft was rejected by a recorded vote of 18 in favour to 27 against, with 7 abstentions.
The result of the vote on the whole text was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay et Venezuela.
Against: Algeria, Bahrain, Burundi, China, Indonesia, Japan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda et Viet Nam.
Abstentions: Cameroon, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Senegal et Zambia.
The result of the vote on deleting some operative paragraphs was as follows:
In favour: Bahrain, Burundi, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand and Viet Nam.
Against: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Togo, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Venezuela
Abstentions: Cameroon, Guatemala, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Pakistan, Senegal, Uganda and Zambia.
SHARAT SABHARWAL (India) said that the international community had not reached a consensus on the issue of capital punishment. India agreed with some of the goals of L.104 relating to the need to resort to capital punishment only for the most serious crimes and through the due process of law, in strict accordance with international human rights standards. In India, the death penalty was imposed only in the rarest of cases, when the crimes committed were so heinous that they shocked the conscience of society. It was therefore an exception rather than the rule. Death sentences in India must be confirmed by a superior court. The accused had the right to appeal to a High Court or the Supreme Court and to file a mercy petition before the Governor of the State concerned or the President of India. Further, India had express provisions for suspension of the death penalty in the case of pregnant women, and juvenile offenders could not be sentenced to death under any circumstances.
MOHAMED-SALAH DEMBRI (Algeria) said this resolution came up every year and posed a problem in humanitarian and humanistic approaches. In Algeria there was a moratorium on capital punishment. The draft before the Commission only gave a biased view. What about assassinations such as those in South Africa, or the execution in one European capital? There was no reference to this in the text. Algeria reiterated its request that this topic be further debated so that the general problem of confidentiality of achieves could be discussed.
ANTOINE MINDUA KESIA-MBE (the Democratic Republic of the Congo) said his delegation had difficulty in approving the resolution on the death penalty. A moratorium on the death penalty had been decreed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as a result of which the death penalty had not been applied for the past year. The problem was one of principle and respect for democracy. The Democratic Republic of the Congo was of the view that its parliament and people should have the right to decide whether or not to abolish capital punishment. This was why the Democratic Republic of the Congo would abstain on the vote.
NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI (Libya) said that resolution L. 104 belonged under the administration of justice and not human rights. Each State had its own way of administering its criminal justice system. For example, the death penalty was not inflicted against pregnant women in Libya. The preference on the issue of the death penalty was to eradicate it. The Government would take legislative measures to that end. Nevertheless, the Libyan delegation would vote against L. 104
ABDULWAHAB ABDULSALAM ATTAR (Saudi Arabia), speaking on behalf of 44 countries, said that it dissociated itself from the European Union's resolution on the question of the death penalty. Because of time constraints, the representative of Saudi Arabia indicated that he would not read out his statement and requested the Chairman to circulate it as an official document of the Commission.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002/L.107) on the Status of the International Covenants on Human Rights, adopted without a vote, the Commission appealed strongly to all States to become parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; emphasised the importance of the strictest compliance by States parties with the obligations under the Covenants; stressed the importance of avoiding the erosion of human rights by derogation; encouraged States parties to limit the extent of any limitations they lodged to the International Covenants, to review any reservations with a view to withdrawing them, and to formulate any reservations as precisely and narrowly as possible; stressed the need for improved coordination between relevant United Nations mechanisms in supporting States parties in implementation of the Covenants; welcomed the efforts of the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to improve the efficiency of their working methods; and stressed the desirability of further considering the issue of justicability of the rights set forth in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as well as the need for further efforts towards developing indicators and benchmarks to strengthen progressively the full realization of these rights.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002/L.109) on impunity, adopted without vote, the Commission emphasised the importance of combatting impunity for human rights violations; the importance of taking all necessary steps to hold accountable perpetrators and their accomplices, recognized that amnesties should not be granted to those who committed violations of international humanitarian and human rights law that constituted serious crimes and urged States to take action in accordance with their obligations under international law; recognized the fundamental importance of the principle of complementarity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; acknowledged the historic significance of the entry into force of the Rome Statute on 1 July 2002 and called upon all States to consider ratifying or acceding to it; called upon States to continue to participate actively in the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court; called upon States to support the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Tribunal for Rwanda and to consider ways of supporting initiatives to establish judicial mechanisms currently under consideration in a few countries in cooperation with the United Nations; commended States which had given financial and other support to the Special Court for Sierra Leone and expressed satisfaction that the Court was in the process of becoming operational; urged States to intensify efforts to provide victims of human rights violations with a fair and equitable process through which those violations could be investigated and made public; welcomed the establishment in some States of truth and reconciliation commissions; recognized that crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture should be prosecuted or extradited by States and urged all States to implement such obligations; and requested the Secretary-General to seek the views of Governments and relevant organizations on the set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity developed by the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

Action on Resolution on Effective Functioning of Human Rights Mechanisms
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002/L.94) on the composition of the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 36 in favour to 14 against, with 3 abstentions, the Commission expressed its concern that no progress had been achieved in the implementation of resolutions on this subject and that one region accounted for more than half of the posts of the Office and more posts than the four remaining regional groups combined; expressed its concern that new recruitments had not been used to correct the imbalance and that more than half of the newly recruited staff came from the same over represented region; considered that it was necessary to take urgent, concrete action to change the currently prevailing distribution of the staff in the Office; requested the Secretary-General to take the necessary measures to ensure that particular attention was paid to recruiting personnel from developing countries, in particular from unrepresented member States, for the existing vacancies and for additional posts in the Office; requested the Secretary-General, in signing agreements with countries as a result of which Junior Professional Officers were provided to the Office, to urge those countries to ensure the allocation of additional financial resources to guarantee that personnel from developing countries were able to work as Junior Professional Officers; stressed that the staff of the Office needed to maintain their neutrality and fully respect the independence of the work of all mechanisms of the Commission and the treaty bodies; requested the High Commissioner to use the policy of new recruitments to correct the current imbalance in the composition of the staff of her Office; requested her to submit a comprehensive report on the implementation of the present resolution to the Commission at its fifty-ninth session; and requested the Joint Inspection Unit to undertake a comprehensive review of the management and administration of the Office, in particular with regard to its impact on recruitment policies and the composition of the staff, and to submit a report thereon to the Commission at its sixtieth session.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia.
Against: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Abstentions: Croatia, Guatemala and Mexico.
JOAQUIN PEREZ VILLANUEVA Y TOVAR (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU), said that the EU reaffirmed its full support and respect for the Secretary-General's prerogatives and responsibilities under the Charter, notably article 100 and 101. Paragraph 3 of article 101 of the UN Charter stated that the paramount consideration in the employment of the staff and in the determination of the conditions of service shall be the necessity of securing the highest standard of efficiency, competence and integrity. The EU regretted that the present draft was deeply unsatisfactory from the legal and technical point of view and also regretted that the amendments it suggested in order to correct those deficiencies were not adopted. Consequently, the EU would vote against.
GRIGORY LUKIYANTSEV (the Russian Federation) said his delegation supported the draft resolution and would vote for it. There truly existed a problem of equal representation of all nations in the Staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
MARIE GERVAIS-VIDRICAIRE (Canada) said that the issue of the composition of the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was beyond the mandate of the Commission. It was not up to the Members to dictate recruitment policies for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.



* *** *