COMMISSION ADOPTS RESOLUTION ON RACISM, HEARS PROPOSED STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR OFFICE OF HIGH COMMISSIONER

22 April 2004



Speakers Raise Issue of Assassination of New Hamas Leader,
Cuba Withdraws Draft Resolution on Guantanamo Bay


The Commission on Human Rights this morning adopted a resolution on racism, xenophobia and related intolerance and conducted an inter-active dialogue with the acting High Commissioner for Human Rights on the proposed Strategic Framework for the biennium 2006-2007.

In a resolution on the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by a roll-call vote of 38 in favour and one opposed, with fourteen abstentions, the Commission acknowledged that no derogation from the prohibition of racial discrimination, genocide, the crime of apartheid or slavery was permitted; stressed that States and international organizations had a responsibility to ensure that measures taken in the struggle against terrorism did not discriminate in purpose or effect on grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin; and regretted that discriminatory immigration laws, policies and practices contributed to the persistence of racism.

Presenting the proposed Strategic Framework for the biennium 2006-2007, acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, Bertrand Ramcharan, said that the format and content of the document had been influenced by the Secretary-General’s reform programme. Where there had been a medium-term plan for four years and a biennial budget for two years, the Strategic Framework combined them into one. The Office of the High Commissioner would continue to strive for the universal realization of all human rights for all and the decisions of policy-making organs would guide this effort. Four sub-programmes were envisaged, the rationale for which was to be found in resolutions of the Commission and the General Assembly.

The proposed Strategic Framework will be submitted by the Secretary-General to the Committee for Programme and Coordination later this year for consideration and referral to the General Assembly.

Participating in the inter-active dialogue which followed the acting High Commissioner’s presentation were Representatives of Cuba, Pakistan and Argentina.

At the top of the meeting, the Commission heard a statement by the Representative of Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, who said every fair-minded nation must condemn such acts as the assassinations of Hamas leaders Sheikh Yassin and Abdelaziz Rantissi, without reservation or political consideration. The international community must make earnest and concrete efforts to stop Israel from engaging in deliberate violence and Israel must show respect for the elementary human rights of the Palestinian people. Israel’s latest crimes warranted a special sitting of the Commission, however, the Organization of the Islamic Conference Member States had refrained from calling for that sitting, mindful that the Commission had entered its last phase.

In response, the Representative of Israel said his country had acted in self-defence and that Hamas was a terrorist organization and had been recognized as such by many countries. The Palestinian Authority should have acted against terrorist groups like Hamas, operating from areas under its control. While the Government remained committed to the two-State solution, it also remained determined to defend its citizens and to fight terrorism.

The Representative of Palestine said that despite the Commission’s resolutions, Israel had not ceased, but had continued, its policy of liquidation of the leadership of Palestine. With political support provided by the United States, Israel felt that it could continue its policy. The Commission and the international community must take steps to put an end to Israel’s crimes and to compel Israel to respect international law.

In other action, the Commission also heard a statement by the Representative of Cuba who withdrew from consideration a proposed draft resolution on the human rights situation in the United States bases at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Action on the draft text related to the human rights situation in Sudan was also postponed until Friday. There was a brief debate about the leaking of a United Nations report on Sudan. Finally, consideration of the request by the Commission for authorization from the Economic and Social Council for additional, fully serviced meetings was deferred until Friday.

Making general comments on the texts considered this morning by the Commission were the Representatives of Japan, United States, United Kingdom, Cuba, India, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Russian Federation, Bahrain, Pakistan and Sudan.

Making statements in explanation before the vote were the Representatives of Ireland (on behalf of the European Union), India, China and Cuba.

Making statements in explanation after the vote were the Representatives of Bhutan, United Kingdom, Egypt and Sudan.

The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Friday, 23 April to take action on outstanding drafts and to conclude its sixtieth session.

Statements Under the Organization of Work of the Commission

SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, recalled that Israel had, less than one month ago, extrajudicially executed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, an elderly and invalid man in a wheelchair, and the leadership of Israel had congratulated the military team that carried out the assassination for performing an outstanding act of bravery and heroism. The Commission had convened in a special sitting to condemn the assassination and had called upon Israel to respect the principles of international humanitarian law and to cease forthwith human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territory. Israel’s response had been swift. A few days ago, Israeli forces had killed Sheikh Yassin’s successor, Abdelaziz Rantissi, in a similarly brutal manner. The occupation continued to manifest itself in the spilling of Palestinian blood in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank and daily acts of slaughter had plunged the Palestinians into a state of endless mourning.

Those killings demonstrated a total disregard for all principles of human rights and international humanitarian law, as well as Israel’s contempt for the Commission’s resolution, he said. Every fair-minded nation must condemn such acts without reservation or political consideration. Furthermore, the Commission need not be reminded that, since the start of the second intifada, more than 2,755 Palestinians had been killed and 28,000 injured. The Organization of the Islamic Conference called upon the international community yet again to make earnest and concrete efforts to stop Israel from engaging in deliberate violence and to desist from practices contravening all norms of international law. Israel must show respect for the elementary human rights of the Palestinian people.

The international community must prevail upon Israel to give up violence and the path of manslaughter, he concluded. It must return to the negotiating table to advance the cause of peace and to carry out the principles enunciated in the Quartet’s proposals. Israel must recognize that targeted killings and extrajudicial executions fomented anger and hate and diminished rather than enhanced security. Moreover, the erection of walls would not provide security, nor would it stem the impulse for self-determination of a people under occupation. Israel prided itself as a democracy wedded to due process and the rule of law. Yet, by any standard, occupation and assassination did not constitute the hallmarks of a law-abiding State. No durable solution to the Palestinian question or state of peace could return to the Middle East in conditions of half freedom-half bondage. The inheritors of Abraham Lincoln’s noble legacy – that a “republic could not survive half slave and half free” – were expected to implement the precepts of that vision for the people of Palestine as well.

Finally, he wished to stress that although the latest crimes against the Palestinians warranted a special sitting of the Commission, the Organization of the Islamic Conference Member States had refrained from calling for that sitting, mindful that the Commission had entered the last phase of its deliberations and that the demands on its time were intense.

YAAKOV LEVY (Israel), speaking as a concerned country, said that having conducted the third special sitting in three years on Israel, the Commission had reached its final week with the Organization of the Islamic Conference seizing yet another opportunity to attack Israel. Hamas was a terrorist organization and had been recognized as such not only by Israel but also by many countries. Hamas, headed by Rantisi, had sent over one hundred suicide-bombers into Israel; and 377 Israelis had been killed in suicide-bombings, and thousands had been injured. Hundreds more Israeli civilians had fallen victim to the ruthless terrorism, innocently riding in buses, dining in restaurants, shopping in malls, studying at the university or just walking down the streets in towns and villages in Israel. Rantissi, like Yassin and other Hamas leaders before him, personally approved dozens of major suicide-bombings. Israel had struck back in self-defence at the sources of terror and even when it had sought to defend itself through a defensive mechanism such as an anti-terrorist fence, it had faced criticism.

The Palestinian Authority should have acted against terrorist groups like Hamas operating from the areas under its control, and against the incitement expounded by Rantissi in the media, in schools and in Mosques. In the absence of any such action, Israel had been compelled to defend its citizens against a continuous wave of suicide-bombings. Israel had recently taken a major initiative to disengage from Gaza, to evacuate all settlements in Gaza and several in the West Bank, and continued to promote the Road Map. The hope was that the Palestinians would seize the opportunity created by the disengagement in order to put an end to the wave of violence and to reengage in a process of dialogue. The Government remained committed to the two-State solution, Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security, as the key to peace in the Middle East. It also remained committed to the Road Map as the only route to achieving the two-State solution. At the same time, Israel was determined to defend its own citizens, to fight terrorism, especially human guided bombs, and the organizations and leaders who condoned, conducted and implemented those abhorrent policies.

NABIL RAMLAWI (Palestine), speaking as a concerned country, said the Commission in its current session had adopted a number of draft resolution related to Israel’s violations of international law, the first of which was related to the assassination of Sheikh Yassin. The Commission had condemned the grave violations of human rights in the occupied territories as well as the assassination, which constituted a contravention of the Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians in times of war. The Commission had noted the liquidation of the leadership of the Palestinians by the Israeli authorities and the impact it would have on the situation there. It had called upon Israel to respect the principles of international humanitarian law, and to put an end to all acts of humanitarian violations. Despite this and all preceding resolutions, Israel had not ceased, indeed it had continued its policy of liquidation of the leadership of Palestine, a policy which was one of extrajudicial killing, exercised in an irresponsible manner.

With the political support of the United States behind Israel in international fora, Israel felt that it could continue its policy. Israel’s history was replete with killings, and had a long list of acts falling under this policy since its establishment, which was a flagrant violation of all international laws that enshrined the right to life and all other fundamental rights. This policy had been blessed by the decision-makers of Israel, and the recent assassination of Abdelaziz Rantissi and his companions was another chapter in this policy, which the Prime Minister announced would continue, and was part of the systematic use of terrorism by Israel. The international community had rejected and condemned these practices which were forbidden by international law and humanitarian law. Israel had extended ever more the extent of its crimes against civilians in the occupied Palestinian territory, exploiting the world’s attention, but realities on the ground showed that Israel was not accountable to the international community for its crimes. The responsibility of Israel for its crimes was daily shown in the occupied territories, with daily bloodletting and assassinations, mistreatment of civilians, destruction of houses and forced displacement. As Israel escalated its practices of violation, the Commission and the international community was called upon to take steps to put an end to Israel’s crimes and to compel that Government to respect the norms and standards of international law.

Action on Draft Measure on Organization of the Work of the Session

The Commission deferred its final decision on a measure requesting authorization from the Economic and Social Council for additional, fully serviced meetings until the conclusion of its work tomorrow.

HIDENOBU SOBASHIMA (Japan) said that his delegation had repeatedly voiced its concern over the ever-increasing requirements for the budget, without prioritisation of those needs. Of course, the Commission’s meetings should be a priority activity, however, Japan remained concerned about the lack of expectation that the needs of the Commission could be resolved with existing financial resources. Therefore, he requested that the number of meetings should not exceed the number expected. And while it was pleasing to see funding for only six, instead of eight, additional meetings requested, this continued to constitute a programme budget implication and, therefore, he requested that action on the issue be proposed postponed until the work of the Commission was concluded.

JEFFREY DE LAURENTIS (United States) said that the substance of the remarks made by Japan was agreed with. It was puzzled as to why when an afternoon had been taken off this week. The Commission could end today because it had been extraordinarily well run this year. So why would additional meetings be needed the next year. If the Secretariat could comment, this would be appreciated. There was agreement with Japan in effect that it would be better to leave the issue until Friday.

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said he agreed with the proposition put forward by Japan not to take immediate action so that they would have more time to reflect on the matter.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that he had no difficulty with delaying the consideration of the decision until the following day, as proposed by Japan. However, he also wished to recognize that the Chairmanship of the present Commission had been extraordinarily punctual and had set an excellent example. However, it had been demonstrated that there continued to be a need, on certain days, to have extended meetings of the Commission. Therefore, the additional meetings were of fundamental importance to prevent continued wasting of discussion and of costs implied therein. If the Commission reduced the possibility for holding extra meetings, it would also reduce the amount of time allotted for participation by non-governmental organizations. Moreover, given the number of confrontational resolutions aimed against developing countries, reducing the number of extra meetings would make it more difficult to discuss the issues properly. Cuba continued to support the decision that had been tabled, and did not wish to tie the hands of future Chairs.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said in 2002 the Commission had appeared to be upset at not being able to meet through the night, after it had been told to stop meetings at 6 p.m. There had been great lamentations, with Members saying that this would make it impossible to get all the work done, and the cause of human rights would suffer. The Chairman of this session had shown that effective management of time allowed for work to often be completed ahead of schedule. India was not persuaded that what was required was an institutionalised extension of time. India was flexible, but did not think that an institutionalised extension was required. Those who did want this should make a proper case for it.

MICHAEL STEINER (Germany) thanked the Chairperson for his strict time management, which had allowed the Commission to complete its work promptly. Even with strict time-management, the Commission needed additional meeting time to address other important issues. The time needed was not to be institutionalised but should be considered as a contingency measures, as suggested by the Bureau.

CARLOS ANTONIO DA ROCHA PARANHOS (Brazil) said it fully agreed with the suggestion contained in the draft resolution, as the language was sufficiently flexible, and was not inducing an obligation to hold six extra meetings. The flexibility should be kept.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), speaking along the same lines as Brazil, said Argentina noted that some Special Rapporteurs had not had an inter-active dialogue this session with the Commission, as they had come at the wrong time. If inter-active dialogues were to be held, the language of the draft resolution should be flexible enough to allow this.

Action on Draft Resolution on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and All Forms of Discrimination

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.2/Rev.2) on the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by a roll-call vote of 38 in favour and one opposed, with fourteen abstentions, the Commission acknowledged that no derogation from the prohibition of racial discrimination, genocide, the crime of apartheid or slavery was permitted, as defined in the obligations under the relevant human rights instruments; stressed that States and international organizations had a responsibility to ensure that measures taken in the struggle against terrorism did not discriminate in purpose or effect on grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, and urged all States to rescind or refrain from all forms of racial profiling; regretted that discriminatory immigration laws, policies and practices, including enforcement mechanisms, contributed to the persistence of racism; and reiterated the call made by the World Conference against Racism for universal ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination by 2005 and for all States to consider making the declaration under article 14 of the Convention, and expressed concern that at the current pace, the deadline for universal ratification would regrettably not be realized.

The Commission called upon all States that had not yet complied with the recommendations of the Conference urgently to demonstrate will and commitment towards the fulfilment of these recommendations; welcomed the outcome of the Intergovernmental Working Group to make recommendations on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; called upon the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to implement all the relevant recommendations of the second session of the Group and to submit a progress report in that regard to the Commission at its sixty-first session; recognized the centrality of resource mobilization, effective global partnership and international cooperation in the context of paragraphs 157 and 158 of the Durban Programme of Action; and invited the High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide States, at their request, with advisory services and technical assistance to enable them to implement fully the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (38): Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

Against (1): United States.

Abstentions (14): Australia , Austria, Croatia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile), said in a general comment in reference to the third section of the text, that during the consultations his delegation had explained that the section should be transparent and explicitly recognize the work of the Working Group. Despite that his delegation would approve the text as a whole.

JEFFREY DE LAURENTIS (United States) said in a general comment that his country remained committed to the fight against racism, xenophobia and related intolerance wherever they occurred. However, due to its concerns about the Durban World Conference on Racism, the United States could not join the consensus. Therefore, the United States would call for a vote and would vote against the draft resolution. However, he wished to express his country’s appreciation for the text’s recognition of persistent problems of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Christanophobia, as well as the emergence of new, discriminatory groups.

ALEXEY AKZHIGITOV (Russian Federation), in a general comment, said combating racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia and related phenomena was one of the principal tasks of the Commission, with the item being one of the most important elements of the agenda. The text was as balanced as possible, containing a plan for the elimination of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia and related phenomena. However, it was regretted that during consultations it had not been possible to reach a consensus, and some voices from the African Continent had not been heard. The call for a vote on this resolution which was important for all States was unfortunate. The Russian Federation would vote in favour of the draft resolution.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the Union had repeatedly stressed that international follow-up to the Durban Conference on Racism should be agreed by consensus and it was in that spirit that European Union members had remained engaged in the negotiations on the relevant resolutions at the Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly. However, this year the opportunity to arrive at a consensus resolution had been missed once more, despite the constructive approach of the coordinator of the African Group. During consultations, the European Union had proposed a number of amendments, the main thrust of which had aimed at readjusting the present draft with the conclusions and recommendations of the second session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, which had been adopted by consensus. Other proposed amendments addressed issues such as the importance of national action plans and the responsibility of States, the universal ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, the gender perspective and multiple discrimination. And while welcoming that some of those proposals had been taken on board, some essential elements had not been accepted. Those proposals mainly aimed to better reflect language agreed upon at Durban.

Moreover, she continued, the references to complementary standards to existing international instruments to combat racism were problematic. Any process of elaborating any complementary standards should be preceded by an in-depth assessment of the implementation of existing standards. And while the European Union agreed on the idea of examining the possibility of assessing inequalities based on race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, it could not accept the use of a “racial equality index” without strong reservations, as that would be contrary to the legislation of many European Union Member States. The Union could not make classifications on the basis of race and develop instruments like the proposed index. There must be other, less controversial, ways of assessment on this issue. For these reasons, the Union could not support the text, but in recognition of the efforts of all parties to reach better cooperation, it would abstain in the vote.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said in an explanation of the vote before the vote that the fight against racism was a high priority for his country. All States should strictly follow up the outcome of the Durban Conference: the Declaration and Programme of Action. His delegation saw no problem as to why the text should not be approved by consensus. Eradication of racism was a paramount task for all nations. India would approve the draft resolution and requested others to do the same.

LA YIFAN (China), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination were a grave violation of human rights. Regrettably, after the Durban conference the international community had registered limited progress in fighting racism, and new forms of racism were cropping up. The consultations on behalf of the African Group were appreciated, and the draft resolution was objective and balanced. It was greatly regretted that some members had divergent views on the item and draft resolution, and had asked for a vote. China was in favour of the content of the draft resolution, and would vote for it.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that he wished to thank the African Group for its work upon the draft text on what was one of the most important issues before the Commission and regretted that it could not be adopted by consensus, in spite of the flexibility shown. He called upon all States to return to the Commission next year determined to adopt a resolution on combating racism, xenophobia and related intolerance by consensus. All should work to do away with the double standards that continued to be in evidence in the Commission. Today some groups were confronted with counter-forces in the international community. There should be in-depth analysis of the effects of such positions.

Consideration of a Draft Resolution on Question of the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in any Part of the World

The Commission postponed consideration of L.36 on the situation of human rights in Sudan until tomorrow for consultations.

SAEED MOHAMED AL-FAIHANI (Bahrain) said that the media had reported on an official United Nations report on the situation in Sudan, and asked why this document had been leaked when it was not available to members of the Commission.

BERTRAND RAMCHARAN, Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that as Members of the Commission knew, he had asked the Sudanese authorities to receive a mission to Khartoum and Darfur, and they had indicated they were considering this. He had sent a mission to the Chadian border with Sudan to investigate and report on the situation. A preliminary report had been submitted on Monday evening (19 April), and preparations were made for its publication as an official document of the Commission. It contained reports of troubling allegations of human rights violations. Following reception of the preliminary report, an invitation was received from the Government of Sudan inviting the mission to the country. The Expanded Bureau of the Commission had been briefed and a decision had been made not to distribute the report. The mission left for Sudan on Tuesday (20 April). Many quarters had pressed for the release of the document, and one group had made a formal request. The Acting High Commissioner had held to the view that he would not release the report, since the team was on the ground, and security issues were a consideration. Also, they should be allowed to view the situation first-hand. The High Commissioner had asked that the mission be allowed to visit Darfur immediately. For these reasons, he held to his decision not to release the document, and none of his colleagues had done so. Should the mission have difficulties on the ground, the report would be issued immediately.

SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan) said the leakage of the document on the situation in Darfur, Sudan, to the media was a matter of concern. The Acting High Commissioner had assured the Commission that he had refrained from distributing the report on the situation in Sudan before the return of the mission sent to the field. Since the members of the Commission did not have the said document, the leak must have come from the Office, and an investigation should be carried out to find out who leaked the report to the media.

ILHAM SHANTER (Sudan) said that she wised to thank the Representative of Bahrain for raising the present issue. It was the understanding of her Government that the High Commissioner’s report had been based only on allegations, as he had acknowledged, and that the information contained therein had been received from sources outside the territory of Sudan. She also wished to recall that her Government had extended an invitation to visit to the Acting High Commissioner’s team. Finally, she said, her delegation had been unprepared to discuss the text at the present juncture, but wished to express strong support for the statements of Bahrain and Pakistan and reiterated that one must ask how the report had been leaked, when it was not the intention of the
Office of the High Commissioner to make it public.

Introduction of Proposed Strategic Framework for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for 2006-2007

BERTRAND RAMCHARAN, Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, said in introducing the proposed Strategic Framework for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) for the Biennium 2006-2007 that the format and content of the document had been influenced by the Secretary-General’s reform programme (Action 21) in which he sought to advance ways of simplifying and improving the processes of planning and budgeting. In essence, whereas, before, there was a medium-term plan for four years and a biennial budget for two years, the Strategic Framework combined them into one. The Strategic Framework was expected to be submitted by the Secretary-General to the Committee for Program and Coordination later this year for consideration and referral to the General Assembly.

Part A, on overall orientation, was consistent with similar statements contained in previous strategic documents approved by the General Assembly. As was indicated in this part, OHCHR would continue to strive for the universal realization of all human rights for all, through the implementation of the Charter’s provisions on human rights and of the international human rights instruments adopted by the United Nations. The decisions of policy-making organs, notably the Commission, would guide this effort. The values of the Millennium Declaration were highlighted, and emphasis placed on supporting Member States, at their request, in national human rights capacity building. Part B contained four sub-programmes, the rationale for which was to be found in resolutions of the Commission and the General Assembly.

The current thrust in United Nations strategic planning was on results-based budgeting: to ensure a results-oriented organization through the articulation of objectives, expected accomplishments and indicators of achievement, to reflect what the organization intended to accomplish and not just what it intended to do. In the human rights programme, statements of objectives had been reasonably well enunciated. Because of the nature of human rights work, it was sometimes more complex to specify expected accomplishment and measures of achievement. Member States had emphasized that measures of achievement should be in respect of the programmes and activities of the United Nations. Good faith effort had been made to provide elements on each of these aspects within the four sub-programmes, and the insights and suggestions of the Members of the Commission would be helpful, as would their thoughts on the proposed strategies.

Inter-Active Dialogue

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said the introduction of the report was welcome. This was an important exercise. It was the guide and orientation for the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and for all efforts to make work in the human rights field more effective. The final position of Cuba would be sent in writing, and Cuba would also speak about it in the Economic and Social Council and in other fora. Cuba had suggestions to make on each of the sub-programmes mentioned in the framework introduction. International solidarity should be implemented.

SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan) said the introduction had been marked by considerable clarity. Pakistan had conducted a preliminary analysis of the paper, and considered it to be marked with considerable importance. Comments, preliminary in nature, were as follows: the structure of the document was weak, and lacked ideas in several segments. It was also heavily skewed in favour of monitoring and capacity-building instruments. The strategic framework was divided into 4 sub-programmes, some of which did not bear much relevance to the advancement of the right to development. The concept of the right to development should be woven into the activities of all agencies and organizations. Some programmes (2 and 4) could be merged.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said as an initial comment on sub-programme 3, advisory services, since Argentina had the temporary presidency of MERCOSUR, something should be included on efforts towards sub-regional integration, and this could be the right place as it had been under discussion with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the last few years.

BERTRAND RAMCHARAN, Acting High Commissioner for Human Rights, thanked the speakers for the specificity of their suggestions and assured them that their suggestions would be reflected in the work of the Office.

Explanations of the Vote after the Vote at the End of the Consideration of the Item on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

SONAM T. RABGYE (Bhutan) said that his delegation supported L.94 on the question of the death penalty. The Kingdom of Bhutan had abolished capital punishment through a
Royal Decree. However, his delegation had abstained on paragraphs 4 (j), 5(A) and 7 as his country recognized the right of sovereign States to determine their own legal measures and penalties.

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom), referring to L109 (on follow-up to the Decade on Human Rights Education), said that human rights education was an important tool in the promotion and protection of human rights, and also contributed significantly to promoting equality and sustainable development, and participation in the democratic process. The United Kingdom therefore supported it, but had doubts about operative paragraphs 3, 4 and 5.

AMR ROUSHDY (Egypt) said that with regard to the decision adopted yesterday on human rights and bioethics, Egypt appreciated the work of the member of the Sub-Commission who had prepared a paper on this subject, as its study had become an imperative. While the working paper prepared by her should constitute a basis for the future consideration of the issue, the study should be undertaken in a comprehensive manner, with scientific expertise allowing the issue to be addressed in a way ensuring that it was addressed in an appropriate manner and in a suitable timeframe.
ELSADIG ALMAGLY (Sudan) said that regarding resolution L.94 on the death penalty, the question of capital punishment would always be a controversial one, as it was something that related to an important aspect of religious beliefs for a number of nations. Every State had the right as part of its sovereign rights to promulgate the laws it deemed appropriate. The freedom of belief was one of the most fundamental of human rights, and any discussion around the subject would be in conflict with other resolutions that the Commission had adopted without a vote, in particular the one on impunity. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights made reference to capital punishment in one of its provisions. Despite the fact that this question would remain controversial, countries could exchange experiences and views on the special measures regarding the implementation of this punishment. In Islamic legislation, there were various options to capital punishment, including its abolishment in cases of amnesty or blood money. It was hoped that this subject would remain under discussion without any final decision being taken as it was related to the freedom of belief and religion.