COMMISSION ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN MYANMAR, DEATH PENALTY, OTHER ISSUES ON PROMOTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

21 April 2004


Extends Mandates of Special Rapporteurs on
Myanmar, Human Rights and Indigenous People


The Commission on Human Rights this morning adopted resolutions under its agenda items on the question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world, indigenous issues and the promotion and protection of human rights.

In a resolution on the question of human rights in Myanmar, adopted without a vote, the Commission expressed its grave concern at ongoing systematic violations of human rights and the detention and house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the persistent denial of her human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the continued detention of other senior leaders of the National League for Democracy and of the leadership of other political parties or ethnic minorities. The Commission strongly urged the Government to end systematic violations of human rights, and to lift all restraints on peaceful political activity and to restore democracy. The Commission decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar for a further year.

Myanmar said the draft resolution on his country was still a far cry from what it ought to be: fair, constructive, balanced and forward-looking. His country was at a critical juncture of its political evolution. There was optimism on the positive developments currently unfolding in Myanmar. The lack of balance in the draft lay in the fact that it had failed to reflect such recent positive developments in the country in an appropriate and fitting manner.

A draft decision to retain on the Commission’s agenda the sub-item entitled “question of human rights in Cyprus” was also adopted without a vote.

In a resolution on human rights and indigenous people, adopted by consensus, the Commission decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people for a further period of three years.


Resolutions were also adopted on international cooperation in the field of human rights; the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order;
the promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of human rights by all; human rights and human responsibilities; human rights and international solidarity and impunity.

Regarding the death penalty, the Commission, after a roll-call vote of 28 in favour, 20 opposed, with five abstentions, called upon States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to consider acceding to or ratifying the second optional protocol to the Covenant, aimed at abolition of the death penalty; called upon all States progressively to restrict the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed; and called on States that no longer applied the death penalty but maintained it in their legislation to abolish it.

On the composition of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, after a roll-call vote of 35 in favour and 14 opposed, with four abstentions, the Commission expressed grave concern at the opinion contained in the report of the Joint Inspection Unit that the unbalanced geographical distribution of staff was a serious, endemic problem in the Office; considered that it was necessary to take urgent, concrete and immediate action to change the currently prevailing geographical distribution of staff of the Office in favour of a more equitable distribution.

Resolutions on fundamental standards of humanity; science and the environment; human rights defenders; the status of the International Covenants on Human Rights; the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights; follow-up on the International Decade for Human Rights Education; human rights implications particularly for indigenous peoples of the disappearance of States for environmental reasons; were adopted by consensus, as were Sub-Commission decisions on human rights and bioethics; the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education; the universal implementation of human rights treaties; and human rights violations caused by the availability and misuse of small arms and light weapons.

Addressing the Commission this morning during the discussions on the draft resolutions were the Representatives of the delegations of the Republic of Korea, the United States, Japan, China, Myanmar, Cuba, Ireland (on behalf of the European Union), Egypt, Australia, Saudi Arabia, India, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Chile, and the Russian Federation.

When the Commission meets again at 3 p.m., it will continue to take action on draft resolutions and decisions before it.

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

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.34) on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, adopted by consensus and as orally amended, the Commission welcomed the visits to Myanmar by the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General during the past year and the cooperation extended to him by the Government of Myanmar; the visits to Myanmar by the Special Rapporteur during the past year, noting that the Government had communicated with the High Commissioner for Human Rights the results of its investigation into the placing of listening devices during the interviews held by the Special Rapporteur with prisoners in Insein prison in March 2003, which led to the curtailment of his fact-finding visit; the release from prison of a number of persons detained for political activities and continued cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross; the agreement reached on the Joint Government of the Union of Myanmar-International Labour Organization Plan of Action for the Elimination of Forced Labour Practices in Myanmar, while noting that the conditions for implementation of the Plan did not exist at present; and the second visit by an Amnesty International delegation to Myanmar, but noted with concern that it was unable to meet all those it requested to meet.

The Commission also welcomed the dissemination of human rights standards for public officials, but stressed that such activities needed to lead also to concrete efforts to improve the human rights situation on the ground; the establishment of a Committee to prevent the recruitment of child soldiers, and stressed the need for it to work closely with the United Nations Children’s Fund; and the negotiations to conclude a ceasefire agreement with the Karen National Union. The Commission expressed its grave concern at ongoing systematic violations of human rights; the events of 30 May 2003, the corresponding continuing violations of human rights, which constituted a serious setback for the human rights situation in Myanmar, and the apparent involvement of the Government-affiliated Union Solidarity and Development Association, as well as ongoing systematic harassment of members of the National League for Democracy and other opposition activists; and the detention and house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the persistent denial of her human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the continued detention of other senior leaders of the National League for Democracy and of the leadership of other political parties or ethnic minorities.

The Commission also expressed grave concern about extrajudicial killings, rape and other forms of sexual violence persistently carried out by members of the armed forces, continuing use of torture, renewed instances of political arrests and continuing detentions, prisoners held incommunicado, forced relocation, destruction of livelihoods and confiscations of land by the armed forces, forced labour, including child labour, trafficking in persons, denial of freedom of assembly, association, expression and movement, discrimination and persecution on the basis of religious or ethnic background, wide disrespect for the rule of law and lack of independence of the judiciary, unsatisfactory conditions of detention, and systematic use of child soldiers; violations of human rights suffered in particular by persons belonging to ethnic minorities, women and children, especially in non-ceasefire areas; and the situation of the large number of internally displaced persons.

The Commission called upon the Government of Myanmar to fulfil its obligations to restore the independence of the judiciary and due process of law; to take immediate action to eradicate the practice of forced labour; to immediately ensure safe and unhindered access to all parts of Myanmar for the United Nations and international humanitarian organizations; to cooperate fully with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General and with the Special Rapporteur; to consider as a matter of priority becoming party to numerous international human rights instruments not yet ratified by Myanmar; to pursue through dialogue and peaceful means the immediate suspension and permanent end of conflict with all ethnic groups in Myanmar; to follow up the negotiations to conclude a ceasefire agreement with the Karen National Union; to establish a national human rights commission according to the “Paris Principles”; strongly urged the Government to end systematic violations of human rights; to lift all restraints on peaceful political activity; to restore democracy and respect the results of the 1990 elections; to enter into a substantive dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and other leaders of the National League for Democracy intended to lead towards democratization and national reconciliation; to release unconditionally and immediately all political prisoners; to ensure that the National Convention was fully inclusive of all political parties and representatives elected in the last election; to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur to facilitate an independent national investigation of continuing reports of sexual violence and other abuse of civilians carried out by members of the armed forces in Shan and other states; to put an immediate end to the recruitment and use of child soldiers; to end the systematic enforced displacement of persons; to elaborate a road map for the transition to democracy; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar for a further year.

HYUCK CHOI (Republic of Korea) said in a general comment that the cause of human rights should be upheld in the ongoing process of national reconciliation and transition to democracy in Myanmar. Thus, while welcoming the Government’s commitment to the seven-step road map on the transition, the elaboration of a concrete timeframe for the road map was necessary. The Republic of Korea also welcomed the Myanmar Government’s announcement that the constitutional convention would be reconvened in May in order to draft a new Constitution. In that process, it was essential for all political parties and groups to be allowed to participated in that process. The Republic of Korea reaffirmed its support for the Government of Myanmar throughout the transition to democracy.

RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON (United States) said in a general comment that the United States was pleased to co-sponsor the resolution, and appreciated the efforts of the European Union to accommodate its concerns. The United States had worked hard to promote democracy in Burma, deplored the imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi, and urged her liberation. For a constitutional convention to be successful, the political opposition and ethnic groups of Burma should all be involved, including the leaders of the party of Aung San Suu Kyi, who should all be freed. The establishment of democracy in Burma was required, and the situation in that country was deplored. The Government restricted the freedom of religion, and imposed restrictions on religious and ethnic minorities. Burma was a country of particular concern due to its particularly severe violations of this freedom. The international community should increase engagement with the Burmese Government on these matters. The brave freedom fighters in Burma should not be abandoned.

HIDENOBU SOBASHIMA (Japan) said in an explanation of the vote before the vote that his delegation wished to join in the adoption of the present draft resolution. His Government had been working closely with the Government of Myanmar to pursue development, the transition to democracy and respect for human rights. Japan had been engaged earnestly with other co-sponsors in the drafting process and held that the international community must acknowledge the existing and substantial progress made Myanmar, while highlighting areas for further progress. The draft resolution should not isolate Myanmar from the international community. The present text recognized the shared concern over the situation in that country, while recognizing the progress that had been made. An active dialogue between co-sponsors, non-sponsors and concerned parties in drafting had helped to bring about changes on the ground. The Government of Myanmar should commit to furthering progress and the democratic transition and the Japanese Government remained committed to assisting them to that end.

WANG MIN (China) said in an explanation of the vote before the vote that to start with, the Government of Myanmar over the past year had taken a number of positive steps towards human rights development. The Special Rapporteur on the situation in Myanmar had recognized these efforts, however L34 did not fully and accurately reflect these, and this was regretted. Secondly, political pressure on the people and Government of Myanmar by passing a resolution was not favoured by the delegation. The efforts of the Government in promoting and protecting human rights were supported and appreciated.

U MYA THAN (Myanmar) said this year’s draft resolution on his country was still a far cry from what it ought to be: fair, constructive, balanced and forward-looking. His country was at a critical juncture of its political evolution. There was optimism on the positive developments, currently unfolding in Myanmar. The lack of balance in L. 34 lay in the fact that it had failed to reflect such recent positive developments in the country in an appropriate and fitting manner. Several recent landmark developments, including the proclamation of the Road Map and the forthcoming meeting of the National Convention in May, were missing in the text. The problem was that when the draft resolution reflected positive developments, it did so grudgingly or only “takes note”. The Road Map, proclaimed on 30 August 2003, was a watershed in the political evolution of the country. The constitutional process through the National Convention and the reconvening of the Convention next month had been hailed by the entire people and the national groups as well as by the countries in the region.

In the international arena, Myanmar was playing an active role and cooperating fully with the United Nations, the Commission and other international organizations. Some non-governmental organizations were, once again, indulging in the litany of allegations concerning violence against women in the Shan and other States. Their sweeping allegations were unfounded and devoid of any credibility. Women were held in high esteem by the Myanmar society. As a rule, women had never been subjected to any forms of degrading treatments. L.34 still left much to be desired. His delegation rejected all the negative elements in the draft as a whole, and dissociated itself from the draft. Myanmar would continue to cooperate to the extent possible with the Commission in the spirit and tradition that it had carried forward to date.

In a decision on the question of human rights in Cyprus, adopted without a vote, the Commission decided to retain its agenda sub-item (a), entitled “question of human rights in Cyprus” under its agenda item on the “question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world” and to give it due priority at its sixty-first session, it being understood that action required by previous resolutions of the Commission on the subject would continue to remain operative, including the request to the Secretary-General to submit a report to the Commission regarding their implementation.

Action on Draft Resolution on Indigenous Issues

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.105) on human rights and indigenous issues, adopted by consensus and as orally revised, the Commission decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people for a further period of three years; requested the Special Rapporteur, in carrying out his mandate and within the framework of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all other international human rights instruments, to request, receive and exchange information on violations of the human rights of indigenous people, wherever they may occur, from Governments, United Nations human rights treaty bodies, specialized agencies, special mechanisms of the Commission and the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, as well as from intergovernmental organizations, other relevant organizations of the United Nations system and civil society, including indigenous organizations, and to respond effectively to such information; and invited the Special Rapporteur, in carrying out his task, to take into account all the recommendations of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission relevant to his mandate.

The Commission also requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to facilitate the attendance of the Special Rapporteur at the third annual session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues to be held at United Nations Headquarters in May 2004; requested all Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur in the performance of the tasks and duties mandated, to furnish all information requested and to react promptly to his urgent appeals; took note of the intention of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize, making use of voluntary contributions, a seminar on indigenous education; and urged those States that had not yet done so to consider, as a matter of priority, signing, ratifying or acceding to the 1989 Convention concerning indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries (No. 169).

KATHERINE M. GOROVE (United States) said in a general comment that the efforts of co-sponsors were appreciated. The United States appreciated that the norms and standards of paragraph 3 were not applicable to the United States for various reasons, and it would therefore support the draft resolution.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) said there was support for the draft resolution and for the continued work by the Special Rapporteur with the support of the Commission.

Action on Draft Resolutions and Measures on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.31) on enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, adopted by consensus, the Commission reaffirmed that the promotion, protection and full realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms should be guided by the principles of universality, non-selectivity, impartiality, objectivity, and transparency, and should not be used for political ends; recognized that States had a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity at the global level; and urged all actors on the international scene to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equality and equity, human dignity, mutual understanding and promotion of and respect for cultural diversity and universal human rights, and to reject all doctrines of exclusion based on racism and related intolerance.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.43) on promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 in favour and 15 opposed, with seven abstentions, the Commission called upon all Member States to fulfil their commitment expressed during the World Conference against Racism to maximize the benefits of globalization through, inter alia, the 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 intercultural exchange through the preservation and promotion of cultural diversity; affirmed that a democratic and equitable international order required realization of the right of all peoples to self-determination; the right or peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources; the right of all to development; the right of all to peace; and the right to an international economic order based on equal participation in the decision-making process, interdependence, mutual interest, solidarity and cooperation among all States

The Commission also affirmed the principle of equitable regional and gender-balanced representation in the composition of the staff of the United Nations system; respect for cultural diversity and the cultural rights of all; the right of all to a healthy environment; the promotion of equitable access to benefits from the international distribution of wealth; stressed the importance of preserving the rich and diverse nature of the international community of nations as peoples, as well as respect for national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds; and expressed its rejection of unilateralism and stressed its commitment to multilateralism and multilaterally agreed solutions as the only reasonable method of addressing international problems.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (31): Bahrain, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

Against (15): Australia, Austria, Croatia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (7): Argentina, Armenia, Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico and Peru.








In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.68) on the promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of human rights by all, adopted by a roll-call vote of 32 in favour and 15 opposed, with six abstentions, the Commission stressed that the deep fault line that divided human society between the rich and the poor and the ever-increasing gap between the developed and the developing worlds posed a major threat to global prosperity, security, and stability; solemnly declared that the preservation of peace and its promotion constituted a fundamental obligation of each State; and emphasized that the preservation of peace and its promotion demanded that the policies of States be directed towards the elimination of the threat of war, particularly nuclear war, the renunciation of the use or threat of use of force in international relations, and the settlement of disputes by peaceful means.

In favour (32): Armenia, Bahrain, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Indonesia, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

Against (15): Australia, Austria, Croatia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (6): Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras, India and Mexico.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union, said that while underlining the linkage between peace and human rights, the European Union believed that other United Nations fora were more appropriate for dealing with some issues raised in the draft resolution, which failed to emphasise that the absence of peace could not justify failure to respect human rights. It dealt only with the relationship between States, and not with the relationship between the State and its citizens and the State’s respect for individual human rights, which was the core mandate of the Commission. The European Union could not support the draft resolution and would vote against it.

JEFFREY DE LAURENTIS (United States) said that his delegation would also vote against the draft text.

In a measure (E/CN.4/2004/L.79) on human rights and human responsibilities, adopted by a roll-call vote of 26 in favour and 25 against, with two abstentions and as orally amended, the Commission decided to request the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to circulate to Member States and relevant organizations the pre-draft declaration on human social responsibilities, requesting their views on it.

In favour (26): Bahrain, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

Against (25): Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (2): Armenia and Eritrea.







NAELA GABR (Egypt) said in a general comment that human rights were an indivisible and complete system that could not be divided with none given priority. The whole should be respected, and in view of respecting the principles and norms of human rights the responsibility of the individual vis a vis the community ensured that the human rights of the individual ended where those of the community began. The freedoms of the individual could not be completed without tolerance and respect for the rights of others. All forms of racism, including modern ones, had to be rejected.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, said a similar resolution had been adopted last year; and this year, the same draft was introduced without substantive changes. Her delegation had rejected the draft last year. The European Union believed in democratic principles and human rights. States and individuals should be responsible for human rights. The resolution should be rejected because it touched the raison d’être of the Commission. The human rights of individuals should be respected and protected unconditionally. The Union would vote against the draft.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) said in a general comment that Cuba gave full support to this idea, and had voted in favour in the past, and would again this year support the draft resolution that was simply designed to ask States, non-governmental organizations and inter-governmental organisations to express their ideas on the relevance of the study and the continued analysis by the Commission of an issue that was far from being exhausted. There had been broad development of this idea, that together with rights one should be aware of responsibilities, not as a pre-requisite for the enjoyment of human rights, but as a corollary to these rights. It was important to highlight this, since the view that the enjoyment of human rights was subjective to duties was being promulgated, and this was an attempt to distort the concept.

Consideration of the draft resolution on the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights (E/CN.4/2004/L.85) was postponed, after a request by the Representative of Cuba.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) requested a postponement of the consideration of the draft resolution on the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights. If that postponement was not granted, his delegation would not be in a position to join the consensus on the draft as it felt that the Community of Democracies represented an attempt merely to politicize and manipulate international cooperation in the area of democracy. However, Cuba would like to work constructively in seeking a consensus, in which regard the postponement was requested.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.86) on human rights and international solidarity, adopted by a roll-call vote of 37 in favour and 15 opposed, with one abstention, the Commission reaffirmed the interdependence between the concepts of democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; expressed its determination to contribute towards the solution of current world problems through increased international cooperation, to create such conditions as would ensure that the needs and interests of future generations were not jeopardized by the burden of the past, and to hand on a better world to future generations; urged the international community to consider urgently concrete measures 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; and recognized that the so-called “third generation rights” or the “right to solidarity” needed further progressive development within the United Nations human rights machinery.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (37): 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, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

Against (15): Australia, Austria, Croatia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstention (1): Qatar.

PETER MAXWELL HEYWARD (Australia) said that his country believed in the importance of international cooperation for the realization of economic and social development. Australia however did not accept that the full realization should only be dependent on international solidarity. His delegation would call for a roll-call vote on L.86 and would vote against the draft resolution.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), said in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union, that States bore primary responsibility for the promotion and protection of human rights of individuals. However, the draft resolution failed to recognize this and only dealt with the relationship between States. There was a need to create an enabling environment at the national and global levels. The European Union was concerned about the problems faced by developing countries in ensuring adequate levels of state development. The importance of international cooperation in this regard was recognized. The draft resolution failed to recognize the advances made in promoting the right to development. The European Union would vote against the draft resolution.

Before taking action on the draft resolution on the question of the death penalty, the Commission decided to amend the text, by a roll-call vote of 25 in favour and 20 opposed, with seven abstentions.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.94) on the question of the death penalty, adopted by a roll-call vote of 28 in favour and 20 opposed, with five abstentions and as orally amended, the Commission called upon States parties to the International Covenant on 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 death penalty not to impose it for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age; to exclude pregnant women and mothers with dependent infants; not to impose the death penalty on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder; not to impose it for any but the most serious crimes; not to enter any new reservations under article 6 of the Covenant; to observe the safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty; to ensure that, where capital punishment occurred, it was carried out so as to inflict the minimum possible suffering; called upon all States progressively to restrict the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed; and called on States that no longer applied the death penalty but maintained it in their legislation to abolish it.



In favour (28): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bhutan, Brazil, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, France, Gabon, Germany, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sweden, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

Against (20): Bahrain, China, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda, United States and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (5): Burkina Faso, Cuba, Guatemala, Republic of Korea and Sri Lanka.

ABDULWAHAB ABDULSALAM ATTAR (Saudi Arabia), also speaking on behalf of a number of countries, said they dissociated themselves from the draft resolution, L.94 on the question of the death penalty, presented by the European Union.

JEFFREY DE LAURENTIS (United States) said in a general comment that his country could not support the draft resolution on the death penalty. International law did not prohibit the death penalty when due process and international safeguards had been applied. Each nation should decide for itself whether its national law should provide for the death penalty, in conformity with international law. In the United States, there was a public debate on the death penalty, however, the public was of one mind when it came to its imposition – that there must be due process. The United States would vote against the draft resolution.

DEBABRATA SAHA (India) said in a general comment that the international community had not yet reached consensus on the issue of capital punishment. Promoting the abolition of this matter as a human rights issue could only be done progressively. In India the death penalty was used only in the rarest of rare cases, and was the exception rather than the rule. The draft resolution asked States to stop executions so long as any related legal procedure was pending internationally, and this was unacceptable since the only legal procedures that were relevant were the national ones. These elements of the draft resolution were unacceptable, and a block roll-call vote was called on several paragraphs.

BIODUN OWOSENI (Nigeria) said his country had been endeavouring to limit incidents leading to the death penalty. A national committee had been established by the country’s President recently to review the provisions with regard to the death penalty. The effort was part of a comprehensive programme at reforming the nation’s criminal justice system, apart from the ongoing prison reforms. The State was committed to the protection of public order and safety. Although there had been no judicial execution in Nigeria in the past few years, the Constitution still retained the penalty clause in the statute. The Constitution clearly stipulated that the death penalty could only be imposed as punishment to a very grave crime after the vigorous and exhaustive due process of the law. His delegation would vote against the resolution, which tried to impose an abolition of the death penalty globally.

SARALA M. FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) said that the death penalty existed in her country’s penal code for the most serious crimes, but its use was under moratorium and had not been applied for more than twenty years. However, it should be noted that the abolition of the death penalty was not required by international law and its imposition was the choice of each State. For that reason, Sri Lanka could not support the draft text.

In a measure (E/CN.4/2004/L.103) on fundamental standards of humanity, adopted by consensus, the Commission decided to consider the question at its sixty-second session and to request the Secretary-General to submit to that session an analytical report on the topic.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.104) on science and the environment, adopted by consensus, the Commission decided to request the Secretary-General to update the report on the consideration being given to the relationship between the environment and human rights as part of sustainable development.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.107) on human rights defenders, adopted by consensus, the Commission called upon all States to promote and give full effect to the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; condemned all human rights violations committed against human rights defenders; called upon all States to ensure the protection of such persons; urged States to ensure that any measures to combat terrorism and preserve national security did not hinder the work and safety of such persons; emphasized the importance of combating impunity for violations committed against such persons; and encouraged all Governments promptly to investigate urgent appeals and allegations brought to their attention by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders, and to take timely action to prevent violations of the rights of such persons.

Before taking action on the draft text related to the status of the International Covenants on Human Rights, the Commission rejected by a roll-call vote of five in favour and 40 opposed, with eight abstentions the amendments proposed by the United States.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.108) on the status of the International Covenants on Human Rights, adopted by consensus and as orally amended by Finland, the Commission appealed strongly to all States to become parties to the Covenants; emphasized the importance of the strictest compliance by States parties with their obligations under the Covenants; emphasized that States must ensure that any measure to combat terrorism complied with their obligations under relevant international law, including the Covenants; stressed the importance of avoiding the erosion of human rights by derogation; encouraged States parties to limit the extent of any reservations they lodged to the Covenants; urged States parties to fulfil in a timely manner their reporting obligations under the Covenants; and noted the need for further consideration of the issue of the justiciability of the rights set forth in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

KATHERINE M. GOROVE (United States) said in a general comment that the United States believed that the resolution fulfilled an important role in asserting the value of the international covenants. However, it was inappropriate to fail to acknowledge that each sovereign State had the right to decide whether or not to ratify a treaty or protocol. States should not be criticized directly or indirectly for exercising their rights in this regard, and the United States’ position on this was regardless of its belonging to any treaty. Therefore, the United States proposed changes to operative paragraph 2, the first line, the word “become” should be replaced with “consider as a matter of priority becoming”. On the third line, the text as orally revised upon introduction would be replaced with the word “consider”- it would read “as well as to consider acceding to the protocols of the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights”.

ELISABET BORSIIN BONNIER (Sweden) said it was regrettable that not all members of the Commission were willing to join the consensus on the draft text as revised by the United States. Therefore, she asked for a vote on the amendments proposed by the United States and urged all members of the Commission to vote against them.

The Commission then reverted to back its consideration of the draft text on the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights and decided, by a roll-call vote of 41 in favour and one opposed, with eleven abstentions, to retain the reference to the Community of Democracies contained in preambular paragraph 8 of the text.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.85) on the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights, adopted by consensus, the Commission called upon States to provide transparent, responsible, accountable and participatory government, responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people; welcomed the offer by the Government of the Republic of Korea to host the seminar requested in resolutions 2002/76 and 2003/65 in Seoul in August 2004; and welcomed the seminar’s focus on essential elements of good governance.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile), in a general comment, said that his delegation supported the draft because of its attachment to good governance and democratic values. Good governance was a prerequisite for the full enjoyment of human rights and in the strengthening of a democratic process. Effective democratic institutions should be maintained however low the level of development might be. The next conference of the “Community of Democracies”, which would be held in his country, would be a further effort in the promotion of good governance. Good governance would facilitate the implementation of human rights, and would promote the rule of law. It would also allow citizens to actively participate in the affairs of the State.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said in a general comment that great importance was attached to the need to assure and promote good governance in public affairs, including the need to put an end to impunity laws, as they undermined good governance. Despite the flaws of the draft resolution, fundamental elements had been included. Cuba had believed that there was reason for the elimination of preambular paragraph 8. The process of the so-called “Community of Democracies”, had from the beginning closed lists and numbers of invitees designed to confuse international opinion with regard to democracy’s progress. The delegation requested a separate vote on this paragraph, and intended to vote against the paragraph, which was an important element of discredit to the balance and strength of this important resolution.

JI-AH PAIK (Republic of Korea) said in a general comment that her country had traditionally co-tabled the Commission’s resolution on the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights. Her Government would also host a seminar on good governance practices in August 2004, which would provide an excellent opportunity for the international community to reflect upon aspects of good governance and its role in support of human rights. The Government of the Republic of Korea would do its utmost to ensure the success of the seminar.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said in a general comment that paragraph 8 mentioned the holding of a conference in his country. However, the holding of the conference should give rise to concern. Good governance, based on democratic values, should enhance transparency. It did not in any way concern any one country, as it was observed.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said in an explanation of the vote before the vote that the explanation just heard did not respond to the main concerns of Cuba. It was clear that Cuba would be excluded from the meeting, which did not guarantee participation, a fundamental principle of democracy and good governance.

ALEXEY VLASSOV (Russian Federation) said in an explanation of the vote before the vote that his delegation would support the draft resolution as revised. However, the conference of the Community of Democracies should be open to the maximum of States and there should be efforts to ensure that all States were included in the conference process.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said in an explanation of the vote before the vote that given the importance that Cuba attached to good governance and democracy, it would not be requesting a vote. However, if the paragraph was retained next year, it would request a vote on the entire draft resolution as it was evidence of selectivity in regard to a group of countries. Cuba would therefore join consensus this year.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.109) on follow-up to the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education, adopted by consensus, the Commission took note of the view expressed in relevant reports concerning the need to continue a global framework for human rights education beyond the Decade; recommended to the Economic and Social Council that it proclaim a world programme for such education to begin on 1 January 2005, structured in consecutive phases; and requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare and submit for consideration and adoption by the General Assembly a plan of action for the first phase (2005-2007) of the proposed world programme, focusing on the primary and secondary school systems.

Before taking action on the draft resolution related to impunity, the Commission rejected proposed amendments to preambular paragraph 8, operative paragraph 8 and operative paragraph 9 by roll-call votes of nine in favour and 36 against, with eight abstentions; five in favour and 35 opposed, with 13 abstentions and eight in favour and 34 opposed, with eleven abstentions.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.110) on impunity, adopted by consensus, the Commission emphasized the importance of combating impunity for the prevention of violations of human rights; recognized that States must prosecute or extradite perpetrators of international crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture; recognized that amnesties should not be granted to those who commit such violations of human rights, and welcomed the lifting, waiving or nullification of amnesties and other immunities; urged States to bring to justice those responsible for gender-related crimes and crimes of sexual violence that constituted in defined circumstances genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes; called upon States to continue to support the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; urged States to provide the victims of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law which constituted crimes with a fair and equitable process through which those violations could be investigated; encouraged States in their efforts to strengthen their domestic capacities to combat impunity, and to consider the recommendations and best practices identified in the independent study on impunity commissioned by the Secretary-General; and requested the Secretary-General to appoint an independent expert for a period of one year to update the Principles for combating impunity established by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, so that the Principles reflected recent developments in international law and practice.

KATHERINE M. GOROVE (United States) said in a general comment that her delegation found itself, as it had last year, requesting amendments. The content of the draft did not reflect the wishes of the United States. She then proposed an amendment to preambular paragraph 8. The United States would request deletion of operative paragraph 8, and would make amendments to paragraph 9. The amendments would bring a neutral reference to the International Criminal Court Statute.

KATHERINE M. GOROVE (United States) said in an explanation of the vote before the vote that it appreciated the hard work done by the Canadian delegation to create a text for consensus, and supported the goals of the draft resolution. However, there was preference for future draft resolutions to include an emphasis that all States should be developing legitimate judicial systems that met the requirements of international law. The emphasis of the draft resolution should not be on international criminal courts, as justice was better served by national institutions. The United States would act consistently with international treaties to which it was a party. With regard to United States’ military personnel, any criminal pursuits by the United States against them would have to be done under United States codes. With this interpretation in mind, the United States would join consensus today.

ALEXEY VLASSOV (Russian Federation) expressed regret that his delegation’s consultations were not taken into consideration with regard to the draft resolution. He believed that new procedures and mechanisms should be adopted to combat impunity. Current mechanisms were unable to effectively fight impunity. Through the strengthening of national bodies, States should continue their fight against impunity.

PANKAJ SARAN (India) said that his delegation would like to join the consensus on the draft resolution, but it also wished to draw attention once more to operative paragraph 20 and its provision for the appointment of a new independent expert. India’s concern for the unstructured proliferation of mechanisms was well known. India deeply regretted that the Commission did not make full of use of existing mechanisms, especially given the recognized problem of resource availability. However, India would not stand in the way of the draft’s adoption by consensus.

In a measure on human rights and bioethics, adopted by a roll-call vote of 50 in favour and two against, with one abstention, the Commission decided to approve the decision of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to appoint Iulia-Antoanella Motoc as Special Rapporteur to undertake a study on human rights and the human genome.

In favour (50): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.

Against (2): Egypt and United States.

Abstention (1): Saudi Arabia.

JEFFREY DE LAURENTIS (United States), in a general comment, said there was concern for the duplication of work of the Sub-Commission, and the Sub-Commission should reconsider if this task would make the best use of the member implicated in the decision. The United States would therefore ask for a vote and would vote against the decision.

In a measure on the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education, adopted by consensus and as orally amended, the Commission decided to recommend to the Economic and Social Council that it recommend to the General Assembly the proclamation of a second Decade for Human Rights Education to begin on 1 January 2005.

In a resolution on human rights implications, particularly for indigenous people, of the disappearance of States for environmental reasons (E/CN.4/2004/L.49), adopted by consensus, the Commission urgently called upon the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to prepare a report on the legal implications of the disappearance of States for environmental reasons, including the implications for the human rights of their residents, with particular reference to the rights of indigenous people.

In a measure on the universal implementation of international human rights treaties, adopted by consensus, the Commission approved the decision of the Sub-commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to appoint Emmanuel Decatur Special Rapporteur to conduct a detailed study of the topic.

In a measure on the prevention of human rights violations caused by the availability and misuse of small arms and light weapons, adopted by a roll-call vote of 49 in favour and two opposed, with two abstentions, the Commission decided to approve the decision of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to the Secretary-General to transmit a questionnaire elaborated by the relevant Special Rapporteur to Governments, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations to solicit information required in connection with a study of the topic.

In favour (49): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.

Against (2): Ethiopia and United States.

Abstentions (2): Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

JEFFREY DE LAURENTIS (United States) said the author of the study was no more a member of the Sub-Commission, which was inconsistent with his delegation’s position. His delegation would request for a roll-call vote and would oppose the draft decision.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.83) on the composition of the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 35 in favour and 14 opposed, with four abstentions, the Commission expressed grave concern at the opinion contained in the report of the Joint Inspection Unit that the unbalanced geographical distribution of staff was a serious, endemic problem in the Office; regretted that, despite repeated requests by the Commission, one region accounted for more than half of the posts of the Office and for more posts than the four remaining regional groups combined; recognized that the establishment of an Advisory Panel on Personnel Issues was a reasonable initiative, but also that the current composition of the panel was very inequitable; welcomed the fact that the Office had instituted measures to apply principles of geographical distribution with particular regard to unrepresented and underrepresented developing countries when filling extrabudgetary posts; expressed concern that half of the newly recruited staff for posts not subject to geographical distribution came from one region; requested the Office to observe fully United Nations human resource policies; considered that it was necessary to take urgent, concrete and immediate action to change the currently prevailing geographical distribution of staff of the Office in favour of a more equitable distribution; urged donors to make their voluntary contributions unearmarked as much as possible to enable the High Commissioner flexibility in the allocation of staff and resources; requested the High Commissioner to prepare a comprehensive action plan aimed at reducing the current imbalance in the staff, indicating specific targets and deadlines to be achieved and to submit a comprehensive report on the implementation of the present resolution to the Commission at its sixty-first session.

In favour (35): Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Chile,
China, Congo, Croatia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

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

Abstentions (4): Brazil, Costa Rica, Guatemala and Peru.

PETER MAXWELL HEYWARD (Australia), in a general comment, said the fundamental principle of the staffing of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was the effectiveness of its operations, and it was for the High Commissioner to work out how best to achieve this, taking into account the opinion of the Commission and other bodies. The prime criterion was therefore efficiency, and the text instructed the High Commission on how to do this. The draft resolution was inappropriate and empty, and Australia called for a vote and would vote against the resolution.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said her delegation could not support L. 83. The General Assembly was the only competent organ to deal with administrative, budgetary and human resources issues.