COMMISSION ADOPTS SIX TEXTS ON VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS AROUND THE WORLD

Commission on Human Rights
AFTERNOON
14 April 2005


Also Adopts Seven Resolutions on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights


The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon adopted five resolutions and one decision on the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world, including on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Cuba, and Belarus.

The Commission also adopted seven resolutions on economic, social and cultural rights on human rights and unilateral coercive measures; the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights; human rights and extreme poverty; globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights; the right to food; the effects of economic policy reform and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights; and the promotion of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone and respect for different cultural identities.

In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, adopted without a vote, the Commission expressed its grave concern at the ongoing systematic violation of human rights, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, of the people of Myanmar, in particular discrimination and violations suffered by persons belonging to ethnic minorities, women and children, especially in non-ceasefire areas. The Commission decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further year.

Myanmar said the use of generalization of human rights violations in Myanmar was unacceptable. Only criticising the Government would do no good, the Government should also be appreciated for what it was doing. Those who attempted to impose their own politics in Myanmar had supported the draft resolution, but the sovereignty of Myanmar should be respected.

Japan, China and India addressed the Commission on the resolution on Myanmar.

In a resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, adopted by a roll-call vote of 30 in favour to nine against, with 14 abstentions, the Commission expressed its deep concern about continuing reports of systemic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, public executions, extrajudicial and arbitrary detention; and sanctions on citizens had been repatriated from abroad. The Commission decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further year.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea categorically rejected the draft resolution which it said had been fabricated by hostile forces and their followers, with the aim of stifling the country. The draft represented an extreme manifestation of the politicization, selectivity and double standards that had constantly been rejected in the human rights sphere.

The United States, Japan, China, the Republic of Korea and Cuba addressed the Commission on the resolution on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The Commission also adopted a resolution on the situation of human rights in Cuba, by a roll-call vote of 21 in favour to 17 against, with 15 abstentions, in which it invited the Personal Representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Commission on the current status of the situations addressed in the resolutions of the Commission concerning the situation of human rights in Cuba.

Cuba said everyone knew that the real cause of attempts to stigmatise Cuba at the Commission was Cuba's unyielding rebelliousness against the world's imperialist unjust order and because of its unflinching defence of its independence and sovereignty. Cuba would not get tired of fighting; would not surrender; and would never make concessions.

The Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union), China, Sudan, the Russian Federation and Zimbabwe addressed the Commission on the resolution on Cuba.

On the situation of human rights in Belarus, the Commission adopted a resolution by a roll-call vote of 23 in favour to 16 against, with 14 abstentions, in which it expressed deep concern that senior officials of the Government of Belarus had been implicated in the enforced disappearance and/or summary execution of three political opponents and a journalist. It urged the Government of Belarus to ensure that all necessary measures were taken to investigate fully and impartially all cases of forced disappearance, summary execution and torture and that alleged perpetrators were brought to justice before an independent tribunal. The Commission decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further year.

Belarus said the resolution was nothing more but another attempt to impose on the international community the distorted opinion about Belarus in order to justify the desire of the co-sponsors to interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign State. The real situation in Belarus and the practical steps by its Government had repeatedly demonstrated that the accusations targeting the country were ill-founded.

The Russian Federation proposed a no-action motion on the resolution on Belarus which was rejected. China, Cuba, and the Netherlands addressed the Commission on the resolution on Belarus.

The Commission also adopted without a vote a resolution on cooperation with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies in which it urged Governments to refrain from all acts of intimidation or reprisal against those who sought to cooperate or had cooperated with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies, or who had provided testimony or information to them.

In a decision on Cyprus, the Commission decided to retain its agenda sub-item (a) entitled “Question of human rights in Cyprus”, of the item entitled “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-second session. It also welcomed the continuation of the German mediation between Lebanon and Israel and the Lebanese Government’s decision to defer draft resolution E/CN.4/2005/L.3 entitled human rights situation of the Lebanese detainees in Israel until the sixty-second session.

Under its agenda item on economic, social and cultural rights, the Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 37 in favour to 14 against, with two abstentions a resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures in which it called on all States to stop adopting or implementing unilateral coercive measures not in accordance with international law, international humanitarian law, the Charter of the United Nations, and the norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States.

In a resolution on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 37 in favour and 13 against, with two abstentions, the Commission categorically condemned the illicit dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes in developing countries.

In a resolution on human rights and extreme poverty, adopted without a vote, the Commission reaffirmed that extreme poverty and exclusion from society constituted a violation of human dignity and that urgent national and international action was therefore required to eliminate them.

On globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights, the Commission adopted a resolution by a roll-call vote of 38 in favour to 15 against, with no abstentions, in which it expressed its deep concern at the inadequacy of measures to narrow the widening gap between the developed and the developing countries, which adversely affected the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly in the developing countries.

In a resolution on the right to food, adopted by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour to one against, with no abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed that hunger constituted an outrage and a violation of human dignity and, therefore, required the adoption of urgent measures at the national, regional and international levels for its elimination.

On the effects of economic policy reform and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, the Commission adopted a resolution in a roll-call vote of 33 in favour to 14 against, with six abstentions, in which it decided to convene an expert consultation of three working days with the participation of experts from the various United Nations agencies and programmes, as well as the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the regional economic commissions, the international financial institutions, the special rapporteurs on economic, social and cultural rights, creditor and debtor States and non-governmental organizations to contribute to the independent expert’s work to finalize the draft general guidelines.

And on the promotion of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone and respect for different cultural identities, the Commission adopted a resolution by a roll-call vote of 39 in favour to one against, and with 13 abstentions in which it requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to consult States and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations on the particularities and scope of the mandate of an independent expert on the promotion of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone and respect for different cultural identities.
The following countries offered statements on the resolutions on economic, social and cultural rights: Japan, the Netherlands, the United States, Cuba and Australia.

When the Commission reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Friday, 15 April, it will continue to take action on draft resolutions on economic, social and cultural rights before continuing its general debate on specific groups and individuals and opening its consideration of its agenda item on advisory services and technical cooperation in the field of human rights.

Action on Resolutions on Question of the Violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in Any Part of the World

MAKARIM WIBISONO, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, said with regard to draft resolution E/CN.4/2005/L.3 entitled human rights situation of the Lebanese detainees in Israel, a letter had been received from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon in Geneva, advising that pursuant to an understanding reached through the Permanent Representative of Germany in Geneva, the Government of Lebanon had decided to defer this draft resolution to the sixty-second session of the Commission in order to give due time to the mediation efforts.

Reading out a Chairman's statement, Mr. Wibisono said that given the ongoing German efforts to release the remaining detainees and prisoners; and taking into consideration the relevant concerns and goals of the Government of Lebanon regarding the release of remaining detainees in Israel, the return of mortal remains and the provision of all maps concerning the location of landmines in South Lebanon, the continuation of the German mediation was welcomed, as was the Lebanese Government’s decision to defer this draft resolution to the sixty-second session of the Commission on Human Rights pending the successful conclusion of the mediation in order to achieve the above-mentioned objectives.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.17) on cooperation with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies, adopted without a vote, the Commission urged Governments to refrain from all acts of intimidation or reprisal against those who sought to cooperate or had cooperated with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies, or who sought to provide or had provided testimony or information to them; those who sought to avail or had availed themselves of procedures established under United Nations auspices for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and all those who had provided legal assistance to them for this purpose; those who sought to submit or had submitted communications under procedures established by human rights instruments; and those who were relatives of victims of human rights violations. The Commission also condemned all acts of intimidation or reprisal by Governments against private individuals and groups who sought to cooperate with the United Nations and representatives of human rights bodies.

The Commission also called upon States to ensure adequate protection from intimidation, violence and persecution for individuals and members of groups who sought to cooperate with the United Nations and representatives of its human rights bodies. It further requested all representatives of United Nations human rights bodies, as well as treaty bodies monitoring the observance of human rights, to continue to take urgent steps, in conformity with their mandates, to help prevent the occurrence of such intimidation and reprisals and the hampering of access to United Nations human rights procedures in any way.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.29) on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, adopted without a vote, the Commission expressed its grave concern at the ongoing systematic violation of human rights, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, of the people of Myanmar, in particular discrimination and violations suffered by persons belonging to ethnic minorities, women and children, especially in non-ceasefire areas; at the extension of the house arrest of National League for Democracy General Secretary Aung San Suu Kyi and her deputy, Tin Oo, for another year and the persistent denial of their human rights and fundamental freedoms; at 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 imprisonment and other detentions; and at the situation of the large number of internally displaced persons and the flow of refugees to neighbouring countries.

The Commission called upon the Government of Myanmar to end the systematic violations of human rights in Myanmar, to ensure full respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms, to end impunity and to investigate and bring to justice any perpetrators of human rights violations, including members of the military and other Government agents in all circumstances; to restore democracy and respect the results of the 1990 elections; to cease the ongoing harassment of the National League for Democracy and other political parties and allow the reopening of the offices of the National League for Democracy throughout the country; to release unconditionally and immediately all political prisoners; and to enter into a substantive and structured dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and other leaders of the National League for Democracy intended to lead towards democratization and national reconciliation and at an early stage. The Commission further called upon the Government to put an immediate end to the recruitment and use of child soldiers; to end widespread rape and other forms of sexual violence persistently carried out by members of the armed forces; and to cooperate fully with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Myanmar and the Special Rapporteur. The Commission also decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further year.

SHIGERU ENDO (Japan), making a general comment, said Japan would join in the adoption of the draft resolution. Japan had been making efforts, in conjunction with the international community, to promote the process of democratization, reform of the economic structure, and improvement in the human rights situation in Myanmar. Japan had been actively engaged in the drafting of the text, and felt that the text must contain recognition of any positive developments, as well as criticism of existing problems, to provide positive incentive to the Government of Myanmar, and to send a positive message. The text addressed the shared concerns of the international community on the human rights situation in Myanmar, while recognizing some improvements which had been made. He stressed that there should be continued, active dialogue among all parties during the drafting process in order to create a good situation on the ground. He also noted that the Government of Myanmar had continued its efforts to improve the human rights situation. Japan would continue to assist the country to achieve these goals.

U NYUNT MAUNG SHEIN (Myanmar), speaking as a concerned country, said the draft resolution was similar to the one adopted last year, without any change and without taking into the consideration the developments taking place in the country. The national reconciliation process had been taking place. A number of legislative measures had been adopted to ameliorate the situation in Myanmar. Human rights education had been introduced into the educational system. The Government had also made great efforts to eradicate illiteracy in the country. The food production rate had been increasing in past years. The Government had also been cooperating with the International Labour Office on a number of issues. The use of generalization of human rights violations in his country was unacceptable. Only criticising the Government would do no good, the Government should also be appreciated for what it was doing. Those who attempted to impose their own politics in Myanmar had supported the draft resolution. The sovereignty of Myanmar should be respected.

SHA ZUKANG (China), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that as the Commission took action on this resolution, it should know that the Chinese delegation fully appreciated and supported the statement made by Myanmar whose Government over the last year had adopted a series of measures which had been recognised by the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar in his report. The draft resolution failed to truly and fully reflect these, and it was not a balanced description. The Chinese delegation was not in favour of using cultural revolutions to put pressure on the people and Government of Myanmar who needed help. China appreciated the special difficulties facing the Government and people of Myanmar. The efforts made by the Government to promote and protect human rights were appreciated. It was hoped that the international community could do some useful work for the development of Myanmar.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said India's views on country-specific resolutions under item 9 were well known. India favoured the use of technical assistance to improve the situation in all cases, and in the specific case of Myanmar, it seemed the country had indeed cooperated. Therefore, the draft resolution might not have been necessary. However, since it would not be put to a vote, India would not press the issue farther.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.30) on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, adopted by a roll-call vote of 30 in favour to nine against, with 14 abstentions, the Commission expressed its deep concern about continuing reports of systemic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, public executions, extrajudicial and arbitrary detention; sanctions on citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who had been repatriated from abroad, such as treating their departure as treason leading to punishments of internment, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or the death penalty; continued violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of women; and that the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had not accepted the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. It further expressed its deep concern at the precarious humanitarian situation in the country, in particular the prevalence of infant malnutrition.

The Commission strongly urged the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to address these concerns in an open and constructive manner, including, among other things, by immediately putting an end to the systemic, widespread and grave violations of human rights; by accepting the mandate of the Special Rapporteur; by adhering to internationally recognized labour standards; by cooperating with the United Nations in the field of human rights; and by ensuring that humanitarian organizations, including non-governmental organizations and United Nations agencies, in particular the World Food Programme, had full, free, safe and unimpeded access to all parts of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Moreover, the Commission requested the international community to continue to urge the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to ensure that humanitarian assistance, especially food aid, was distributed in accordance with humanitarian principles; and requested all relevant special procedures of the United Nations human rights mechanisms to examine alleged human rights violations in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The Commission also decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further year.

The result of the vote was as follow:

In favour (30): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bhutan, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Eritrea, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Against (9): China, Cuba, Egypt, Guinea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Russian Federation, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (14): Burkina Faso, Congo, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Swaziland and Togo.



SASHA MEHRA (United States), speaking in a general statement, said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was one of the worst human rights violators in the world. The human rights violations included torture, arbitrary arrest and extrajudicial killings. An estimated 150,000 persons were held in detention in various camps around the country. The right to freedom of movement had been restricted. The delegation of the United States was concerned about the continued human rights violations by the regime. The efforts to bring the regime to respect international norms had not been heeded by the regime. She called the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to collaborate with the international community. The regime was one of the most repressive regimes in the world.

ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan), speaking in a general comment, said Japan was tabling yet another resolution on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea with the European Union and others, and was not pleased to be doing this, quite the contrary, as it would have been far better if it had not had to do this. Agenda item 9 should not be overused, but there was no other choice when grave human rights violations were taking place, and when the Special Rapporteur chosen by the Commission was given no access to the country. The proper attitude of the international community was not to let the suffering of the people continue. It was the duty of the international community to let the country concerned know that the situation could not be ignored, and should be improved drastically and immediately. It was hoped all members of the Commission shared this view.

RI TCHEUL (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), speaking as a concerned country, said the Democratic People's Republic of Korea categorically rejected the present draft resolution, which had been fabricated by hostile forces and their followers, with the aim of stifling his country. The draft represented an extreme manifestation of the politicization, selectivity and double standards that had constantly been rejected in the human rights sphere. Its fundamental purpose was to overthrow the state system of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The United States had adopted the so-called “North Korean Human Rights Act” in an attempt to stifle the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, using human rights as a pretext, in addition to the nuclear issue. The United States had allocated a huge amount for its implementation, and was forcing other countries and non-governmental organizations to join it. The present draft took sides with the United States in its hostile policy, and aimed to interfere in the internal affairs of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The selectivity and double standards applied to the human rights sphere constituted a product of the arbitrariness of western countries, he added. Instead of condemning crimes against humanity, such as the illegal invasion of Iraq and the civilian massacres there, the Commission had been reduced to changing the social systems of independent countries. The targets of the “name-and-shame” policy were none other than the developing countries that pursued independent policies and had ideals different from those of the West.

The ring leaders of this draft’s presentation were Japan and the United Kingdom, he noted. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had undertaken a series of human rights discussions with the United Kingdom, and its sincerity had been repaid with betrayal. That country had even put a senior official to revealing clumsy and reptilian words and deeds. The United Kingdom was hell-bent on overthrowing the state system of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Moreover, it was ridiculous that Japan had inserted a provision in the text referring to the abduction case. That despicable and frantic behaviour had misled many States to believe that Japan had presented the draft on its own. The Japanese behaviour throughout the session had given rise to serious concern; Japan had lost its sense of direction in the world, and there was no need to give Japan a seat in the six-party talks, if they were resumed in the future. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea would never tolerate attempts to challenge its social system, or to infringe its sovereignty and threaten its right to existence.

SHA ZUKANG (China), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the Commission should be a forum for respect and not for naming and shaming. The Government of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had been faced with a number of difficulties in the past. However, it had been making efforts to improve the situation, which the international community should appreciate. The problem of nutrition had been among the areas where the Government was making efforts to improve. The tabling of the resolutions would not improve the situation. Such a resolution would not add to the peninsula’s peace and stability. China would vote against draft resolution.

HYUCK CHOI (Republic of Korea), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that last year when the draft resolution on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was tabled, the Republic of Korea had expressed the hope that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would do its utmost to raise the standard of human rights of its people. However, very little progress had been made, and there was deep concern for the human rights situation in that country. The Government of the Republic of Korea had been making strenuous efforts to solve the issue, while taking various measures for confidence-building in a mutually harmonious way in order to build the relationship between the two countries and build peace and prosperity. It was against this background that it had again decided to abstain from voting on the draft resolution. In order to bring about meaningful improvement in the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, it was important for the international community to urge the country to improve its situation, but it was equally important to provide support for the country to do so. It was firmly believed that combined efforts would eventually result in an improved human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It was hoped that the country would make sincere efforts to improve its situation by, among other things, improving dialogue and cooperation with various United Nations bodies and the international community as a whole.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said Cuba would call for a vote, and would vote against the present draft. It sufficed to look at the co-sponsors of the draft to realize how the Commission was working now. The prosecutors of the double standards that plagued the Commission were leading the effort. Cuba acknowledged the efforts made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which had not had one day of rest or peace to rebuild the country since its war with the United States. The draft sought solely to bring pressure to bear on the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.31) on the situation of human rights in Cuba, adopted by a roll-call vote of 21 in favour to 17 against, and with 15 abstentions, the Commission, while bearing in mind that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights had appointed a Personal Representative, invited the Personal Representative to report to the Commission on the current status of the situations addressed in the resolutions of the Commission concerning the situation of human rights in Cuba, and decided to consider this matter further at its sixty-second session under the same agenda item, in connection with which the Personal Representative of the High Commissioner would submit her report.

The result of the vote was as follow:

In favour (21): Armenia, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Against (17): China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Qatar, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (15): Argentina, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Gabon, Mauritania, Nepal, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Sri Lanka, Swaziland and Togo.
IAN DE JONG (Netherlands, making a general comment on behalf of the European Union), said the European Union wished to express its concern regarding the human rights situation in Cuba. The Union would support the draft resolution L. 31, which was neither dogmatic nor polemic in its approach. The Union recently affirmed its continued willingness to maintain a constructive dialogue with the Cuban authorities aiming at tangible results in the political, economic, human rights and cooperation spheres. The Union took note of the release in June and November 2004 of some of the 75 political prisoners imprisoned in March 2003, but observed that they were not released unconditionally, and it urged the Cuban authorities to release all other political prisoners still being detained and to refrain from carrying out any more arrests of a political nature. In the light of continuing disturbing reports that some dissidents had suffered from ill-treatment and were in poor health, the Union once again called on the Cuban authorities to comply with international standards concerning human rights and the treatment of prisoners.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) speaking as a concerned country, said even if the Commission were not governed by lies and hypocrisy, it would be difficult to believe what was happening today: the United States, the world’s greatest and most obstinate violator of human rights, had just submitted a ludicrous piece of paper which, although content void, was entitled situation of human rights in Cuba, and which was allowed to single out Cuba in an unjust and discriminatory way. At the Geneva farce, it seemed that everything was possible. But there was however, one true fact: the Empire had been compelled, once and for all, to take off its disguise. It could no longer find a lackey of the moment to do the dirty job for it. Its disrepute was so terrible, its lack of ethical standards so obvious, and its lack of arguments so clear, that the United States had to assume this shameful exercise by themselves. Today, there was pity for the sad role played by the accomplices of the United States. The surrendering and subservient European Union could not elaborate a policy independent from the powerful and frightening United States; moreover, now it had been joined by the former socialist countries, which had shifted from a satellite status to a global satellite status.

While the credibility and prestige of the Commission were increasingly questioned, while politicization, selectivity and double standards further discredited it, outside this room the peoples of the world and the world’s best intellectuals had raised their voices to defend Cuba, to alert Cuba to the plans of the Empire and to denounce its atrocious crimes. These were the people who counted, as they fought for a better world. They gave strength to Cuba, as they supported them.

All here knew the real cause of attempts to stigmatise Cuba at the Commission was Cuba’s unyielding rebelliousness against the world’s imperialist unjust order; it was because of the unflinching defence of its independence and sovereignty, and because of the decision to build its own path without accepting foreign interferences. Such attempts to stigmatise Cuba were made because of the example stemming from its truly participatory and popular democracy. The United States Government did not have the slightest moral qualification to speak about Cuba or any other country in the room. The United States was a fascist clique terrorising the world, which had taken for itself the alleged right to intervene and wage a pre-emptive war in 60 or more countries, the right to resort to murdering foreign leaders, to carry out the regime change policy, and to de facto legalise torture against prisoners. Imperialist circles of power in the United States had proven to be the worst violators of human rights in the world, with proven records of wars of aggression and conquest, with their indiscriminate bombing with their intelligent weapons, and with their hunting of Mexican and Latino immigrants at the border. The Government of George W. Bush had no moral authority to stand up as a ruthless prosecutor of third parties.

Cuba would not get tired of fighting. It would not surrender. It would never make concessions. It would never keep its voice down, not even at the Commission of the powerful, where so much hypocrisy, fears and complicities were so disgusting. It would always be side by side to those who did not give up, those who betted on the value of ideas and principles; those who did not renounce the dream of conquering all the justice for all in a better world.
SHA ZUKANG (China), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said various countries used draft resolutions submitted under item 9 to “name and shame”, and the draft on Cuba was a flagrant example. Over the years, the United States had encouraged other countries to introduce, and to fight for these drafts, which had given rise to chaos in the Commission. This year, the United States had come out of the shadows, taking centre stage as the prime fighter on the draft. China appreciated the spirit of the people and Government of Cuba, who had stubbornly resisted the United States’ efforts. Cuba was a modest State, which could not confront the superpower, but the draft had only ever been adopted by a small margin. The latest statement of Cuba had been received with applause like thunder. Remarking that justice was always to be found in the hearts of the people, he said that while Cuba had lost a number of votes, it had won the peoples’ hearts. The United States had won those votes, but it had lost the peoples’ hearts. The result of the present vote would be clear; the Cuban people would always be deservedly called dignified. Also noting that many of those who had worked on these drafts for so many years must be tired, he said that the United States deserved a holiday. The United States was a great country; Cuba was a great country. These two great neighbours should live in peace, side by side. A defeat of the present draft resolution would be good beginning for rapprochement; China would vote against it.

ELSADIG MUSTAFA OSMAN ALMAGLY (Sudan), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the purpose of the United Nations Charter was to cooperate and collaborate among nations for collective security and peace in the world. The attack against Cuba was unacceptable. Cuba was a small developing country, which was using all its resources to help other developing countries. It had been providing medical assistance to many countries through bilateral cooperation. The hegemonic visions of some countries should not be prevailed on others. Human rights cooperation should be found in dialogue and not in malicious words. Sudan would vote against the resolution.

GRIGORY LUKIYANTSEV (Russian Federation) said in an explanation of the vote before the vote that the Russian Federation did not support this draft resolution, and would vote against it, as the ideal country in terms of respecting human rights standards was not to be found. The situation in Cuba did not deserve to have the Commission take action on it in a specific resolution. Russia was guided by the view that the way to improving the human rights situation in any country was through respectful dialogue, taking into account the situation of the State concerned. This could not be imposed from outside, and no reasons of humanitarian nature could it be justified to use such arguments. The rostrum of the Commission should not be used for political acts.

CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Zimbabwe opposed all country-specific resolutions as a point of principle. Zimbabwe remained concerned by the politicization, double standards and selective demonization of States in the work of the Commission. Zimbabwe too had been the victim of collective punishment, and its people suffered and its sovereignty had been challenged. Zimbabwe did not want the same fate to shadow Cuba in perpetuity. All sanctions on Cuba must be lifted. The text merely recalled previous resolutions, and did nothing to advance human rights in Cuba.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.32) on the situation of human rights in Belarus, adopted by a roll-call vote of 23 in favour to 16 against, with 14 abstentions, the Commission expressed deep concern that senior officials of the Government of Belarus had been implicated in the enforced disappearance and/or summary execution of three political opponents of the incumbent authorities in 1999 and of a journalist in 2000 and in the continuing investigatory cover-up; at the findings of the final report of the Election Observation Mission of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe of 9 December 2004, which stated that the parliamentary elections of 17 October 2004 in Belarus fell significantly short of commitments under the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, that the referendum of 17 October 2004 to eliminate term limits on the presidency took place with unrestrained Government bias in favour of the referendum, and that the Belarusian authorities failed to create the conditions to ensure that the will of the people served as the basis of the authority of government.

The Commission urged the Government of Belarus to dismiss or suspend from their duties law enforcement officers and public officials implicated in forced disappearances and/or summary executions, pending an independent, credible and full investigation of those cases, and to hold the perpetrators promptly accountable; to ensure that all necessary measures were taken to investigate fully and impartially all cases of forced disappearance, summary execution and torture and that alleged perpetrators were brought to justice before an independent tribunal and, if found guilty, punished in a manner consistent with the international human rights obligations of Belarus; to cease harassment of non-governmental organizations, political parties, trade unions, independent media, educational institutions, religious organizations and democracy and human rights activists; and to increase its efforts to combat human trafficking and to protect the victims of human trafficking, in particular women being trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation. The Commission also decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further year.

The result of the vote was as follow:

In favour (23): Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Finland, France,
Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Against (16): Armenia, China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India,
Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (14): Argentina, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ecuador, Guinea,
Honduras, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Togo.


Before the vote on the resolution, the Commission rejected a motion for no-action, proposed by the Russian Federation, by a roll-call vote of 22 in favour to 23 against, with seven abstentions.

The result of the vote was as follow:

In favour (22): Armenia, Bhutan, China, Congo, Cuba, Guinea, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe.

Against (23): Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (7): Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ecuador, Gabon, Nepal, Nigeria and Sri Lanka.

Absent (1): Mauritania


LEONID SKOTNIKOV (Russian Federation), speaking in a general comment, proposed a no-action motion, saying that the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Belarus was based on political motives and was not supported by the delegation of the Russian Federation. The delegation believed that the report on Belarus did not reflect the real situation in the country and that it was based on allegations. For that reason, the Russian Federation would propose a no-action motion on the tabled resolution on Belarus.

SHA ZUKANG (China), speaking in a general comment on the no-action motion, said China was resolutely against the draft resolution, and seconded the no-action motion proposed by Russia. Belarus had known stability and economic growth over the last few years. However, since the people of the country insisted on choosing for themselves, and the Government chose its own foreign policy, this displeased other countries who tabled this resolution. Belarus had held a referendum on its political system, the result of which did not please those who had tabled the resolution. Human rights were used as a politicised tool in this resolution. In view of the above-mentioned reasons, China would vote in favour of the no-action motion.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), speaking in a general comment on the no-action motion, said the Cuban delegate had visited Belarus last year, had seen the situation in the country, and had spoken to the people there to discover their views. The no-action motion was supported because behind the draft resolution there was no real interest in promoting human rights in Belarus, the interests of the United States and the European Union lay behind it, and they intended to change the regime there, as they had in other former Soviet republics, because it was one of the few countries that continued to defend its resources, and refused to throw open its doors to the Mafia to dominate its economy. The European Union and the United States wanted to control this country, and Russia was unhappy because Belarus had an elected government, and this was why Cuba would vote in favour of the no-action motion.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in opposition to the motion to take no action, said that a motion to take no action on an initiative constituted an attempt to deny the members of the Commission their right to express their opinion on an issue. It was not a device that could be supported by those that wished to support freedom of expression. The Commission should not be prevented from dealing with the situations in specific countries. No country, large or small, could be considered as being beyond consideration by this forum. The European Union urged the Commission’s members to vote against the motion to take no action.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), in a general comment, said the United States should be ashamed to speak of the elections in Belarus. The elections in Belarus had been much cleaner than in the county of the sponsor of the resolution. Belarus was one of the richest Republics in the region. The people had affirmed their support to the Government by fully participating in the elections. The draft resolution did not truly reflect the real situation of the country. Cuba would vote against the draft resolution.

SERGEI ALEINIK (Belarus), speaking as a concerned country, said this draft resolution was nothing more than another attempt to impose on the international community the distorted opinion about Belarus in order to justify the desire of the co-sponsors to interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign State. The real situation in Belarus and the practical steps taken by its Government had repeatedly demonstrated that the accusations targeting that country were ill-founded. New groundless anti-Belarussian initiatives represented a vivid example of double standards approach exercised by the co-sponsors of the resolution with regard to nations that, like Belarus, chose to conduct an independent domestic and foreign policy. Belarus was a young, independent State, which progressively was making its own way from being a developing democracy to a well-established democracy.

Demonstrating openness and practical interest in cooperation with the United Nations human rights machinery, based on the principles of universality and objectivity, Belarus absolutely rejected the use of human rights issues as an instrument of exerting political pressure on sovereign States. The report of the Special Rapporteur on Belarus, unprecedented by its approach and openly hostile to the country, was a glaring example of the attempts to use the Commission as a tool of legitimising interference into the domestic affairs of a sovereign State, and the document discredited the Commission’s special procedures and undermined the credibility of the body as a whole. The United States had refused to cooperate with special thematic procedures of the Commission, and thus had no moral right to advocate the respect for human rights in the world. Today, the Commission could and should say its firm No to further politicisation of its work and in particular to the adoption of politically motivated resolutions, which stirred confrontation and mistrust.

LEONID SKOTNIKOV (Russian Federation) requested a recorded vote on the draft resolution concerning the situation of human rights in Belarus.

The Commission adopted, without a vote, a decision on Cyprus submitted by the Chairperson, by which it decided to retain sub-item (a) entitled “Question of human rights in Cyprus”, of the item entitled “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-second session, on the understanding that action required by previous Commission resolutions on the subject would remain operative, including the request to the Secretary-General to submit a report to the Commission regarding their implementation.

Action on Resolutions on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.8) on human rights and unilateral coercive measures, adopted by a roll-call vote of 37 in favour to 14 against, with two abstentions, the Commission called on all States to stop adopting or implementing unilateral coercive measures not in accordance with international law, international humanitarian law, the Charter of the United Nations, and the norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States, in particular, those of a coercive nature with extraterritorial effects, which created obstacles to trade relations among States and impeded the full realization of the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. The Commission strongly objected to the extraterritorial nature of those measures and called upon Member States neither to recognize those measures, nor to apply them, and to take effective administrative or legislative measures to counteract the extra-territorial application or effects of unilateral coercive measures.

The Commission condemned the continued unilateral application and enforcement by certain powers of such measures as tools of political or economic pressures against any country, particularly developing countries, to prevent those countries from exercising their right to decide their own political, economic and social systems, and rejected all attempts to introduce unilateral coercive measures.

The result of the vote was as follow:

In favour (37): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Zimbabwe.

Against (14): Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (2): Costa Rica and Republic of Korea.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.16) on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, adopted as orally revised and by a roll-call vote of 37 in favour and 13 against, with two abstentions, the Commission categorically condemned the illicit dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes in developing countries; reaffirmed that illicit traffic in and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes constituted a serious threat to human rights; and requested the Governments of developed countries, together with international financial institutions, to provide financial assistance to African countries for the implementation of the Programme of Action adopted at the First Continental Conference for Africa on the Environmentally Sound Management of Unwanted Stocks of Hazardous Wastes and Their Prevention, held in Rabat, from 8 to 12 January 2001.

The Commission also urged all Governments to ban the export of toxic and dangerous products, substances, chemicals, pesticides and persistent; urged States to strengthen the role of national environmental protection agencies and non-governmental organizations, local communities and associations, trade unions, workers and victims, and provide them with the legal and financial means to take necessary action; and urged human rights bodies to be more systematic in addressing violations of rights associated with the practices of multi-national companies, toxic waste and other environmental problems. It also urged transnational corporations and other business enterprises involved in the transfer of toxic and dangerous products to adhere to local and international health, environmental, labour and other standards in furtherance of human rights and to promote technology transfers to developing countries that could improve the management of toxic wastes and dangerous products and prevent their adverse impacts on local communities.

The result of the vote was as follow:

In favour (37): Argentina, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe.

Against (13): Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Romania, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (2): Armenia and Ukraine.


HIDENOBU SOBASHIMA (Japan), speaking in a general comment on L.16, said the delegation of Japan recognized the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights. Japan was sympathetic with those affected by such illicit dumping. However, a body that had more expertise in this matter than the Commission should address the issue. Japan would vote against the draft resolution.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.18) on human rights and extreme poverty, adopted without a vote, the Commission reaffirmed that extreme poverty and exclusion from society constituted a violation of human dignity and that urgent national and international action was therefore required to eliminate them; that the existence of widespread absolute poverty inhibited the full and effective enjoyment of human rights and made democracy and popular participation fragile; that for peace and stability to prevail, national action and international action and cooperation were required for the promotion of a better life for all in larger freedom, a critical element of which was the eradication of poverty; and that special attention must be given to the plight of women, particularly older women and women heads of households, and children, who often bore the greatest burden of extreme poverty.

The Commission called on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to give high priority to the question of the relationship between extreme poverty and human rights and invited it to further pursue the work in this area; and for the United Nations to strengthen poverty eradication as a priority throughout the United Nations system. The Commission also urged States and encouraged the private sector and international financial and development institutions, such as the World Bank and regional development banks, to promote the participation of the most vulnerable individuals or groups, in particular victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in economic, cultural and social decision-making at all stages, particularly in the development, implementation and assessment of poverty-alleviation strategies, development projects, and trade and market assistance programmes.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.19) on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 38 in favour to 15 against, with no abstentions, the Commission expressed its deep concern at the inadequacy of measures to narrow the widening gap between the developed and the developing countries, which adversely affected the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly in the developing countries; recognized that, while globalization, by its impact on, among other things, the role of the State, might affect human rights, the promotion and protection of all human rights was first and foremost the responsibility of the State; and further recognized that implementation of the Millennium Declaration and attainment of international development goals as identified at United Nations and world conferences, and of the Millennium Development Goals would contribute to the progressive realization of the right to development.

The Commission strongly urged the international community, at the High-Level Plenary Meeting to be held at the commencement of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly, to take stock of the slow progress with regard to the Millennium Development Goals, with a view to taking all necessary and appropriate measures, including enhanced official development assistance, the search for a durable solution to the external debt problem, market access, capacity-building, and dissemination of knowledge and technology, in order to achieve successful integration of developing countries in the global economy; and stressed the need to broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in international economic decision-making and norm-setting with a view to ensuring equitable distribution of growth and development gains in a globalizing world economy.

The result of the vote was as follow:

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

Against (15): Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.


IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the Commission had taken up this issue in the context of human rights before, and Special Rapporteurs were continuing to address the issue in their reports work. Globalization could have implications for the enjoyment of various human rights, both positive and potentially negative ones. The European Union did not believe it was possible to address globalization as a separate issue in the Commission, as it covered a complex set of political, cultural, social and other elements. The Commission did not have the necessary expertise to address its effects, and it was not therefore constructive to address all these complex elements in one resolution. Most concerns on globalization had been addressed in the context of other resolutions and other bodies. For this reason, the European Union would vote against the resolution.

HIDENOBU SOBASHIMA (Japan), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that globalization had had a tremendous impact on all regions and countries everywhere. All over the world, its benefits were being enjoyed, including through vitalization of trade, greater availability of needed commodities, better access to means of development, cultural exchange, and enhanced mutual understanding between civilizations. All the benefits served to create an environment of prosperity and stability for human rights to flourish. Without ignoring the negative aspects of globalization, the positive advantages outweighed the negative for most developing and developed countries. The draft did not adequately address the multiple dimensions of globalization, and only focused on the negative aspects. It was too unbalanced. Moreover, the Commission on Human Rights was not the appropriate body to discuss trade, financial and development programmes as thoroughly as required. Japan would vote against the draft resolution.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.20) on the right to food, adopted by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour to one against, with no abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed that hunger constituted an outrage and a violation of human dignity and, therefore, required the adoption of urgent measures at the national, regional and international levels for its elimination; and considered it intolerable that there were around 852 million undernourished people in the world, that every five seconds a child under the age of five died, directly or indirectly, of hunger or hunger-related disease somewhere in the world and that one person lost his/her eyesight every four minutes as a result of a lack of vitamin A when, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the planet could produce enough food to provide 2,100 kilocalories per person per day to 12 billion people, twice the world’s present population.

The Commission also expressed its concern that women were disproportionately affected by hunger, food insecurity and poverty, in part as a result of gender inequality, that in many countries girls were twice as likely as boys to die from malnutrition and preventable childhood diseases and that it was estimated that almost twice as many women as men suffered from malnutrition and, in that sense, encouraged the Special Rapporteur to continue mainstreaming a gender perspective in the fulfillment of his mandate. Furthermore, the Commission encouraged all States to take steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right to food.

The result of the vote was as follow:

In favour (52): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Zimbabwe.

Against (1): United States.


LINO J. PIEDRA (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the United States had proven by its actions its profound commitment to promoting food security around the world. Although the United States Government agreed with much that was stated in the resolution, it could not support the text as drafted and would call for a vote. The attainment of any right to adequate food or right to be free of hunger was a goal to be realized progressively that did not give rise to any international obligation nor diminish the responsibilities of national governments to their citizens. The resolution took note of the report of report and work of Special Rapporteur Jean Ziegler, with which the United States delegation disagreed in many respects. The Rapporteur continued to use his reports as a forum for advancing novel legal assertions on issues related to food that were not grounded in existing international law.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.21) on the effects of economic policy reform and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 33 in favour to 14 against, with six abstentions, the Commission expressed its concern at the fact that the options for macroeconomic policies of developing countries were constrained by demands for adjustment and that many countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, still carried very high external debt burdens relative to their gross national product; also expressed its concern that the level of implementation and the reduction of the overall debt stock under the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative were still low, and that the Initiative was not intended to offer a comprehensive solution to the long-term debt burden.

The Commission urged the international community, including the United Nations system, and the Bretton Woods institutions, as well as the private sector, to take appropriate measures and actions for the implementation of the pledges, commitments, agreements and decisions of the major United Nations conferences and summits; and called upon States, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to continue to cooperate closely to ensure that additional resources made available through the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and other new initiatives were absorbed in the recipient countries without affecting the ongoing programmes. The Commission decided to convene an expert consultation of three working days with the participation of experts from the various United Nations agencies and programmes, as well as the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the regional economic commissions, the international financial institutions, the special rapporteurs on economic, social and cultural rights, creditor and debtor States and non-governmental organizations to contribute to the independent expert’s work to finalize the draft general guidelines.

The result of the vote was as follow:

In favour (33): Argentina, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe.

Against (14): Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (6): Armenia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Ukraine.


IAN DE JONG (Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union) in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the European Union was not against discussing the effects of economic reform on debt, but these issues were beyond the expertise of the Commission, and that in consequence they were better dealt with in other fora. The requests made in paragraphs 19 and 20 in the resolution went beyond the ambit of the Commission, and risked duplication of the work of other international organizations which had competence on financial and debt issues. There were also serious doubts on the proposals in paragraph 22. The European Union would continue to discuss actively issues of economic reform policies and foreign debt in the appropriate fora. For these reasons and others, the European Union called for a vote and would vote against the text.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.22) on the promotion of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone and respect for different cultural identities, adopted by a roll-call vote of 39 in favour and one against, with 13 abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed that cultural rights were an integral part of human rights, which were universal, indivisible and interdependent; stressed that cultural cooperation should contribute to the establishment of stable, long-term relations between peoples, which should be subjected as little as possible to the strains which might arise in international life; and recognized that the promotion and protection of the full enjoyment of cultural rights by everyone and the respect for different cultural identities were vital elements for the protection of cultural diversity in the context of the ongoing process of globalization. The Commission also stressed that, in the face of current imbalances in flows and exchanges of cultural goods and services at the global level, it was necessary to reinforce international cooperation and solidarity aimed at enabling all countries, especially developing countries and countries in transition, to establish cultural industries that were viable and competitive at national and international levels.
The Commission called upon States and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to take appropriate measures and action for the implementation of the present resolution; and requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to consult States and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations on the particularities and scope of the mandate of an independent expert on the promotion of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone and respect for different cultural identities.

The result of the vote was as follow:

In favour (39): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.

Against (1): United States.

Abstentions (13): Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania and United Kingdom.


Before the vote on the draft resolution, the Commission rejected an amendment proposed by the United States by a recorded vote of 14 in favour to 39 against, with no abstentions. Operative paragraphs 18, 19, 20, and 21 were therefore kept.

The result of the vote was as follow:

In favour (14): Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, United Kingdom and United States.

Against (39): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.


JOEL DANIES (United States) proposed an amendment to delete operative paragraphs 18, 19, 20 and 21 of draft resolution L. 22.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), speaking in explanation of the vote before the vote, said the proposal would have been appreciated were it presented during informal consultations. All delegations had a right to propose amendments, but Cuba and the co-sponsors could not accept this proposal by the United States. If they were to do so, it would be eliminating the very essence of the resolution which aimed to establish a mechanism ensuring continuity. Particular care had been taken in establishing the framework of the mandate of the Expert, and it was not a negative mechanism- the Expert would be identifying the practice and practical recommendations on the basis of the guidelines and the identification of good approaches for guaranteeing cultural rights for all. This was supported by many Governmental delegations and many non-governmental organizations, funds and programmes. Cuba requested a recorded vote on this proposed amendment, and would be voting against it.

JOEL DANIES (United States) speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said given the inability of the sponsors to accept the amendment, there was a call for a vote on the entire resolution. As it was always difficult to get the sponsors to listen to proposals, the United States had been forced to make the suggestion from the floor.
MIKE SMITH (Australia), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that UNESCO was the appropriate forum for all cultural issues including cultural diversity. As such, the resolution, particularly the call for a new thematic procedure, duplicated the work of UNESCO, and for this reason Australia would abstain from the vote.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated countries in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union was fully committed to the promotion of cultural rights, and held that human rights were interdependent, indivisible, interlinking and interrelated. The international community must treat all human rights globally, in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis. While there were cultural and social differences among States, it was the duty of all States to promote economic, social and cultural rights nationally. While the European Union was not opposed to the draft resolution on principle, it regretted that it could not support the introduction of paragraph 18 and the language contained in 19 and 20, and had decided to abstain.

CORRIGENDA


In press release HR/CN/05/30 of 4 April, the statement by Hungary on page 9 should read as follows:

ORSOLYA TOTH (Hungary) asked if the Special Rapporteur would be ready to present his full report on his visit to Ecuador to the next session of the General Assembly. He also asked for the Special Rapporteur's views on how to improve the flow of information and internal interactions among the special mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

In press release HR/CN/05/43 of 12 April, the statement by Switzerland on page 15 should read as follows:

BLAISE GODET (Switzerland) called on all members to seriously consider the proposed reform of the Commission. The creation of a permanent organ to deal with human rights at the level of an institution corresponded to the political importance for peace and security. The Human Rights Council should be able to satisfy its mission and a political agenda. It should acquire some of the Commission's tasks, in particular the participation of non-governmental organizations. Switzerland believed that the members of the Council should be elected by the General Assembly because that would give the Council universal legitimacy. Switzerland was not in favour of introducing criteria for the election of the members. Switzerland supported the idea of a Council that would meet periodically.

In press release HR/CN/05/45 of 12 April, the first right of reply by Turkey on page 17 should read as follows:

MUSTAFA LAKADAMYALI (Turkey), speaking in exercise of the right of reply in reference to the statement made by the Greek Cypriot Representative, said the Greek Cypriot Representative had depicted the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus as an occupied area. The only occupation in Cyprus was the 42-year long unlawful occupation by the Greek Cypriots. Turkey’s intervention in Cyprus in 1974 was undertaken in accordance with its rights and obligations under the 1960 treaty of guarantee. He recalled that the term ‘enclaved’ was first used by the UN Secretary-General to describe the plight of the Turkish Cypriots between 1963-74, who had been squeezed by the Greek Cypriots into small pockets scattered around the island in the wake of the Greek Cypriot side’s armed onslaught against the Turkish Cypriot partner. Since 1974, the Greek Cypriot side has attempted to hijack this term to misrepresent the living conditions of the Greek Cypriots and Maronites residing in North Cyprus, for purely propaganda purposes. One should note that the Greek Cypriots and Maronites enjoyed the same, if not better, standard of living as the Turkish Cypriots of the same area.

* *** *

For use of information only; not an official record-