COMMISSION ADOPTS TEXTS ON INDIGENOUS ISSUES, REPORT OF SUB-COMMISSION, PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Commission on Human Rights
MORNING
20 April 2005


Appoints Independent Expert on Human Rights and
International Solidarity for a Period of Three Years


The Commission on human rights this morning adopted 15 resolutions and two decisions concerning indigenous issues, the report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and the promotion and protection of human rights.

In a resolution on human rights and international solidarity, the Commission decided to appoint an Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity for a period of three years and requested the Independent Expert to study the issue and prepare a draft declaration on the rights of peoples to international solidarity.

On indigenous issues, the Commission adopted a resolution on the Working Group on indigenous populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights; and another on the Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph five of the General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994 (on a draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People).

Still under indigenous issues, the Commission adopted a resolution on human rights and indigenous people, in which it requested the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, in performing his work, to consider the recommendations of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance on matters concerning his mandate, as well as the recommendations, observations and conclusions of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and requested him to begin preparing a study regarding best practices carried out to implement the recommendations contained in his general and country reports.

In a resolution on the protection of indigenous peoples in times of conflict, the Commission requested the Secretary-General to ensure that the Special Advisor for the Prevention of Genocide appointed under the Action Plan to Prevent Genocide took into consideration the need to protect indigenous peoples and their territories; that, in situations where there were forces present under a United Nations mandate, they protected vulnerable indigenous peoples, their territories and objects indispensable to their survival; and that the mandates of United Nations authorized operations included a requirement to protect indigenous populations and their territories.

In a decision containing a recommendation from the Sub-Commission concerning the final report on the study "Indigenous peoples' permanent sovereignty over natural resources", the Commission recommended the Economic and Social Council to authorize the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene an expert seminar during 2005 to give further attention to and to discuss in detail the many political, legal, economic, social and cultural aspects and matters relating to that study, as well as the study on "Indigenous peoples and their relationship to land".

In a resolution on the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, the Commission considered that international cooperation in this field, in conformity with the purposes and principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations and international law, should make an effective and practical contribution to the urgent task of preventing violations of human rights and of fundamental freedoms for all; and urged all actors on the international scene to reject all doctrines of exclusion based on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

On the report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the Commission adopted a resolution on the work of the Sub-Commission.

On the promotion and protection of human rights, the Commission adopted resolutions on human rights and human responsibilities, the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, the promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of all human rights by all, the promotion of a democratic equitable international order, the development of public information activities in the field of human rights, including the World Public Information Campaign on Human Rights, and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Still on the promotion and protection of human rights, the Commission adopted a resolution on human rights and international solidarity in which it 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. It decided to appoint an Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity for a period of three years and requested the Independent Expert to study the issue and prepare a draft declaration on the rights of peoples to international solidarity.

In a resolution on the question of the death penalty, the Commission condemned the continuing application of the death penalty on the basis of any discriminatory legislation, policies or practices; and cases in which women were subjected to the death penalty on the basis of gender-discriminatory legislation, policies or practices and the disproportionate use of the death penalty against persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities. The Commission called upon all States that still maintained the death penalty to abolish the death penalty completely and, in the meantime, to establish a moratorium on executions.

In a resolution on human rights and the environment as part of sustainable development, the Commission reaffirmed that peace, security, stability and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development, as well as respect for cultural diversity were essential for achieving sustainable development and ensuring that sustainable development benefited all, as set forth in the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

In a resolution on the protection of the human rights of civilians in armed conflicts the Commission urged all parties to armed conflicts to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law, in particular to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population, and also urged all States to comply with their human rights obligations in this context; and stressed the importance of combating impunity in order to prevent violations of international human rights and humanitarian law perpetrated against civilians in armed conflicts.

In a decision, the Commission requested Miguel Alfonso Martinez, author of the study on human rights and human responsibilities requested by the Commission in 2000, to prepare a new initial version of the pre-draft declaration on human social responsibilities.

Speaking this morning were the Representatives of Pakistan (for the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Cuba, United States, Costa Rica, Honduras, Netherlands (for the European Union), Canada, Guatemala, Mexico, Finland, Australia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, India, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Sudan, and the Russian Federation.

The Commission will resume its meeting at 3 p.m. to continue to take action on draft resolutions and decisions.

Action on Resolutions on Specific Groups and Individuals

The Commission postponed taking action on resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.59) on the protection of human rights in the context of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) until the afternoon meeting so that negotiations with a view toward achieving consensus could be held. Other resolutions under this agenda item were also postponed to the afternoon meeting.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan, in a general comment on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference - OIC), said the OIC strongly supported the draft resolution in L.59 and attached great importance to the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of HIV/AIDS. The content was agreed with, but it had been indicated that an amendment to operative paragraph 1 and operative paragraph 14, related to the guidelines on HIV/AIDS and human rights would have been preferable. Other amendments were suggested to some preambular paragraphs. The elaboration of the guidelines in annex 1 was not acceptable because these included a number of concepts that the OIC could not accept. These guidelines had been published on the website with no available elaboration. One of the reasons why the OIC found them difficult to accept was because they included a reference to "criminal law including sexual acts (…) between consenting adults in private" which were unacceptable. It was only with elaboration that this resolution could be acceptable to the OIC, and it was hoped consensus would be reached outside the Commission. If not, Pakistan would have to ask for deletion of these paragraphs, as it could not vote for the text as it stood.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), making a general comment, said the draft's adoption by consensus in earlier years had been welcomed, and added that being fundamentalist in protecting certain rights did not help anyone. The best way to protect those affected by HIV/AIDS was to do so by consensus, and it was regretted that co-sponsors had not responded to the concerns and proposals of some, particularly those put forward by China. The Chinese amendment placed reproductive rights in context, as they had been agreed by consensus at international conferences in the economic and social spheres. The amendment should be incorporated into the original text before its adoption. If the co-sponsors were not prepared to accept the Chinese proposal, there would have to be a vote on the amendment.

DAVID HOHMAN (United States), making a general statement, said United States' acceptance of the amendment was contingent on several understandings. The Cairo and Beijing documents constituted an important policy framework that did not create international legal rights, including any right to abortion. There was an international understanding that the terms reproductive health services did not involve abortion. The United States fully supported the principle of voluntary choice regarding maternal and child health and family planning. The United States supported the treatment of women who suffered injuries or illness caused by legal or illegal abortion. The United States emphasized the value of comprehensive prevention strategies to combat the spread of HIV/AID.

LUIS VARELA QUIROS (Costa Rica), in a general comment, said Costa Rica joined delegations which had some reservations, particularly with regard to operative paragraph 6. Costa Rica was firmly in favour of combating pandemics, and the Government had adopted many policies to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and to provide assistance and treatment to sufferers. The language in operative paragraph 6 could never be interpreted by Costa Rica as allowing abortion, and should only be interpreted in the context of combating HIV/AIDS. The right to life was the worthiest of rights, and this was applied right from the moment of conception. No language would be accepted which would entail a restriction of the right to life. A consensus would be welcomed as long as the co-sponsors would accept changes to the paragraph as suggested by some delegations. The Chinese proposal to amend the text would be acceptable.

GRACIBEL BU FIGUEROA (Honduras), making a general comment, said the delegation of Honduras shared the ideas and principles contained in the current draft resolution, as they could help protect and promote the human rights of persons affected by HIV/AIDS. However, Honduras would have to withdraw its co-sponsorship, given the amendments proposed by China and Pakistan, which posed a legal and social problem for the country. Honduras reserved the right to restore its co-sponsorship on the understanding that the proposals of China and Pakistan would not be accepted.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), in a general comment, said the European Union would oppose the amendments tabled by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Reference to the guidelines was included in the subsequent resolutions in the past and the draft texts were adopted by consensus. The draft was a result of a transparent discussion, and no delegation had made reservations during the consultations. The Union would vote against the amendment tabled by Pakistan.

Action on Resolutions and Decision on Indigenous Issues

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.56) on the Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 39 in favour to 13 against, with one abstention, the Commission recommended that the Economic and Social Council authorize the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the twenty-second session of the Working Group to submit the report on that session to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues during the Forum's fourth session in 2005, as requested in Sub-Commission resolution 2004/15 of 9 August 2004; urged all States to continue working, in cooperation with the United Nations system, on the implementation of the conclusions and recommendations of the International Decade and to take the necessary measures to support the goals of the Second Decade; and invited the Working Group on indigenous populations to submit in due course to the Coordinator for the Second Decade, through the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, a list of activities to be considered for possible inclusion as part of the human rights component of the comprehensive programme of action for the Second Decade that the Secretary-General has been requested to submit to the General Assembly at its sixtieth session. The Commission also requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to submit to the Commission at its sixty-second session, under the agenda item entitled "Indigenous issues", a report on the activities undertaken by her Office during the calendar year 2005 relating to indigenous peoples, as well as proposals both within and outside the framework of the Second Decade for enhancing the promotion and protection of the individual and collective rights of indigenous people, including their human rights and freedoms.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (39): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, 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 et Zimbabwe.

Against (13): Australia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom et United States.

Abstention (1): Finland.


AMY MCKEE (United States), in a general comment, said that at the last session of the Commission, the United States had pointed out that the Working Group on indigenous populations had outlived its usefulness. The Special Rapporteur was helping States focus on improving their records, and the Permanent Forum was bringing the concerns of indigenous people to the mainstream of the United Nations deliberations. It would be better to replace the session of the Working Group with more time for the Permanent Forum on elaborating a Draft Convention. The United States of America would like a recorded vote, and would vote against the resolution.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.61) on the Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph five of the General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994, adopted by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour to none against, with one abstention, the Commission urged all parties involved in the process of negotiation to do their utmost to carry out successfully the mandate of the Working Group and to present for adoption as soon as possible a final draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People; and also invited the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group and all interested parties to conduct broad informal inter-sessional consultations with a view to facilitating progress in concluding a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People at the next session of the Working Group. The Commission also encouraged organizations of indigenous people that were not already registered to participate in the Working Group and that wished to do so to apply for authorization in accordance with the procedures set out in the annex to Commission resolution 1995/32.

The result of the vote was as follows:

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 (0)

Abstentions (1): United States.
A proposed amendment by the United States on the text of L. 61 was rejected by a vote of two in favour, with 49 against and two abstentions.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (2): Australia and United States.

Against (49): Argentina, Armenia, 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, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (2): Romania and Togo.


AMY MCKEE (United States), making a general comment, said the United States would like to amend operative paragraph five of the resolution to read "Calls upon the Working Group to complete the negotiations prior to the sixty-second session of the Commission, and to this end authorizes the expenditure of resources for ten working days of negotiations and, if necessary to extend that negotiating session for up to an additional ten days to accomplish this objective, the cost of the meeting to be met from within existing resources."

WAYNE LORD (Canada), in a general comment, said the delegation of Canada appreciated the efforts of the United States towards indigenous peoples. Canada's delegation had had a series of discussions with the co-sponsors and representatives of the indigenous peoples. However, Canada was not in a position to support the United States amendment.

LARS PIRA (Guatemala), in a general comment, said Guatemala supported all work on indigenous peoples within the United Nations system, and this was why it had supported the work of the Working Group on indigenous peoples. It would continue to work for consensus and to strike a balance between the rights of indigenous peoples and the needs of States. It would strive for consensus on this issue in a spirit of full and effective participation of all States so that the instrument would protect the rights of indigenous peoples. Any process of improving the drafting would be welcome, and therefore the Chairman of the Working Group should consider means of making the work more expeditious. What had been said by indigenous organizations that it would have been more effective to extend the mandate of the Working Group by six weeks was supported. The Working Group should adopt more dynamic methods of work and more definite deadlines. An informal consultation measure would be more effective.

LUIS JAVIER CAMPUZANO (Mexico), in a general comment, said that today the Commission was facing a crucial moment for the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as for the indigenous peoples of the world themselves. The future of the draft Declaration was at stake, as two different positions were being staked out. No one opposed the successful conclusion of negotiations on the draft Declaration, and Mexico supported a strong and vigorous draft Declaration. The first of the positions would put too much pressure on the negotiating process on the assumption that nothing had been achieved in the first decade, while the other extreme was that the draft Declaration could be concluded in ten days. Mexico felt that the process should not be forced faster than it could go, or be limited to one year. It was unrealistic to expect the process to be concluded in ten days, and Mexico supported the two-year extension and the proposal to explore alternative methods of work, as suggested in the report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Mexico wished to act as a facilitator to bring the diverging positions as close together as possible, and supported the holding of a workshop to build bridges of dialogue for new approaches to the toughest and most problematic issues contained in the draft Declaration. Flexibility should be given to the negotiating process in order to achieve a draft Declaration acceptable to all indigenous peoples. Mexico supported the position of Canada against the amendment proposed by the United States.

LEENA LEIKAS (Finland), in a general statement, said the delegation of Finland appreciated the work done so far in the Working Group in drafting a declaration on the right of indigenous peoples. The proposed United States amendment to give an ultimatum to the Working Group was not acceptable. Finland would vote against the amendment and called for others to do the same.

AMY MCKEE (United States) said in an explanation of the vote on L. 61 that the United States was committed to the work of the Working Group, but its work should had been finished in the original ten years allotted. In the past 10 years, strides had been made in the text. What was needed was not an open-ended mandate, but a commitment by all States to find an agreed text. This objective was the intention of the United States in proposing the amendment. The United States would like a vote on L61 and would abstain from the vote, as it thought that the changes should have been integrated. The United States was committed to the situation of indigenous people. It was the sincere hope that next year the United States would not be making the same intervention, but would be marking the approval of a Declaration to be forwarded to the General Assembly, one that would benefit people and States.
MIKE SMITH (Australia) said the delegation of Australia would support the current draft resolution on the understanding that "as soon as possible" meant that the process would be brought to a conclusion by the sixty-second session of the Commission on Human Rights. However, Australia would not be disposed to support another resolution of this kind.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.66) on human rights and indigenous people, adopted without a vote, the Commission requested the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, in performing his work, to consider the recommendations of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance on matters concerning his mandate, as well as the recommendations, observations and conclusions of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and requested him to begin preparing a study regarding best practices carried out to implement the recommendations contained in his general and country reports and to submit a progress report to the Commission at its sixty-second session and the final study at its sixty-third session. The Commission also requested the Special Rapporteur to liase with the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide with regard to the protection of indigenous people from genocide. It further 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; and urged States that had not yet done so to consider, as a matter of priority, ratifying or acceding to the Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, 1989 (No. 169) of the International Labour Organization.

In a draft resolution, recommended by the Sub-Commission, on the protection of indigenous peoples in times of conflict, which was adopted by a recorded vote of 35 in favour to 13 against, with four abstentions, the Commission requested the Secretary-General to ensure that the Special Advisor for the Prevention of Genocide appointed under the Action Plan to Prevent Genocide took into consideration the need to protect indigenous peoples and their territories; that, in situations where there were forces present under a United Nations mandate, they protected vulnerable indigenous peoples, their territories and objects indispensable to their survival; and that the mandates of United Nations authorized operations included a requirement to protect indigenous populations and their territories. The Commission also requested the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people to liase with the Special Advisor with regard to the protection of indigenous peoples from genocide and to develop an emergency response mechanism as part of his mandate.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (35): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland and Zimbabwe.

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

Abstentions (4): Congo, India, Japan and Republic of Korea.


CAROLINE REES (United Kingdom), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the delegation of the United Kingdom regretted having to call for a vote on the text. The United Kingdom was committed to the full and equal realization of the rights of indigenous people. It urged full implementation of international humanitarian law, including on the protection of civilians in time of conflict. The United Kingdom would vote against the draft decision and asked others to do the same.

The Commission adopted, by a recorded vote of 38 in favour to two against, with 12 abstentions, a decision containing a recommendation from the Sub-Commission concerning the final report on the study "Indigenous peoples' permanent sovereignty over natural resources". By that text, the Commission expressed its deep appreciation to Special Rapporteur Erica-Irene A. Daes for her excellent and comprehensive final report, and recommended the Economic and Social Council to authorize the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene an expert seminar during 2005 to give further attention to and to discuss in detail the many political, legal, economic, social and cultural aspects and matters relating to that study, as well as the study on "Indigenous peoples and their relationship to land". ECOSOC would also be recommended to issue the two studies as part of the Human Rights Study Series.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (38): Argentina, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, 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, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland and Zimbabwe.

Against (2): Australia and United States.

Abstentions (12): Armenia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

MIKE SMITH (Australia) requested a recorded vote on the draft decision.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), in an explanation of the vote, said Pakistan regretted that there was a request for a vote. Ms. Daes had done excellent work. The decision referred to the fact that an excellent and comprehensive report had been submitted. If it were not studied by an expert seminar, it would not achieve the objective of being discussed by indigenous groups and people. The draft decision was strongly supported.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the delegation of Cuba had been surprised at the request for a roll-call vote on this decision. Cuba had followed the Special Rapporteur's work closely for a number of years and she had done a good job. When a vote was called for, it was usually to express opposition to the content of the text. There had been no explanation, only a request for a vote. As there was no knowledge of why the vote had been called, Cuba would vote in favour of the draft decision.

Action on Resolutions on the Report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

The Commission was informed that the delegation of Cuba wished to withdraw the draft resolution on the work of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights that it had submitted (E/CN.4/2005/L.7).

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.57) on the work of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, adopted without a vote, the Commission decided that the Sub-Commission could best assist the Commission by providing it with independent expert studies and working papers solely carried out by its members or alternates during their mandate, notwithstanding the completion of currently existing mandates; recommendations based on, and after full consideration of, these studies; and studies, research and expert advice at the request of the Commission, including proposals confirmed by the Commission which had been suggested by treaty bodies or other United Nations human rights bodies.

The Commission recommended that the Sub-Commission further improve its methods of work by focusing on its primary role as an advisory body to the Commission, specifically when its advice was requested by the Commission; giving particular attention to the selection of studies specifically recommended by the Commission or proposals confirmed by the Commission which had been suggested by treaty bodies; and taking fully into account legal opinions addressed to the Sub-Commission by the Legal Counsel of the United Nations, among other things.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) in a general comment said it was grateful for the resolution, and operative paragraph 1 and operative paragraph 2 were a very important contribution. The Sub-Commission had made very important contributions in the past, and should continue to do so as a subsidiary body of the Commission.

STACY BARRIOS (United States) in a general comment said there were longstanding and continuing concerns related to the manner in which the Sub-Commission operated, and the way in which its budget was managed. The Sub-Commission had neglected the work recommended it by the Commission as its overseeing body, and had done too much work outside its mandate. The United States felt the Sub-Commission should abide by the terms of the draft resolution strictly. The United States strongly supported the terms of operative paragraph 11 concerning the election of members to the Sub-Commission, and would push the issues of clear term limits and rotation within regional groups in future years.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) in a general comment said the text was the minimum common denominator for a consensus, and Cuba would join that consensus. Operative paragraph 11 and operative paragraph 13 were of particular interest, as over the years some delegations had taken a very critical attitude towards the work of the Sub-Commission, and this was seen in their desire to restrict the Sub-Commission as an independent thinking body. There was concern for this, as had been shown a number of times, and Cuba would continue to be vigilant that those who intended to hijack, the work of this independent body would not be successful. The members of the Sub-Commission should show independence, but the wording indicating this appeared to be critical. There was concern regarding the limitation of funding for the Sub-Commission and of its administrative independence. Cuba would not accept that when reference was made to the resources of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, when they were to be increased, that resources to the Sub-Commission would be reduced; this was felt with regard to all special procedures of the Commission.

Action on Resolutions and Decision on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

In a decision (E/CN.4/2005/L.67) on human rights and human responsibilities, adopted by a roll-call vote of 26 in favour to 25 against, with one abstention, the Commission, having considered the report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on this issue (E/CN.4/2005/99), decided to request Miguel Alfonso Martinez, author of the study on human rights and human responsibilities requested by the Commission in its resolution 2000/63 of 26 April 2000, to prepare without financial implications, for submission to and discussion at its sixty-second session, under the same agenda item, a new initial version of the pre-draft declaration on human social responsibilities (E/CN.4/2003/105, annex I), taking into account the debate held on this matter during its sixty-first session and, in particular, the comments and suggestions advanced by States and international governmental and non-governmental organizations on the pre-draft declaration, as reflected in the compilation contained in document E/CN.4/2005/99.

The result of the vote was as follows:

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

Against (25): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Brazil, 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.

Abstention (1): Eritrea.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), in a general comment, said the delegation of Cuba had been guided by the principle of all human rights for all. The only way to guarantee that principle was through a balanced and dynamic link between human rights and individual responsibility. An individual's enjoyment of human rights implied that other individuals were also ensured enjoyment of human rights; there was a duty towards solidarity to ensure human rights that should be fulfilled. Those taking a progressive approach to the concept of human responsibility and social responsibility were taking the egoistic approach to human rights, seeking to guarantee human rights for themselves and their people, without guaranteeing them for all other people's in society. What was needed was an approach grounded in solidarity, which the vast majority of the world's population, and most developing countries, needed. The text was sufficiently balanced to take into account the views and concerns of all parties, and it would have no financial implications, but would constitute a voluntary activity by the Independent Expert. The document to come out would be a new pre-draft document, based on consensus. All parties -- Governments and non-governmental organizations -- would have the opportunity to participate. Those who opposed the draft resolution were trying to impose a selfish, fundamental approach to human rights. In no part of the text was there an intention to impose a single point of view. All those supportive of solidarity for human rights for all should vote in favour of the draft.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), in a general statement and speaking on behalf of the European Union, regretted that the Commission was taking action on the issue once again. The idea that States should determine which rights their citizens enjoyed was contrary to the international human rights principles. Individuals should enjoy all human rights without interference by States. The European Union did not dispute that individuals did not have obligations in the States where they lived. States could adopt domestic laws on such obligations but could not restrict the rights of their citizens. The European Union had serious procedural problems. The Union would request a vote and would vote against the draft.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.69) on the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Commission considered that international cooperation in this field, in conformity with the purposes and principles set out in the Charter of the United Nations and international law, should make an effective and practical contribution to the urgent task of preventing violations of human rights and of fundamental freedoms for all; 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, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; and called upon Member States, specialized agencies and intergovernmental organizations to continue to carry out a constructive dialogue and consultations for the enhancement of understanding and the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and encouraged non-governmental organizations to contribute actively to this endeavour.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.71) on human rights and international solidarity, adopted by a roll-call vote of 37 in favour to 15 against, with one abstention, the Commission 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. It also 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 make possible the full realization of all human rights.

The Commission decided, taking into account the urgent need to further develop guidelines, standards, norms and principles with a view to promoting and protecting rights closely interrelated to the fundamental value of solidarity, to appoint an Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity for a period of three years and requested the Independent Expert to study the issue and prepare a draft declaration on the right of peoples to international solidarity. It also requested the independent expert to take into account the outcomes of all major United Nations and other global summits and ministerial meetings in the economic and social fields and to seek views and contributions from Governments, United Nations agencies, other relevant international organizations and non-governmental organizations in the discharge of his/her mandate.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (37): 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, 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.

Abstention (1): Qatar.


IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the Netherlands was convinced that States were the prime bodies responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the main mandate of the Commission remained respect for human rights by States. The draft resolution did not take this into account, and did not deal with relations between States. The Commission was not the appropriate forum to take up the issue of international solidarity. It was not appropriate to appoint an Independent Expert for three years. The European Union was in favour of an effective monitoring of the obligations entered into at the Millennium Summit, but this should be done by political dialogue, promoting democratic principles and the rule of law and good governance in all countries. The obstacles encountered by developing countries were alarming, and the European Union would do all possible to provide aid for them in the context of development. The European Union was aware of the importance of international cooperation for this purpose. The resolution did not reflect the extent of the progress already made, nor did it reflect the commitment of the international community. International solidarity should be promoted in the context of decisions taken in other fora. The European Union would vote against this resolution.

HENRI-PAUL NORMANDIN (Canada), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the present draft resolution called upon the Commission to take action in future years, particularly in calling for appointment of a new special procedure. Concerning the process, the Commission had taken up this question last year, and had agreed to consider it again at the sixty-second session. For that reason, it had been a surprise to see this text submitted during the current session. The text also introduced the idea of an Independent Expert, to whom much work would be assigned; very few consultations had been held on this issue, and there should have been a full debate. Given the consensus importance placed upon improving the Commission's special procedures, the appointment of new special procedures should not be taken lightly. All members should take the appointment, the mandate, and the resources that would need to be allocated to the new special procedure into consideration. It was not just a question of voting in favour or against the idea, but of the resources and future expenditures that would be required. The issue should properly be taken up at the Commission's next session, and Canada invited all members to vote against the draft at this time.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.72) on the promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of all human rights by all, adopted by a roll-call vote of 32 in favour to 15 against, with six abstentions, the Commission stressed that peace was a vital requirement for the promotion and protection of all human rights for all; and that the deep fault line that divided human society between the rich and the poor, and the ever-increasing gap between the developed and developing worlds posed a major threat to global prosperity, security and stability. It urged all States to respect and to put into practice the principles and purposes of the Charter in their relations with all other States, irrespective of their political, economic or social systems, as well as of their size, geographical location or level of economic development; and called upon the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to carry out a constructive dialogue and consultations with Member States, specialized agencies and intergovernmental organizations on how the Commission on Human Rights could work for the promotion of an international environment conducive to the full realization of the right of peoples to peace, and encouraged non-governmental organizations to contribute actively to this endeavour.

The result of the vote was as follows:

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

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

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


JOEL DANIES (United States), in a general statement, said the draft dealt with disarmament issues and not human rights. The issue was not directly related to the work of the Commission. For that reason, the United States delegation would call for a recorded vote and would vote against the draft.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands, in a general statement, speaking on behalf of the European Union), said some of the issues raised in the draft resolution L.72 should be dealt with in other bodies, which had the necessary competence. The draft omitted to underline that the absence of peace could not justify the non-respect of human rights. Although the Union supported some of the principles enumerated in the draft, the draft did not represent the appropriate context of those principles. The draft dealt with relations between States and not between a State and its citizens or human rights respect by a State, which invoked the mandate of the Commission. The Union could not support the resolution and would vote against.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.73) on the promotion of a democratic equitable international order, adopted by a roll-call vote of 32 in favour to 15 against, with six abstentions, the Commission called upon all Member States to fulfil their commitment expressed in September 2001 in Durban, South Africa, during the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance to maximize the benefits of globalization through, among other things, 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, and reiterated that only through broad and sustained efforts to create a shared future based upon our common humanity, and all its diversity, could globalization be made fully inclusive and equitable. The Commission also affirmed that a democratic and equitable international order required, among other things, the realization of the rights of all peoples to self-determination, by virtue of which they could freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development; the right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources; the right to an international economic order based on equal participation in the decision-making process, interdependence, mutual interest, international solidarity and cooperation among all States; the right to equitable participation of all, without any discrimination, in domestic as well as global decision-making; and the promotion of an inclusive global information society directed towards bridging the digital divide, promoting access to information and communication technologies, creating digital opportunities, and benefiting from the potential offered by these technologies.

The Commission also stressed the importance of preserving the rich and diverse nature of the international community of nations and peoples and urged all actors on the international scene to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, peace, 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, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Lastly, it urged States to continue their efforts, through enhanced international cooperation, towards the establishment of a democratic and equitable international order.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (32): Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe.

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

Abstentions (6): Argentina, Armenia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico and Peru.


IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union was convinced of the importance of some of the issues raised in this resolution, but it went outside the framework of the mandate and the jurisdiction of the Commission, and these were matters for other fora. Further, there were references to undefined rights, and a number of provisions were included which in view of the context undermined resolutions adopted by consensus in other fora. It dealt with relations between States and not relations between States and their citizens, or the respect of States for human rights. There should be a roll-call vote on this resolution, and the European Union would vote against it.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.74) on the development of public information activities in the field of human rights, including the World Public Information Campaign on Human Rights, adopted without a vote, the Commission urged the Department of Public Information, in cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner, to continue, within existing overall United Nations resources, to utilize fully and effectively the United Nations information centres, including the United Nations regional information centres, and United Nations field presences, particularly those of the Office of the High Commissioner, for the purpose of disseminating, within their designated areas of activity, basic information and reference materials on human rights and fundamental freedoms in the official languages of the United Nations and in the relevant national and local languages. The Commission also stressed the importance of an effective and comprehensive international strategy to increase public awareness of human rights through the media and, in particular, to improve effective media strategies. It further called upon Governments, in accordance with their national conditions, to accord priority to the dissemination in their relevant national and local languages of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights and other human rights instruments, human rights materials and training manuals, as well as reports of States parties under the human rights treaties, and to provide training, education and information in those languages on the practical ways in which national and international institutions and procedures may be utilized to ensure the effective implementation of those instrument.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.77) on the question of the death penalty, adopted by a roll-call vote of 26 favour and 17 against, with ten abstentions, the Commission condemned the continuing application of the death penalty on the basis of any discriminatory legislation, policies or practices; and cases in which women were subjected to the death penalty on the basis of gender-discriminatory legislation, policies or practices and the disproportionate use of the death penalty against persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities. The Commission called upon all States that still maintained the death penalty to abolish the death penalty completely and, in the meantime, to establish a moratorium on executions; and progressively to restrict the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed and, at the least, not to extend its application to crimes to which it did not at present apply.
The Commission 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 from capital punishment; not to impose the death penalty on a person suffering from any mental or intellectual disabilities or to execute any such person; to ensure that the notion of "most serious crimes" did not go beyond intentional crimes with lethal or extremely grave consequences; and not to execute any person as long as any related legal procedure, at the international or at the national level, was pending. The Commission also requested States that had received a request for extradition on a capital charge to reserve explicitly the right to refuse extradition in the absence of effective assurances from relevant authorities of the requesting State that the death penalty would not be carried out, and called upon States to provide such effective assurances if requested to do so, and to respect them.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (26): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bhutan, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

Against (17): China, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, United States and
Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (10): Burkina Faso, Congo, Cuba, Gabon, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Nigeria, Republic of Korea and Sri Lanka.

The Commission voted on amendments proposed by India, rejecting them by a recorded vote of 19 in favour to 25 against, with eight abstentions.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (19): China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mauritania, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, United States and Zimbabwe.

Against (25): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

Abstentions (8): Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Congo, Gabon, Guatemala, Kenya, Republic of Korea and Sri Lanka.

Absent (1): Nigeria


ABDULWAHAB A. ATTAR (Saudi Arabia, making a general statement on behalf of China, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe), said that these delegations wished to dissociate themselves from the draft on the death penalty. The delegations had a joint statement to explain their decision, but in the interest of time, they wished only to request that it be circulated as an official document of the sixty-first Commission. The statement had also been agreed on by 49 observer delegations.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India), in a general statement, said it was the right of sovereign States to decide on their domestic legislation, including the abolition of capital punishment. India had capital punishment on its statutes and it was applicable to serious crimes. It was not practiced against women or persons with disabilities. The various legal institutions should closely scrutinize the imposition of the death penalty. He requested a separate vote on operative paragraphs 5, 8G and 10 of the draft text.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands in a general comment on behalf of the European Union and almost 80 co-sponsors), said that the amendments tabled by India were strongly rejected. These went against some of the key principles of the draft resolution, and the suggested amendments if deleted would change the body completely. There should be a vote on these amendments, and all States were urged to vote in favour of retaining the suggested deletions.

N.U.O. WADIBIA-ANYANWU (Nigeria), in a general comment, said that Nigeria retained capital punishment as applicable to heinous crimes, but noted that the sentence could only be imposed after vigorous due process of law. The Government remained seized of the question however, and the President had established a body to review the death penalty in national due process. The Government of Nigeria, as any other responsible government, was fully committed to protecting its citizens, as well as public order and stability. Nigeria would continue to promote the sanctity of the right to life to ensure that no one was arbitrarily deprived of the right to life. On the vote, her delegation would abstain.

SUGEESHWARA GUNARATNA (Sri Lanka), in a general statement, said although the laws of Sri Lanka contained capital punishment, it had not been used for the last 26 years. The moratorium had been strictly observed during that period. The delegation of Sri Lanka would abstain in the vote.

PHILLIP RICHARD O. OWADE (Kenya) said in a general comment that the Commission was faced once more with this difficult issue, and the jury was still out on the question. There was no international, nor any national consensus on this topic. In Kenya, the death penalty was part and parcel of the statutes for the most serious crimes, but there had been a de facto moratorium on the execution of the penalty for about 15 years. The Government had attempted to abolish it, but had been unable to gain sufficient support in Parliament. Parliamentary debates had demonstrated a sharp division on both sides of the argument. The Government had been able to commute death sentences to life imprisonment. A number of elements of the draft resolution were shared, but experience clearly demonstrated that abolition of the death penalty was a no-go idea whose time had not come. For these reasons, Kenya would abstain on the resolution.

PAULA BARTON (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the delegation of the United States would oppose the draft resolution due to its call for the abolition of capital punishment. There was no international consensus for any such action, and the United States Government did not accept the claims of benefits to be derived therefrom. International law permitted use of the death penalty when the principle of due process was respected, and when it was only used in the context of serious crimes. The United States Supreme Court had repeatedly upheld the legality of capital punishment under the Constitution, when certain safeguards were respected. The United States took the concept of due process very seriously, which was why it provided for an exhaustive appeals process, and agreed with the emphasis given to that issue in the text. However, it was highly inappropriate for the Commission to encourage States to violate their obligations under international extradition treaties. The United States had ratified the Torture Convention, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, subject to reservations regarding its obligations with regard to the death penalty. This statement also reflected the longstanding United States view that capital punishment was a question most appropriately addressed by judicial, constitutional, and political processes within the United States. The United States would request a vote on the draft.

ELSADIG ALMAGLY (Sudan), in a general statement, said the abolition of the death penalty was a controversial issue. The Commission could not dictate an ideology. Sudan could not support the draft resolution L.77.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.79) on human rights and the environment as part of sustainable development, adopted without a vote, the Commission reaffirmed that peace, security, stability and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to development, as well as respect for cultural diversity were essential for achieving sustainable development and ensuring that sustainable development benefited all, as set forth in the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. It also called upon States to take all necessary measures to protect the legitimate exercise of everyone's human rights when promoting environmental protection and sustainable development and requested the High Commissioner and invited the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Development Programme and other relevant bodies and organizations, within their respective mandates and approved work programmes and budgets, to continue to coordinate their efforts in activities relating to human rights and the environment in poverty eradication, post-conflict environmental assessment and rehabilitation, disaster prevention, post-disaster assessment and rehabilitation, to take into consideration in their work relevant findings and recommendations of others and to avoid duplication.

MIKE SMITH (Australia), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Australia was not asking for a vote but continued to question whether this issue was appropriate for this forum. Environment and sustainable development issues were being dealt with by two other United Nations bodies.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.80) on the World Programme for Human Rights Education, adopted without a vote, the Commission encouraged the General Assembly to adopt, possibly during its current fifty-ninth session and no later than the end of 2005, the revised draft plan of action (A/59/525/Rev.1) for the first phase (2005-2007) of the World Programme, focusing on the primary and secondary school systems; encouraged all States to develop initiatives within the World Programme for Human Rights Education and, in particular, to implement, within their capabilities, the revised draft plan of action once it was adopted by the General Assembly; and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to promote and, when requested, technically assist, in close cooperation with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the national implementation of the revised draft plan of action once it was adopted by the General Assembly and to coordinate related international efforts.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.81/Rev.1) on the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted without a vote, the Commission called upon States that had not yet ratified or acceded to the Convention to consider doing so and, where necessary, to enact national legislation in conformity with the provisions of the Convention; acknowledged the relevance and importance of the Five Point Action Plan of the Secretary-General as a practical step aimed at enhancing the efforts of the international community to prevent the genocide; and welcomed the appointment by the Secretary-General of a Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, which bore significant potential for strengthening early warning mechanisms to prevent potential situations that could result in genocide. It also requested all Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Adviser in the performance of his work, to furnish all information requested and to react promptly to his urgent appeals. The Commission further requested the Secretary-General to make available to the Commission at its sixty-second session a report on the implementation of the Five Point Action Plan and on the activities of the Special Adviser and invites the Special Adviser to address the Commission at the same session and at the sixty-third session on the progress made in discharging his duties.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, said that all the European Union Member States had co-sponsored this draft resolution because it was incumbent for the Commission to support a mechanism that could be pro-active, instead of reactive, on the issue of genocide. This mechanism could serve as a good early warning mechanism. It was to be hoped that the text would be adopted by consensus.

STACY BARRIOS (United States), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the Government of the United States would join the consensus and support the adoption of the resolution because it believed that the prevention and punishment of genocide was an urgent matter that should remain at the top of the international community's agenda and because, disturbingly, the genocide continued to be a threat in the twenty-first century. However, the United States remained concerned about operative paragraph 5 of the resolution, which referred to the Five Point Plan of the Secretary-General; the United States did not agree with Point Three of the Plan, which referred to the International Criminal Court and encouraged greater efforts to achieve wide ratification of the Rome Statute. The United States continued to fundamentally object the view that the Court should be able to exercise jurisdiction over nations. The United States would join the consensus.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.82) on the protection of the human rights of civilians in armed conflicts, adopted by a roll-call vote of 51 in favour to one against, with one abstention, the Commission urged all parties to armed conflicts to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law, in particular to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population, and also urged all States to comply with their human rights obligations in this context; stressed the importance of combating impunity in order to prevent violations of international human rights and humanitarian law perpetrated against civilians in armed conflicts, and urged States to end impunity for such crimes by bringing the perpetrators to justice in accordance with their international obligations; called upon States to respect and to ensure respect for relevant international humanitarian law instruments and customary international law; and invited the international community to support regional efforts aimed at the protection of civilians in armed conflicts, and welcomed the recent appointment by the African Union of a Special Representative on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict Situations in Africa.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (51): 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, 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, Zimbabwe.

Against (1): United States.

Abstention (1): Japan.


RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), in a general comment, said Cuba had joined the list of the co-sponsors as it believed that this was a very balanced text which brought together in a balanced way the link between international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The text did not refer to any particular situation, and had the right level of objectivity, and a basic added value, for example in operative paragraphs 5 and 6. Cuba believed that this text should be adopted by consensus.

ALEJANDRO SOLANO (Costa Rica), in a general comment, said the delegation of Costa Rica would like to lend its support to this draft resolution as well. Costa Rica had co-sponsored the text on the basis that it reflected the intellectual, political, and philosophical developments of the time on this issue. The Geneva Conventions had consolidated the developments humanity had made over thousands of years, but the international community continued to monitor the targeting of civilians, who were indiscriminately made the victims of the most egregious violations of human rights in armed conflicts, with horror. The text stated that international humanitarian law, as a lex specialis, and international human rights law, acted to protect the rights of all people in a conflict. The work of both Working Groups was of equal importance, and Costa Rica supported the draft's adoption by consensus.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), in a general statement, said the delegation of Pakistan would support the draft because it was a balanced text. The Commission should pursue its advocating for the protection of people in time of conflict, including during occupation. The draft resolution invoked impunity and called for the punishment of the perpetrators, and stressed the protection of all people under international humanitarian law. The draft was well balanced and should be supported by all members.

YURI BOICHENKO (Russian Federation), in a general comment, said the draft resolution dealt with a problem which was relevant to current realities in most parts of the world and had been given attention by most United Nations bodies. The Russian Federation believed that all human rights should be protected during conflicts, especially those which could not be violated under any circumstances.

MICHAEL PEAY (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the United States agreed with the fundamental importance of the protection of civilians in armed conflict, but had been constrained to call for a vote because the text conflated and confused the two separate bodies of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. They were separate and conceptually distinct areas of law. As Jean Pictet had explained, the law of armed conflict and human rights law had the same origin, stemming from the need to protect the individual from those who would crush him. They were distinct however, Pictet had concluded, and should remain so. During the informal negotiations on this resolution, the United States had offered several amendments to make the distinction clear, for example, to preambular paragraph 6 and to operative paragraph 3. If they had been taken, there could have been consensus on the draft. However, the United States appreciated the efforts made by Egypt in making certain modifications to the draft. But, as the final text continued to blur the distinctions between the two bodies of law in an unhelpful, and even dangerous, manner, the United States would call for a vote, and would vote against the draft resolution.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, thanked Egypt for bringing the issue up for the first time. The issues of international humanitarian law should be revisited in the future. India would vote in favour of the draft.

* **** *

For use of information only; not an official record