Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Commission on Human Rights
COMMISSION ADOPTS TEXTS ON PROTECTION OF RIGHTS IN CONTEXT OF HIV/AIDS AND ON DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO
21 April 2005
Share
Commission on Human Rights
AFTERNOON
21 April 2005
Extends Mandate of Independent Expertfor Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon adopted two resolutions on the protection of human rights in the context of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and on technical cooperation and advisory services in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
In a resolution on the protection of human rights in the context of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), the Commission invited States to develop, support and strengthen national mechanisms for protecting HIV-related human rights in consultation with relevant national bodies and urged States to ensure that their laws, policies and practices, respected human rights in the context of HIV/AIDS and promoted effective programmes for the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and the prohibition of HIV-related discrimination.
In a resolution on technical cooperation and advisory services in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Commission expressed concern at the persistent reports of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law and the attacks on human rights defenders, and condemned, among other things, the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and the impunity enjoyed by those responsible for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. It also decided to extend the mandate of the Independent Expert for one year.
Also adopted were two decisions on the dates of the sixty-second session of the Commission, and on the organization of work of the sixty-second session.
Speaking on the resolutions were the Representatives of China, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union), the United States, Ethiopia (on behalf of the African Group), Honduras, Guatemala, Egypt and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Friday, 22 April, to take action on a number of texts still pending before it. The Commission will then conclude its sixty-first session.
Action on Resolution on Specific Groups and Individuals
In a 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), adopted as amended and without a vote, the Commission called upon all States to implement in full the Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS adopted at the twenty-sixth special session of the General Assembly on HIV/AIDS in 2001; invited States to develop, support and strengthen national mechanisms for protecting HIV-related human rights in consultation with relevant national bodies; urged States to ensure that their laws, policies and practices, including workplace policies and practices, respected human rights in the context of HIV/AIDS and promoted effective programmes for the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and the prohibition of HIV-related discrimination; and further urged all States to integrate sexual and reproductive health programmes and the promotion and protection of reproductive rights, as understood in the previous international commitments such as the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and their respective follow-ups, as strong and robust components of their national strategies on HIV/AIDS.
The Commission requested States to further develop and, where necessary, establish coordinated, participatory, gender-sensitive, transparent and accountable national policies and programmes for HIV/AIDS response and to translate national policies to district level and local action; and also requested States to take all appropriate measures to protect the human rights of women and children in the context of HIV/AIDS. Moreover, the Commission requested the Secretary-General to invite Member States and the United Nations organs and programmes, as well as the specialized agencies, to integrate HIV-related human rights into their policies, programmes and activities; and also requested the Secretary-General to solicit comments from Governments, United Nations organs, programmes and specialized agencies and international and non-governmental organizations on the steps they had taken to promote and implement, where applicable, programmes to address the urgent HIV-related human rights of women, children and vulnerable groups.
CHENG HONG (China), in a general comment, said China attached great importance to HIV/AIDS in the context of human rights, and in this spirit paid great attention to the resolution, and had actively participated in the formulation of the text. The sponsors and co-sponsors were thanked for their flexibility in making the suggested changes, most of which had been integrated into the text, and for this reason China would join the consensus.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan, in a general comment on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference - OIC), thanked the co-sponsors for taking on board the concerns of the OIC, and underscored that consensus was essential on a resolution dealing with HIV/AIDS. It was necessary to unite, not to divide, the Commission on such an issue. The OIC strongly supported the draft, but wished to place its position with reference to the basic guidelines on HIV/AIDS on record. The OIC’s support should not be construed as acceptance of the commentary and recommendations contained in the report containing the basic guidelines, but only of the guidelines. It was the sovereign right of States to interpret these guidelines in view of their national situation.
LEONARD LEO (United States), in a statement concerning the amendment, said the delegation of the United States considered that any affirmation of ICPD 5 paragraph 63 did not deny the United States’ firm support for the rights of conscientious objection for health care workers whose personal belief might dictate their refusal to perform, or be involved in, abortion or abortion-related activities. The United States’ reaffirmation of Cairo, Beijing, and their respective follow-up conferences would not constitute a change in the position of the United States with respect to treaties it had not ratified. The United States would support the draft in that understanding.
GRACIBEL BU FIGUEROA (Honduras), in a general comment, said in light of the changes made to the draft, Honduras would like to be a co-sponsor again.
LARS PIRA (Guatemala), in a general comment, said the delegation of Guatemala was committed to all activities to reduce vulnerability to HIV/AIDS infection, and to reduce its effects, but in conformity with the right to life.
LEONARD LEO (United States), in an explanation of the vote before a vote, said the United States would join the consensus this year on the resolution but with the explicit understanding that the resolution as amended referred only to the basic guidelines on HIV/AIDS and human rights as opposed to the broader elaboration and commentary alluded to in the Secretary-General’s 1997 report. The elaboration of those guidelines was fundamentally at odds with United States law, and it could not accept such a broader reference. The United States did not accept the elaboration’s exhortation to give legal recognition to same-sex marriage, and to decriminalize prostitution. Nor, for that matter, was it comfortable with a call for States to provide “sterile injecting equipment”, without acknowledging in some way that, in many countries, including the United States, drug use was illegal. He urged States to avoid taking on the deeply divisive endeavour of creating a new, undefined category of “sexual rights” by inserting references to little known provisions or documents that lacked wide recognition and acceptance.
Comment Made After Commission Concluded Taking Action on Specific Groups and Individuals
LUCY TAMLYN (United States), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said with regard to L.65 on human rights and disabilities, the United States had joined the consensus, but believed the most effective way to improve the human rights of persons with disabilities was through enactment of strong and positive domestic legislation.
Action on Resolution on Advisory Services and Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.38/Rev.1) on technical cooperation and advisory services in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, adopted as amended and without a vote, the Commission welcomed, among other things, the gradual establishment inside the country of the five institutions supporting the transition, the strengthening of the mandate of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the current process of reform of the judicial system, and the implementation of the national disarmament, demobilization and reintegration program. It expressed concern at the persistent reports of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law and the attacks on human rights defenders. It condemned, among other things, the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, the impunity enjoyed by those responsible for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, the massacres that had been perpetrated, and the illegal exploitation of the natural resources. The Commission urged all the parties, among other things, to provide support for the transition and its institutions, to allow free and secure access to all areas in order to permit and facilitate investigations of the presumed serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, to protect human rights and to respect international humanitarian law, and to respect and promote the full exercise of all human rights by women. The Commission requested the Transitional Government to take, among others, specific measures to achieve the objectives of the period of transition, to comply fully with its obligations under international human rights instruments, to intensify its efforts to restore the rule of law, and to pursue and accelerate reform of the judicial system. The Commission requested the international community to continue to provide support for the transition and its institutions, among other things. It also decided, among other things, to extend the mandate of the Independent Expert for one year and to request the Secretary-General to provide all necessary assistance to enable the Independent Expert to fulfil his mandate.
Before the Commission voted on the draft resolution on technical cooperation with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it rejected amendments proposed by the United States, by a recorded vote of three in favour to 34 against, with 14 abstentions.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (3): Eritrea, Ethiopia and United States.
Against (34): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Congo, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Guinea, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Mauritania, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (14): Bhutan, China, Cuba, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka.
ROBERT E. GRIBBIN (United States), in a general comment, said that the position of the United States on the Rome Statute and International Criminal Court was well known. The United States could not join in any positive statements about the Court, and it could not join in encouraging any States to ratify the Rome Statute. The language on the International Criminal Court should be neutral and factual, as contained in a number of Commission resolutions that the United States had supported. The United States had been assured that its concerns would be taken into account, but they had been forgotten. Therefore, he proposed an amendment to the text, to revise operative paragraph 6(f), which would thus read, “recognizing that States not party to the Rome Statute have no obligation under this statute”. All members of the Commission were urged to support this amendment, which was technical in nature, but important to the United States, in order for it to be able to support the text.
FISSEHA YIMER (Ethiopia), speaking on behalf of the African Group in a general comment, said that the African Group had submitted two amendments on the operative paragraphs.
IAN DE JONG (Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union) in a general comment, said the revision by Ethiopia could be supported. The European Union had always attached particular importance to the International Criminal Court in the context of the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and it was for this reason that it objected to the amendment suggested by the United States and would like a vote on the topic, and would vote against it.
MOHAMED LOUTFY (Egypt) took the floor after the vote to announce that there had been a technical problem with the voting machine, but that Egypt would have wished to vote against the United States amendment.
ANTOINE MINDUA KESIA-MBE (Democratic Republic of the Congo), in a general comment, said the delegation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo would have liked to make a comment before the adoption of the resolution on the country. The protection and promotion of human rights was a priority for the authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Government had recognized that fundamental rights was, erga omnes, incumbent on everyone. The Commission was the most appropriate forum in which to discuss this issue, but the country had been trapped by the august body. On the one hand, the Democratic Republic of the Congo was supposed to cooperate with the mandate, but on the other, it distrusted the Commission due to the selective approach and double standards it employed. The Commission had often pointed its finger at African countries as being barbaric, while whitewashing other countries that had been responsible for past and present misdeeds. Having recognized the authority of the Commission, the Democratic Republic of the Congo had cooperated with the adoption of the resolution.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo had a population of 55 million, a territory the size of the European Union, and had experienced five years of war following 32 years of dictatorship, he noted. Despite its enormous natural resources, which had aroused the envy of others, the country remained very poor. Yet, thanks to the wisdom of President Kabila, who had agreed to share power with four vice-presidents in a national unity government, peace and unity were being restored. Still, the country suffered from a lack sufficient financial resources to ensure the exercise of all human rights for everyone, including the right to development. Moreover, some citizens in Ituri and other parts of the east of the country had suffered violations of human rights, and crimes continued to go unpunished, while violence prevailed and poverty wreaked havoc. As the Independent Expert had observed, many human rights violations in the country were due to the illegal exploitation of natural resources, and to criminal trafficking in small and light weapons. His country did not manufacture these weapons, and was subject to a Security Council embargo, and yet was curiously suspect to these weapons.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo had requested the international community to take specific, down-to-earth action to resolve these issues, he stressed, to no avail. The present resolution did not help much along these lines. The country had also requested in vain the establishment of an ad hoc international tribunal to rule on crimes committed before 2002. Even in this text, the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s partners had refused to mention the establishment of any court of this kind. The text did not fully meet all the concerns of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, nor did it recognize all the progress that had been made. It limited itself to pinpointing what had not yet been done. However, the delegation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo had accepted the resolution.
Action on Decisions on Organization of Work of the Commission
The Commission adopted, without a vote, a decision by which it decided that the first meeting of its sixty-second session would be held on the third Monday in January 2006, with the sole purpose of electing its officers, and that the sixty-second session of the Commission would be held from 13 March to 21 April 2006.
The Commission also adopted, without a vote, a decision by which it recommended that the Economic and Social Council authorize six fully serviced additional meetings, including summary records, for the sixty-second session of the Commission, and requested the Chairperson of that session to make every effort to organize the work of the session within the time normally allotted, so that the additional meetings would only be utilized if absolutely necessary.
AFTERNOON
21 April 2005
Extends Mandate of Independent Expertfor Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon adopted two resolutions on the protection of human rights in the context of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and on technical cooperation and advisory services in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
In a resolution on the protection of human rights in the context of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), the Commission invited States to develop, support and strengthen national mechanisms for protecting HIV-related human rights in consultation with relevant national bodies and urged States to ensure that their laws, policies and practices, respected human rights in the context of HIV/AIDS and promoted effective programmes for the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and the prohibition of HIV-related discrimination.
In a resolution on technical cooperation and advisory services in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Commission expressed concern at the persistent reports of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law and the attacks on human rights defenders, and condemned, among other things, the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and the impunity enjoyed by those responsible for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. It also decided to extend the mandate of the Independent Expert for one year.
Also adopted were two decisions on the dates of the sixty-second session of the Commission, and on the organization of work of the sixty-second session.
Speaking on the resolutions were the Representatives of China, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union), the United States, Ethiopia (on behalf of the African Group), Honduras, Guatemala, Egypt and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Friday, 22 April, to take action on a number of texts still pending before it. The Commission will then conclude its sixty-first session.
Action on Resolution on Specific Groups and Individuals
In a 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), adopted as amended and without a vote, the Commission called upon all States to implement in full the Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS adopted at the twenty-sixth special session of the General Assembly on HIV/AIDS in 2001; invited States to develop, support and strengthen national mechanisms for protecting HIV-related human rights in consultation with relevant national bodies; urged States to ensure that their laws, policies and practices, including workplace policies and practices, respected human rights in the context of HIV/AIDS and promoted effective programmes for the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and the prohibition of HIV-related discrimination; and further urged all States to integrate sexual and reproductive health programmes and the promotion and protection of reproductive rights, as understood in the previous international commitments such as the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and their respective follow-ups, as strong and robust components of their national strategies on HIV/AIDS.
The Commission requested States to further develop and, where necessary, establish coordinated, participatory, gender-sensitive, transparent and accountable national policies and programmes for HIV/AIDS response and to translate national policies to district level and local action; and also requested States to take all appropriate measures to protect the human rights of women and children in the context of HIV/AIDS. Moreover, the Commission requested the Secretary-General to invite Member States and the United Nations organs and programmes, as well as the specialized agencies, to integrate HIV-related human rights into their policies, programmes and activities; and also requested the Secretary-General to solicit comments from Governments, United Nations organs, programmes and specialized agencies and international and non-governmental organizations on the steps they had taken to promote and implement, where applicable, programmes to address the urgent HIV-related human rights of women, children and vulnerable groups.
CHENG HONG (China), in a general comment, said China attached great importance to HIV/AIDS in the context of human rights, and in this spirit paid great attention to the resolution, and had actively participated in the formulation of the text. The sponsors and co-sponsors were thanked for their flexibility in making the suggested changes, most of which had been integrated into the text, and for this reason China would join the consensus.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan, in a general comment on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference - OIC), thanked the co-sponsors for taking on board the concerns of the OIC, and underscored that consensus was essential on a resolution dealing with HIV/AIDS. It was necessary to unite, not to divide, the Commission on such an issue. The OIC strongly supported the draft, but wished to place its position with reference to the basic guidelines on HIV/AIDS on record. The OIC’s support should not be construed as acceptance of the commentary and recommendations contained in the report containing the basic guidelines, but only of the guidelines. It was the sovereign right of States to interpret these guidelines in view of their national situation.
LEONARD LEO (United States), in a statement concerning the amendment, said the delegation of the United States considered that any affirmation of ICPD 5 paragraph 63 did not deny the United States’ firm support for the rights of conscientious objection for health care workers whose personal belief might dictate their refusal to perform, or be involved in, abortion or abortion-related activities. The United States’ reaffirmation of Cairo, Beijing, and their respective follow-up conferences would not constitute a change in the position of the United States with respect to treaties it had not ratified. The United States would support the draft in that understanding.
GRACIBEL BU FIGUEROA (Honduras), in a general comment, said in light of the changes made to the draft, Honduras would like to be a co-sponsor again.
LARS PIRA (Guatemala), in a general comment, said the delegation of Guatemala was committed to all activities to reduce vulnerability to HIV/AIDS infection, and to reduce its effects, but in conformity with the right to life.
LEONARD LEO (United States), in an explanation of the vote before a vote, said the United States would join the consensus this year on the resolution but with the explicit understanding that the resolution as amended referred only to the basic guidelines on HIV/AIDS and human rights as opposed to the broader elaboration and commentary alluded to in the Secretary-General’s 1997 report. The elaboration of those guidelines was fundamentally at odds with United States law, and it could not accept such a broader reference. The United States did not accept the elaboration’s exhortation to give legal recognition to same-sex marriage, and to decriminalize prostitution. Nor, for that matter, was it comfortable with a call for States to provide “sterile injecting equipment”, without acknowledging in some way that, in many countries, including the United States, drug use was illegal. He urged States to avoid taking on the deeply divisive endeavour of creating a new, undefined category of “sexual rights” by inserting references to little known provisions or documents that lacked wide recognition and acceptance.
Comment Made After Commission Concluded Taking Action on Specific Groups and Individuals
LUCY TAMLYN (United States), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said with regard to L.65 on human rights and disabilities, the United States had joined the consensus, but believed the most effective way to improve the human rights of persons with disabilities was through enactment of strong and positive domestic legislation.
Action on Resolution on Advisory Services and Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.38/Rev.1) on technical cooperation and advisory services in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, adopted as amended and without a vote, the Commission welcomed, among other things, the gradual establishment inside the country of the five institutions supporting the transition, the strengthening of the mandate of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the current process of reform of the judicial system, and the implementation of the national disarmament, demobilization and reintegration program. It expressed concern at the persistent reports of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law and the attacks on human rights defenders. It condemned, among other things, the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, the impunity enjoyed by those responsible for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, the massacres that had been perpetrated, and the illegal exploitation of the natural resources. The Commission urged all the parties, among other things, to provide support for the transition and its institutions, to allow free and secure access to all areas in order to permit and facilitate investigations of the presumed serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, to protect human rights and to respect international humanitarian law, and to respect and promote the full exercise of all human rights by women. The Commission requested the Transitional Government to take, among others, specific measures to achieve the objectives of the period of transition, to comply fully with its obligations under international human rights instruments, to intensify its efforts to restore the rule of law, and to pursue and accelerate reform of the judicial system. The Commission requested the international community to continue to provide support for the transition and its institutions, among other things. It also decided, among other things, to extend the mandate of the Independent Expert for one year and to request the Secretary-General to provide all necessary assistance to enable the Independent Expert to fulfil his mandate.
Before the Commission voted on the draft resolution on technical cooperation with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it rejected amendments proposed by the United States, by a recorded vote of three in favour to 34 against, with 14 abstentions.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (3): Eritrea, Ethiopia and United States.
Against (34): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Congo, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Guinea, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Mauritania, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (14): Bhutan, China, Cuba, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka.
ROBERT E. GRIBBIN (United States), in a general comment, said that the position of the United States on the Rome Statute and International Criminal Court was well known. The United States could not join in any positive statements about the Court, and it could not join in encouraging any States to ratify the Rome Statute. The language on the International Criminal Court should be neutral and factual, as contained in a number of Commission resolutions that the United States had supported. The United States had been assured that its concerns would be taken into account, but they had been forgotten. Therefore, he proposed an amendment to the text, to revise operative paragraph 6(f), which would thus read, “recognizing that States not party to the Rome Statute have no obligation under this statute”. All members of the Commission were urged to support this amendment, which was technical in nature, but important to the United States, in order for it to be able to support the text.
FISSEHA YIMER (Ethiopia), speaking on behalf of the African Group in a general comment, said that the African Group had submitted two amendments on the operative paragraphs.
IAN DE JONG (Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union) in a general comment, said the revision by Ethiopia could be supported. The European Union had always attached particular importance to the International Criminal Court in the context of the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and it was for this reason that it objected to the amendment suggested by the United States and would like a vote on the topic, and would vote against it.
MOHAMED LOUTFY (Egypt) took the floor after the vote to announce that there had been a technical problem with the voting machine, but that Egypt would have wished to vote against the United States amendment.
ANTOINE MINDUA KESIA-MBE (Democratic Republic of the Congo), in a general comment, said the delegation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo would have liked to make a comment before the adoption of the resolution on the country. The protection and promotion of human rights was a priority for the authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Government had recognized that fundamental rights was, erga omnes, incumbent on everyone. The Commission was the most appropriate forum in which to discuss this issue, but the country had been trapped by the august body. On the one hand, the Democratic Republic of the Congo was supposed to cooperate with the mandate, but on the other, it distrusted the Commission due to the selective approach and double standards it employed. The Commission had often pointed its finger at African countries as being barbaric, while whitewashing other countries that had been responsible for past and present misdeeds. Having recognized the authority of the Commission, the Democratic Republic of the Congo had cooperated with the adoption of the resolution.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo had a population of 55 million, a territory the size of the European Union, and had experienced five years of war following 32 years of dictatorship, he noted. Despite its enormous natural resources, which had aroused the envy of others, the country remained very poor. Yet, thanks to the wisdom of President Kabila, who had agreed to share power with four vice-presidents in a national unity government, peace and unity were being restored. Still, the country suffered from a lack sufficient financial resources to ensure the exercise of all human rights for everyone, including the right to development. Moreover, some citizens in Ituri and other parts of the east of the country had suffered violations of human rights, and crimes continued to go unpunished, while violence prevailed and poverty wreaked havoc. As the Independent Expert had observed, many human rights violations in the country were due to the illegal exploitation of natural resources, and to criminal trafficking in small and light weapons. His country did not manufacture these weapons, and was subject to a Security Council embargo, and yet was curiously suspect to these weapons.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo had requested the international community to take specific, down-to-earth action to resolve these issues, he stressed, to no avail. The present resolution did not help much along these lines. The country had also requested in vain the establishment of an ad hoc international tribunal to rule on crimes committed before 2002. Even in this text, the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s partners had refused to mention the establishment of any court of this kind. The text did not fully meet all the concerns of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, nor did it recognize all the progress that had been made. It limited itself to pinpointing what had not yet been done. However, the delegation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo had accepted the resolution.
Action on Decisions on Organization of Work of the Commission
The Commission adopted, without a vote, a decision by which it decided that the first meeting of its sixty-second session would be held on the third Monday in January 2006, with the sole purpose of electing its officers, and that the sixty-second session of the Commission would be held from 13 March to 21 April 2006.
The Commission also adopted, without a vote, a decision by which it recommended that the Economic and Social Council authorize six fully serviced additional meetings, including summary records, for the sixty-second session of the Commission, and requested the Chairperson of that session to make every effort to organize the work of the session within the time normally allotted, so that the additional meetings would only be utilized if absolutely necessary.
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: