COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON THE EFFECTS OF IMPUNITY, GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEATH PENALTY ON HUMAN RIGHTS

MORNING
HR/CN/99/62
28 April 1999


The Commission on Human Rights this morning adopted resolutions which emphasized the importance of combatting impunity for the prevention of violations of human rights; warned that globalization might affect the promotion and protection of human rights; and called on States that still maintained the death penalty to progressively restrict the number of offences for which it might be imposed and to establish a moratorium on executions.

In its resolution on impunity of perpetrators of violations of human rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 21 in favour to 9 against and 22 abstentions, the Commission called on States to pay attention to the question of impunity of violations of human rights and to take suitable measures to address this important issue.

Concerning globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights, the Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 30 in favour to two against and 20 abstentions a resolution which noted that globalization which helped to promote and protect human rights could create an international society respectful of cultures. However, it also warned that globalization could affect the protection and promotion of these rights.

The resolution on the question of the death penalty was adopted after a roll-call vote of 30 in favour to 11 against and 12 abstentions. The Commission urged all States that still maintained the death penalty not to impose it for any but the most serious crimes; not to impose it for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age; to exclude pregnant women from capital punishment; and not to impose it on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder.


Also this morning, the Commission adopted resolutions on human rights and the follow-up to the guidelines for the regulation of computerized personal data files; and the development of public information activities in the field of human rights, including the World Public Information Campaign of Human Rights. On the latter, the Commission urged the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Department of Public Information to cooperate closely in the realization of the multimedia information programmes in the field of human rights and to develop strategies to strengthen the role of the mass media in the furtherance of human rights education and public information.

The Commission adopted resolutions on a culture of peace; human rights and bioethics; the Untied Nations Decade for Human Rights Education; fundamental standards of humanity; the implementation of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups, and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights; regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asia and Pacific region; and the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Delegates from Mexico, Cuba, Germany (on behalf of the European Union), Canada, Japan, Guatemala, Chile, the United States, Italy, El Salvador, India, the Philippines, Tunisia, Japan, Mexico, Indonesia, Argentina, Bangladesh, and France also addressed the meeting.

The Commission resumes its meeting at 3:30 p.m. to conclude taking action on draft resolutions.

Action taken on draft resolutions

The Commission adopted by consensus a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.79) on human rights and the follow-up to the guidelines for the regulation of computerized personal data files, in which it decided to withdraw the question from its agenda, since the applicable guidelines were progressively being taken into consideration by States; and to request the Secretary-General to entrust the competent inspection bodies with the task of ensuring the implementation of the guidelines by the organizations concerned within the United Nations system.



The Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 21 in favour to 9 against and 22 abstentions, a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L. 81) on impunity of perpetrators of violations of economic, social and cultural rights, in which it emphasized the importance of combatting impunity for the prevention of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law; invited States to pay attention as appropriate to the question of impunity of violations of human rights and to take suitable measures to address this important issue; requested the Secretary-General to collect the information and comments received pursuant to the present resolution and to submit a report to the Commission; invited the special rapporteurs and other mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights to give due consideration to the implementation of the present solution.

The result of the roll-call vote was as follows:

In favour: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cape Verde, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, India, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, Sudan and Tunisia.

Against: Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Romania, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Abstentions: Argentina, Austria, Botswana, Canada, Chile, Colombia,
El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mozambique, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Uruguay and Venezuela.

ANTONIO DE ICAZA (Mexico) said his country had no objections to the text of the draft resolution on impunity in Spanish, but in English, operative paragraph 3 said: "preventing impunity to the prevention of violations". So Mexico had difficulty with the English version.

RODRIGO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that the draft resolution was a valuable contribution. The English version needed to be corrected to " combatting impunity for the prevention ...".

WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany), on behalf of the European Union and associated central and eastern European countries, said perpetrators of all human rights were a concern to the European Union, but the text of the draft resolution seemed to suppose that States should hold individuals accountable and seemed to be ill- conceived. Issues which were unacceptable in former resolutions were also unacceptable in L.81. The European Union would have preferred a more open and transparent approach. The European Union could not support this draft resolution.

KERRY BUCK (Canada) said the text of this draft resolution was unsatisfactory since it implied that broad violations of economic, social and cultural rights could be attributed to individuals. The text also required further debate and discussion before it would be acceptable to Canada, thus Canada would abstain from the vote.

SHIGEKI SUMI (Japan) said the study on impunity had just commenced and it was premature to decide now on this draft resolution. Japan would abstain.

NANCY RUBIN (the United States) would vote against the draft resolution since economic, social and cultural rights were important goals and could not be equated with the criminal conduct that often accompanied the violations of these rights. For this reason, draft resolution L.81 was conceptually flawed, seeming to imply that there was a conspiracy to violate these rights, but without detailing what the violations were nor the purpose of the conspiracy. The report of the Special Rapporteur El-Hadji Guisse was also flawed since it did not insist that it was the individual who was the focus of all human rights. When Governments denied these rights, they did considerable harm to their citizens.



The Commission adopted by roll-call vote of 30 in favour to two against and 20 abstentions a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.84) on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights, in which it noted that globalization which helped to promote and protect human rights could create an international society respectful of cultures; recognized that, while the promotion and protection of all human rights were the primary responsibility of States, globalization, by its impact on, inter alia, the role of the State, might affect the promotion and protection of these rights; requested all the treaty bodies, special rapporteurs/representatives, independent experts, and working groups of the Commission on Human Rights, within their mandates and where appropriate, to address the issue of the impact of globalization on the full enjoyment of all human rights in their reports; and requested the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities to submit, on the basis of the various studies it had undertaken, a comprehensive study on this issue to the Commission at its fifty-sixth session.

The result of the roll-call vote was as follows:

In favour: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Cape Verde, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia and Venezuela.

Against: Chile and the United States.

Abstentions: Argentina, Austria, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Luxembourg, Norway, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, the United Kingdom and the United States.

LUIS PADILLA MENENDEZ (Guatemala) said that if L.84 was passed, the Commission would be acknowledging the need for international cooperation as well as a need to minimalise the impact of globalization on the enjoyment of human rights. The consequences of globalization on the enjoyment of the right to democracy were dire. In highly developed countries, it was obvious that there were implications for other rights as well. This was why this draft resolution was important. However, it was regretted that there had been no open deliberations on the draft. Guatemala believed that the Commission would not be able to progress in this area as long as there was no effective coordination of its work and the other areas of the United Nations system, such as the World Bank. An appeal should be made in the draft resolution to set up such a coordination system.

WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union and central and eastern European countries associated with it, said the issue of globalization in L.84 was not new to the Commission. Furthermore, several special rapporteurs and experts had taken it up in their reports. While not at all neglecting the positive and negative globalization effects, the European Union did not see the usefulness, and in fact saw dangers, in dealing with globalization as a separate topic. It might distract work from the Commission on other more important mandates. Nevertheless the European Union would go along with an emerging consensus.

FERNANDO LABBE (Chile) said that there should be a vote on L.84 so that his country could express its disagreement. The framework of the work of the Commission had been expanded over the last few years. This tendency introduced a danger of overburdening the agenda to the detriment of the most important issues. This kind of issue should not automatically be put on the agenda. Globalization was a dynamic, ongoing process of development. It was one that was identified as a source for major opportunities for development which had been widely used by the countries of Latin America during the 1980's. The phenomenon of globalization was not appropriate to be tackled within this particular forum since there were more appropriate fora. The only place where this issue could be dealt with was under the right to development. The Guatemalan disagreement was not necessarily with the content of the draft, but arose from a doctrinal point of view, a point of principle, and a practical point of view. The work of the Commission would not be made more effective if it were to take up each and every issue that affected the enjoyment of human rights. This would trivialise and make banal the work of the Commission which was the only part of the United Nations to defend these rights. Chile would vote against L.84.

SHIGEKI SUMI (Japan) said it would abstain in the vote on L.84 since it understood that globalization could have both positive and negative effectives, but this concept had been dealt with under the right to development. Japan did not believe a two-track approach would be fruitful.

NANCY RUBIN (the United States) recognised that changes had been made to the draft resolution, but it still had problems with the call for a report by the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection on Minorities. The comparative advantage of the Commission would be diminished if it were to divert resources to a study on globalization. The United States would vote against the draft resolution.

ROSS HYNES (Canada) recognized that the phenomenon of globalization had both positive and negative effects and would have joined consensus. However, any serious work on this draft resolution must proceed on a broad consensus and therefore Canada would abstain.

RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that it firmly supported L.84 and had only withdrawn its co-sponsorship of the draft resolution so that it could speak on the matter. The process of the drafting had been transparent. The issue of whether or not globalization was an appropriate matter for the Commission to take up was rejected, since all issues that affected human rights were appropriate. Cuba regretted that Chile had requested a vote.

The Commission adopted by consensus a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.88) on the development of public information activities in the field of human rights, including the World Public Information Campaign of Human Rights, in which it urged the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Department of Public Information to cooperate closely in the realization of the multimedia information programmes in the field of human rights and to develop strategies to strengthen the role of the mass media in the furtherance of human rights education and public information; urged the Department of Public Information, in cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, to continue to utilize fully and effectively United Nations information centres 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 other national languages; urged the Department of Public Information to produce, in cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, information material, in particular audio-visual material, on all aspects of human rights in connection with the World Public Information Campaign on Human Rights Education; called upon Governments, in accordance with their national conditions, to accord priority, in particular among their parliamentary assemblies, 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, materials and training manuals, reports of State 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 instruments; urged all Member States to develop a comprehensive, effective and sustainable national plan of action for human rights education and public information as an integral part of a broad national plan of action for human rights; urged Governments and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to continue the human rights education and public information work undertaken on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and requested the Secretary-General to make available adequate resources from within the regular budget of the United Nations in order to allow the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights and the Department of Public Information to implement fully their respective programmes.



The Commission approved by roll-call vote of 27 in favour to 13 against and 13 abstentions retention of operative paragraphs 3f, 4b and 5 of resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.91). The Commission adopted by roll-call vote of 30 in favour to 11 against and 12 abstentions this resolution on the question of the death penalty, in which it called upon all State parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that had not yet done so to consider acceding to or ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at the abolition of the death penalty; urged all States that still maintained the death penalty to comply fully with their obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, notably: not to impose the death penalty for any but the most serious crimes and only pursuant to a final judgement rendered by an independent and impartial competent court, not to impose it for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age, to exclude pregnant women from capital punishment and to ensure the right to a fair trial and the right to seek pardon or commutation of sentence; urged all States to ensure that the notion of "most serious crimes" did not go beyond intentional crimes with lethal or extremely grave consequences and that the death penalty was not imposed for non-violent financial crimes or for non-violent religious practice or expression of conscience; not to enter any new reservations under article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; to observe the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, set out in the annex to Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50; not to impose the death penalty on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder; and not to execute any person as long as any related legal procedure, at international or at national level, was pending; called upon all States that still maintained the death penalty to progressively restrict the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed, establish a moratorium on executions, and to make available to the public information with regard to the imposition of the death penalty.

The result of the roll-call vote for the retention of operative paragraphs 3f, 4b and 5 was as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Austria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Ecuador, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, the United Kingdom, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Against: Bangladesh, Botswana, China, Cuba, India, Japan, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Sudan and the United States.

Abstentions: Bhutan, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, Indonesia, Liberia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Niger, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.

The result of the roll-call vote on the whole resolution was as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Austria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, the United Kingdom, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Against: Bangladesh, Botswana, China, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Sudan and the United States.

Abstentions: Bhutan, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, India, Liberia, Madagascar, Morocco, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.


CLAUDIO MORENO (Italy), speaking on draft resolution L.91 on the death penalty, said his country had been fighting for the abolition of the death penalty and thanked the German delegation which had worked to ensure that the draft resolution was adopted. Italy noted with satisfaction that the moratorium had in a spirit of openness and cooperation been discussed and agreed upon.

VICTOR LAGOS PIZZATI (El Salvador) said that the draft was an extremely positive initiative since it spoke of the right to dignity of the individual. It was an issue of the right to life, the respect of life, and the duty of the State to respect these rights and protect them. The right to life was inherent to each individual.

H. K. SINGH (India), speaking on draft resolution L.91 on the question of the death penalty, said it had participated in the debate and regretted that there had been no open debate which would have led to modifications. It was clear that the international community had not yet reached consensus and it must be recognized that this agreement could only be reached progressively. In India, the death penalty was only imposed in the most exceptional cases and must be given explanations. India had begun the process of abolition of the death penalty for pregnant women and had already accorded it for minors.

NANCY RUBIN (the United States) said it would vote against the draft since capital punishment was not against either national or international laws, as long as it was carried out by due process. It was recognised that many States were against the death penalty, as were a large number of citizens of the United States. However, the majority of citizens of the United States were for capital punishment in the case of particularly heinous crimes. If this were to change, then the law would be changed.

H. K. SINGH (India) called for a separate vote on paragraphs 3f, 4b and 5.

WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany) said that these paragraphs had been carefully written and did not infringe on national sovereignty. Germany would therefore vote in favour of them.

DENIS LEPATAN (the Philippines) said it would abstain in the light of an absence of consensus on the draft resolution on the death penalty.

KAMEL MORJANE (Tunisia) said that the death penalty had been de facto abolished in his country. It was applied only very rarely and for the most heinous crimes. Tunisia would therefore abstain.

KINGA SINGYE (Bhutan) said his country would abstain due to a lack of consensus on the draft resolution on the death penalty.


The Commission adopted by consensus a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.94) on towards a culture of peace, in which it reiterated its invitation to States to promote a culture of peace based on the purposes and principles established in the Charter of the United Nations, respect for all human rights, democracy, education for peace, promotion of sustainable development, tolerance, respect for pluralism, positive acceptance of multiculturalism, the wider participation of women, and equal opportunities for all, as an integral approach to preventing violence in its diverse manifestations; and requested the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights to prepare a report, taking into consideration the comments and views of all Governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, on the contribution of the promotion and protection of human rights to the further development of a culture of peace and to present this report to the Commission at its fifty-sixth session.



The Commission adopted by consensus a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.95) on human rights and bioethics, in which it invited the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the World Health Organization, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and other United Nations bodies and specialized agencies concerned to report to the Secretary-General on the activities conducted in their respective areas to ensure that the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome were taken into account; invited Governments to consider establishing independent, multidisciplinary and pluralist committees of ethics to assess, notably in conjunction with the International Bioethics Committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the ethical, social and human questions raised by the biomedical research undergone by human beings and, in particular, research relating to the human genome and its applications, and also invited them to inform the Secretary-General of the establishment of any such bodies; and requested the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities to consider what contribution it could make to the reflections of the International Bioethics Committee.



The Commission adopted by consensus a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.96) on the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education, in which it urged all Governments to contribute further to the implementation of the Plan of Action of the Decade; urged Governments to encourage, support and involve national and local non-governmental organizations and community-based organizations in the implementation of their national plans of action; requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to accelerate the implementation of the Plan of Action; urged Governments to support further through voluntary contributions the education and public information efforts undertaken by the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights in the framework of the Decade; invited the specialized agencies and relevant United Nations programmes and funds to contribute, within their respective spheres of competence, to the implementation of the Plan of Action and to cooperate closely with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in
that regard; called upon international, regional and national non-governmental organizations and intergovernmental organizations to undertake specific activities of formal, non-formal and informal education in implementing the Plan of Action; and urged Governments and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to continue in the context of the Decade the human rights education and public information work undertaken on the occasion of the commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.



The Commission adopted by consensus a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.97) on fundamental standards of humanity, in which it recognized the desirability of seeking ways of ensuring the effective promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of all individuals in all situations in a manner consistent with international law; recognized also the vital importance of the existence in each country of appropriate national legislation for dealing with such situations in a manner consistent with the rule of law; requested the Secretary-General to continue to study and consult on this issue and to submit a report, entitled "Fundamental standards of humanity", to the Commission at its fifty-sixth session.

ANTONIO DE ICAZA (Mexico) said that by tradition, his country had co-sponsored this draft resolution. But this year, there was a need to continue to identify fundamental standards of humanity as in previous years in the first paragraph of the draft resolution. Mexico was therefore surprised at the omission of the need to continue to identify the fundamental rights, to which there could be no derogation. Mexico proposed that there should be a return to the previous drafting that urged the need to identify these fundamental standards. Mexico would co-sponsor the draft.



The Commission adopted by consensus a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.98) on the implementation of the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in which it called on all States to promote and give effect to the Declaration and to report on activities they had undertaken in this regard; urged all treaty bodies and special representatives, special rapporteurs and working groups of the Commission on Human Rights and the Subcommission of Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities to give due regard to the Declaration within their mandates, and requested the Secretary-General to submit a report.

RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said it supported the adoption on the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms without a vote. Nevertheless, it had general comments on the question of privatization. The wave of the privatization of jails was worrying. Cuba reserved the right to discuss the title and also wanted to talk about operative paragraph 3. However, Cuba would go along with the consensus.



The Commission adopted by roll-call vote of 48 in favour to none against and five abstentions a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.99) on the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in which it stressed the importance of and the need to implement the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; and stressed the significance of the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on 17 July 1998.

The results of the roll-call vote was as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Against: None.

Abstentions: Pakistan, Qatar, Romania, Sri Lanka and Sudan.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that draft resolution L.99 should be voted on since operative paragraph 1 was weak and lacked references to genocide in the Great Lakes Region and Bosnia.

JUAN FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said his country was not convinced that the question of genocide needed treatment within the Commission in the future. Cuba would vote in favour of the draft resolution this year.



The Commission adopted by consensus a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.61) on the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, in which it called upon States, intergovernmental organizations and specialized agencies to continue to carry out constructive dialogue and consultations for the enhancement of understanding and the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms; encouraged non-governmental organizations to contribute actively to this endeavour; invited States and all relevant United Nations human rights mechanisms and procedures to pay continued attention to the importance of mutual cooperation, understanding and dialogue in ensuring the promotion and protection of human rights; and requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to submit a report on ways and means to enhance international cooperation in the field of human rights.

HASSAN WIRAJUDA (Indonesia) said that his country and others would like to disassociate themselves with resolution L.91 on the question of the death penalty because there was no international consensus that the death penalty should be abolished. Capital punishment had often been characterised as a human rights issue and in the light of the right to life of the criminals. However, the rights of the victims should also be taken into account. The question of whether or not to abolish the death penalty should be decided upon by each State, in the context of the opinion of its citizens and its impact upon crime.

HERNAN PLORUTTI (Argentina), speaking on resolution L.95 on bioethics, believed that it did not fulfill the needs of the issue. There was a need to define numerous issues. This was considered a beginning point. Argentina was grateful to the French delegation which had perused this matter.

IFTEKHAR CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh), speaking on resolution L.91 on the death penalty, said his country had voted against it since the death penalty was still legal in Bangladesh, although it was very rarely applied. The text of the resolution could be remedied so that Bangladesh could vote in favour of it in the future.



The Commission adopted by consensus a resolution (E/CN.4.1999/L.75) on regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asia and Pacific region, in which it reaffirmed that developing and strengthening national capacities for the promotion and protection of the human rights in accordance with national conditions provided the strongest foundation for effective and enduring regional cooperation in the field of human rights; welcomed the establishment of independent national institutions in countries of the Asia and Pacific region and their important contribution to the process of regional cooperation, through the work of the Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights institutions; welcomed the decision of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to allocate funding for the implementation of the regional projects foreseen within the framework of regional cooperation for the Asia and Pacific region adopted at the sixth workshop held in Tehran; requested the Secretary-General to submit the Commission at its fifty-sixth session a report containing the conclusions of the eighth workshop on Regional Arrangements for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Asia and Pacific Region and information on the progress achieved in the implementation of the present resolution.



The Commission adopted by roll-call vote of 34 in favour to 16 against and three abstentions a resolution (E/CN.4.1999/L.78) on the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in which it reiterated its support of the statement of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Third Committee at the fifty-second session of the General Assembly, in which she expressed her willingness to ensure a good geographical balance and a sense of bringing together north and south in a joint commitment to human rights, in the process of filling key senior positions in the Office, as well as the post of Deputy High Commissioner; reaffirmed that article 101, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations should guide the Secretary-General in his policy for recruiting the staff of the organization, mindful of the criteria of equitable geographical distribution; considered that it was necessary, in the process of restructuring the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, to take urgent, concrete and immediate action to change the currently prevailing geographical distribution of the staff of the Office in favour of a more equitable distribution of posts; reaffirmed the importance of ensuring universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in the consideration of human rights issues, and requested the High Commissioner to continue ensuring that the fulfilment of her mandate and that of the Office were guided by these principles; and stressed that the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner needed to continue maintaining their neutrality and fully respecting the independence of work of all mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights and the treaty bodies.

The result of the roll-call vote was as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, China, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Democratic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Against: Austria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Romania, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Abstentions: Liberia, Russian Federation and South Africa.

WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany), on behalf of the European Union and eastern and central European countries associated with it, said that there had been no discussion on L.78 which ran against the principle of transparency and asked for a vote.

ROSS HYNES (Canada) said that this resolution was unfortunately an annual fixture and its strongly opposed consideration would remain as long as the sponsors continued to propose it. The text was without foundation and the issue was not part of the mandate of the Commission. These issues were the prerogative of the United Nations Secretary-General. Canada supported the High Commissioner’s efforts to support human rights principles and values. Canada would oppose the draft resolution.

ROBERT LOFTIS (the United States) said it would vote against this draft resolution because of its wording. The United States also associated itself with the comments made by the Canadian delegate.

FERNANDO LABBE (Chile) said that it would not be able to support draft resolution L.78. It felt that the language of the draft resolution contained an implicit criticism of the High Commissioner and this was unacceptable. The Commission should support the work of the High Commissioner since the Office deserved it. The language of the draft criticised in an unfortunate way the staff of the Office and Chile would vote against the draft resolution.


PHILIPPE PETIT (France) supported the geographical distribution of the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The text was not acceptable.