COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS, INTEGRITY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM, TORTURE

Commission on Human Rights
58th session
22 April 2002
Afternoon



Approves Draft Optional Protocol to
the Convention against Torture;

Special Representative of Secretary-General
on Cambodia Presents Report



The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon adopted a number of resolutions in which it condemned all acts of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, decried torture and said that it could never by justified, called for the strengthening of popular participation as one of the foundations of democracy, and stressed the importance of the integrity of the judicial system in all States, especially the right to a fair trial.
The Commission also adopted a resolution by a roll-call vote of 29 in favour and 10 opposed, with 14 abstentions, in which it approved the optional protocol to the Convention against Torture. It recommended to the Economic and Social Council that the Council adopt the optional protocol and that the Council recommend it to the General Assembly for adoption and opening for signature and ratification. The optional protocol is designed to establish a preventive system of visits to places of detention.
The resolution was adopted following a rejection of a no-action motion by a roll-call vote of 21 in favour, 28 against, with 4 abstentions. The introduction of the no-action motion was followed by a procedural debate in which a number of delegations opposed to the motion said that it would minimize the importance of the draft optional protocol. They said that the work done by the Working Group on the draft optional protocol for the past 10 years was sufficient for the protocol to be recommended for ratification. Others who supported the no-action motion said that the Working Group designed to draft the optional protocol had not yet completed its work and that it needed extra time to finish.
In a roll-call vote of 29 in favour to 7 against, with 17 abstentions, the Commission adopted a resolution on the strengthening of popular participation, equity, social justice and non-discrimination as essential foundations of democracy, reaffirming, among other things, that democracy was based on the freely expressed will of the people; and that democracy, development, and respect for human rights were mutually reinforcing. It stressed that consolidation of democracy required sustained economic growth and sustainable development.
In a resolution on human rights and terrorism, adopted by a roll-call vote of 32 in favour to none against, and with 21 abstentions, the Commission reiterated its unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism; condemned, among other things, the violations of the right to live free from fear and the right to life, liberty and security; condemned incitement of ethnic hatred, violence and terrorism; and urged States to prevent, combat and eliminate terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever committed.
In a resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, adopted by a roll-call vote of 36 in favour, 2 against, with 14 abstentions, the Commission strongly condemned once again all the extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions that continued to take place throughout the world; noted with deep concern that impunity continued to be a major cause of the perpetuation of violations of human rights, including extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; and demanded that all Governments ensure that the practice of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions was brought to an end.
In a resolution on integrity of the judicial system, adopted by a roll-call vote of 34 in favour to none against, with 19 abstentions, the Commission reiterated that every person was entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of his/her rights and obligations and of any criminal charges brought; and called upon States to ensure that persons being tried had the possibility to examine or have examined the witnesses against them and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on their behalf.
At the beginning of the meeting, Peter Leuprecht, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights in Cambodia, presented his report to the Commission, saying that he profoundly regretted the interruption of negotiations between the United Nations and the Cambodian Government regarding the Khmer Rouge tribunal. He expressed the firm hope that the negotiations would be resumed and brought to a positive conclusion. Mr. Leuprecht said that Cambodia was undoubtedly making progress on the road to democracy and greater respect for human rights. However, much remained to be done and further progress would be achieved through combined efforts of Cambodian society and the international community.
As a concerned country, the representative of Cambodia said that his Government was determined to build a solid democratic society despite poverty inflicted on new generations of Cambodians by the former political regime of the Khmer Rouge. The Government was putting all efforts to clean the remnant of the Khmer Rouge's inhumane rules that turned the clock backward to year zero in 1975. However, to achieve the desired goal, there should be at least two supportive elements: human and financial resources for which Cambodia was unfortunately lacking.
Delegations from the following countries participated in the discussion: Cambodia, Chile, Canada, Japan, Cuba, Costa Rica, Saudi Arabia, China, Uruguay, Bahrain, Libya, Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, India, Pakistan, Algeria, Spain (on behalf of the European Union), Croatia and Sweden.
When the Commission reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 23 April, it will continue to take action on draft resolutions and decisions.

Advisory Services and Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights
The Commission heard an introduction to a report in advance of general discussion under this agenda item.
The report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia (E/CN.4/2002/118) summarizes an 18 to 28 November 2001 visit to the country in which the Rapporteur focused on the upcoming Commune Council elections and judicial reform. The report notes in its executive summary, among other things, that the Commune Council elections scheduled for 3 February 2002 represent an important opportunity for Cambodians and are a significant step towards democratization in preparedness for National Assembly elections planned for 2003; that the preparations for the elections appeared favourable, and that irregularities with regard to the registration of some candidates had been addressed by the relevant election officials; that the Government had given welcome assurances that political violence would not be tolerated, and that a Ministry of the Interior directive had told local officials to investigate and prevent any incidents of election-related violence, threats or intimidation. There is urgent need for reform of Cambodia's judiciary, the report states; the Prime Minister has given assurances that judicial reform remains a high priority; and the country needs, among other things, a Statute of Judges, opening up of access to the Bar and the judiciary for trained law graduates, increases in judges' salaries, and increased budget allocations for the judicial sector.

Presentation of Report
PETER LEUPRECHT, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for human rights in Cambodia, said Cambodia's 2002 commune elections had been an important political milestone and a step forward on the road of consolidation of democracy. But they had also exposed continuing and serious problems, in particular intimidation and violence. Progress was slow with regard to judicial reform. Concrete steps were required, such as the adoption of the Statute of Judges and the admission of young, trained law graduates into the Bar and the Judiciary. It was stressed that Cambodia had a very young population and that the future of the country lay very much in the education of its children. The efforts made by the Government in this area had been met with enthusiastic and coordinated support from the donor community.
Mr. Leuprecht profoundly regretted the interruption of negotiations between the United Nations and the Cambodian Government regarding the Khmer Rouge tribunal and he expressed the firm hope that the negotiations would be resumed and brought to a positive conclusion. The equitable resolution of land issues was fundamental to the development of a peaceful Cambodia and tribute was paid to the King and the Prime Minister for having brought about a solution to the land conflict that involved three indigenous villages in Bokeo district. The situation of the Montagnard refugees was a matter of serious concern. The fundamental rule of "non-refoulement" must be respected and all repatriations must be voluntary. The Government must honour the assurances it had given according to which there was no deadline for such repatriations. Regarding one particular case, he was concerned by the detention by the Cambodian authorities in Mondulkiri province of an individual, Mr. Y. Hong. There was no legitimate basis for this detention and his early release would be welcome.
Cambodia was undoubtedly making progress on the road to democracy and greater respect for human rights. However, much remained to be done and further progress would be achieved through combined efforts of Cambodian society and the international community. The international community was strongly encouraged to follow through on their pledged assistance, keeping in mind that the protection and promotion of human rights must be one of the main objectives of all assistance programmes.
SOMETH SUOS (Cambodia) said that the Government of Cambodia was determined to build a solid democratic society despite poverty inflicted on new generations of Cambodians by the former political regime known as the Khmer Rouge. The Government was putting all efforts to clean the remnants of the Khmer Rouge's inhumane rules that turned the clock backward to year zero in 1975. As the Special Representative of the Secretary-General had noted throughout the report, there had been some progress made on several fronts: on law, justice, democracy and human rights. The judicial system which was completely destroyed had been rebuilt and progressively reformed. Since the rebirth of Cambodia only 10 years ago, good achievements in many socio-economic fronts were obvious results of the efforts of Cambodia. The Government was committed to democracy, human rights, rule of law and good governance. However, to achieve the desired goal, there should be at least two supportive elements: human and financial resources for which Cambodia was unfortunately lacking. It was hoped that the international community would continue to assist Cambodia.

Explanations of the Vote after the Vote on Resolutions on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
JUAN ENRIQUE VEGA (Chile) said that Chile voted in favour of L.36 because it believed in transparency and democracy. Chile considered that democracy was a political form which resulted from the process of diversity and societal pluralism. The conditions for democracy, such as elections, freedom of expression and transparency, should by put in place in any society. With regard to L.44, Chile considered that the international community should resist and should cement its human rights and fundamental principles against harms by globalization. The principles of equality, participation, responsibility, non-discrimination, respect for diversity and international solidarity should constitute opportunities for globalization. The process of globalization should create modernization and social coherence. Chile was in favour of the resolution.
MARIE GERVAIS-VIDRICAIRE (Canada) said that globalization provided opportunities but also posed challenges. Canada was concerned that L.44 did not refer to the benefits that globalization could bring. This was why Canada had voted against the resolution. Canada was committed to the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and for this reason joined consensus on L.47. However, Canada believed that the appointment of a Special Rapporteur was premature and overlapped with activities of other organizations.
MASARU WATANABE (Japan) said that concerning the resolution L.40, Japan had joined in the consensus in understanding that the Working Group would discuss whether an optional protocol of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights would be elaborated or not. The Working Group must consider whether the individual communications procedure was suitable or not for economic, social and cultural rights before its elaboration of the optional protocol. Japan supported the main purpose of the resolution but on the other hand, given the characteristics of the Covenant, one had to be careful about the establishment about such a communications procedure.

Action on Resolutions and Decisions on Civil and Political Rights
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002.L.5) on a draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture, adopted by a roll-call vote of 29 in favour and 10 opposed, with 14 abstentions, the Commission adopted the text of the optional protocol submitted by the Chairperson of the Working Group on the subject; recommended that the text, following its adoption by the General Assembly, be opened as early as possible for signature, ratification and accession; and recommended in a draft resolution to the Economic and Social Council that the Council adopt the optional protocol and recommend it to the General Assembly for adoption and opening for signature and ratification.
The results were as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Venezuela.
Against: China, Cuba, Japan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Syrian Arab Republic,
Abstentions: Algeria, Cameroon, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Viet Nam and Zambia.
Cuba had proposed a motion of no-action on the resolution which was defeated by 28 against and 21 in favour, with 4 abstentions.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Bahrain, China, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Japan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Viet Nam and Zambia.
Against: Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Venezuela.
Abstentions: Algeria, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Kenya.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that his country attached importance to the work carried out on the adoption of the optional draft protocol to the Convention against Torture. Cuba recalled that the report submitted by the Working Group stated that there was no consensus on this instrument. This was not the position of an isolated group of countries. Ten years had been spent on negotiations on the optional protocol. The convention on economic, social and cultural rights took 16 years to be negotiated, but today it was a universally accepted instrument. The optional protocol had to be based on universality which was not the case at present.
NORA RUIZ DE ANGULO (Costa Rica) said that the amendment presented by Cuba was more than a new idea. The new proposal by Cuba would change completely the content of the text.
TURKI AL-MADI (Saudi Arabia) said his delegation believed that the amendment put forward by Cuba was an amendment and not a new proposal.
SHA ZUKANG (China) said that over the past 10 years, China had actively participated in the work of the Working Group on the draft protocol to the Convention against Torture. The Working Group had reached agreement on most elements of the text. China was of the view that only a protocol reached through negotiations could be universal. China believed that the mandate of the Working Group should be renewed. Regrettably, the sponsors of the resolution refused to accept any constructive proposals. This was a negation of the spirit of negotiations and consultations of the past 10 years and could create difficulties in the ratification and implementation of the Optional Protocol. China would vote in support of the amendment introduced by the Cuban delegation if it was put to voting.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that his delegation had done a lot of work in order not to reach the point where the Commission had now reached. The internal resources were inadequate to fight any forms of torture. The delegation had already presented documents which had probably not been read. In that case, Cuba would vote against L.5.
CHRISTIAN GUILLERMET (Costa Rica) said that it was surprised, indeed astonished, to hear a reference to cost benefit analysis of human rights with regard to the Optional Protocol. If only one human being could be freed from torture, that man or woman would be worth all the resources of the United Nations. The protocol was the maximum that could be achieved after 10 years of negotiations. Costa Rica stressed that the Protocol was optional and trusted that the Commission would adopt it. The idea behind it was prevention and cooperation so that human beings would not suffer torture and mistreatment.
PAMELA VIVAS (Uruguay) said that speaking frankly, Uruguay had felt slighted by what had been said in the last week of the Commission and by what had been heard in this discussion. It had been alleged that there had been no negotiations and that they had been hasty. The discussions had lasted for ten years. Uruguay believed that enough negotiations had taken place, there had been considerable discussion on this topic and there had definitely not been any irregularities in the work on this topic.
SAEED MOHAMED AL-FAIHANI (Bahrain) said that the resolution would strengthen the Convention against Torture. Although Bahrain had certain reservations on some of the paragraphs in the draft resolution, it would vote in favour of the resolution.
NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI (Libya) said that it was surprised at the content of the draft resolution L.5, particularly operative paragraph 2. Libya would not like the protocol to be of any binding nature, especially with regard to visits without the consent of the countries concerned. Further, Libya did not accept the moving away from the rule of consensus and would vote against the draft resolution.
MARIE GERVAIS-VIDRICAIRE (Canada) said that her country was a proponent in the attempts to prevent and prohibit torture and supported such mechanisms. Canada had been part of the Working Group and had established mechanisms domestically to prevent the practice of torture. However, with regard to the text, Canada could not determine whether the federal and provincial mechanisms in place in Canada accorded with the provisions in the text. In light of both federal and provincial concerns regarding the national visits mechanism provisions, Canada would likely not be in a position to sign or ratify the draft optional protocol as it appeared in the Chair's text. Canada supported the fundamental elements of the draft optional protocol regarding the establishment of an international mechanism. In conformity with Canada's long standing position regarding the prevention and protection against torture, Canada would not stand in the way of the adoption of the resolution and would therefore vote in favour of this resolution.
MARICLAIRE ACOSTA (Mexico) said that those who were not supporting the text could do so but the argument not to support it was not valid. Mexico would vote in favour of the resolution.
NORMA NASCIMBENE DE DUMONT (Argentina) said that it would have preferred to see draft resolution L.5 adopted by consensus. Faced with the vote, Argentina would vote in favour of the draft resolution because of the commitment of the Government of Argentina to prevent torture and because the draft resolution was balanced.
VICTOR RODRIGUEZ CEDENO (Venezuela) said that his country would have preferred the adoption of the resolution by consensus. Venezuela approved of the text generally, except perhaps for a paragraph on domestic mechanisms which would have to be decided nationally.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002.L.36/Rev.1) on strengthening of popular participation, equity, social justice and non-discrimination as essential foundations of democracy, adopted in a roll-call vote of 29 in favour and 7 opposed, with 17 abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed that democracy was based on the freely expressed will of the people; that while all democracies shared common features, there was no one universal model; affirmed that consolidation of democracy required the promotion and protection of all human rights for everyone; that democracy, development, and respect for human rights were mutually reinforcing; stressed that consolidation of democracy required sustained economic growth and sustainable development; declared that popular participation was only feasible if societies had democratic political and electoral systems that operated without discrimination of any kind; and requested all States and the international community further to endeavour to promote effective measures to eradicate poverty and promote just, equitable and inclusive societies.
The results were as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Bahrain, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Venezuela , Viet Nam and Zambia.
Against: Armenia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Abstentions: Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, and Uruguay.
JOAQUIN PEREZ-VILLANUEVA Y TOVAR (Spain) speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the Union was unable to support L.36/Rev.1. The Union was founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law. It attached the greatest importance to those principles and followed very closely the developments in those areas. It would support resolutions that could help the full development of democracy. L. 36/Rev.1 did not reflect the reality that democracy would strengthen the enjoyment of human rights and equitable development process. Instead it undermined the fundamental relationship between human rights, development and democracy. It promoted a concept of democracy that was ambiguous and inoperable.
SHARAT SABHARWAL (India) said that L.36 identified several elements such as strengthening of popular participation and equity as important ingredients of democracy. India therefore supported the resolution and would vote in favour. However, there were some other elements necessary for democracy that were not mentioned in the draft resolution, including free and fair elections, free media, autonomous judiciary, accountability of the armed forces and a democratically elected Government. India invited the Commission not to lose sight of these elements.
MARIE GERVAIS-VIDRICAIRE (Canada) said her country believed in the importance of democracy for the promotion and protection of all human rights - civil, political, economic, social and cultural. The resolution before the Commission contained some worthwhile elements, however it excluded other equally important ones including the rule of law, freedom of expression and a pluralistic system of parties and organizations. Canada therefore believed that this resolution did not adequately reflect the balance of elements needed to ensure democracy. Furthermore, the text also had the potential of undermining the cross-regional agreements and partnerships so carefully brought about through previous discussions on the subject. For these reasons, Canada could not support this resolution.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002/L.50/Rev.1) on human rights and terrorism, adopted by a roll-call vote of 32 in favour and 21 abstentions, with none opposed, the Commission reiterated its unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism, regardless of their motivation, in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever committed, as acts aimed at the destruction of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy; condemned the violations of the right to live free from fear and the right to life, liberty and security; condemned incitement of ethnic hatred, violence and terrorism; urged States to prevent, combat and eliminate terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever committed, and called upon States to take appropriate measures, before granting refugee status, to ensure that the asylum-seeker had not planned, facilitated or participated in the commission of terrorist acts and to ensure, in conformity with international law, that refugee status was not abused by the perpetrators, organizers or facilitator of terrorist acts and that claims of political motivation were not recognized as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists; called upon States to strengthen, where appropriate, their legislation to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations; urged the international community to enhance cooperation at the regional and international levels in the fight against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations; called upon States to enhance their cooperation with a view to bringing terrorists to justice; welcomed the report of the Secretary-General (A/56/190) and invited him to continue to seek the views of Member States on the implications of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations for the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms; endorsed the request of the Subcommission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to the Secretary-General to give the Special Rapporteur of the Subcommission all the assistance necessary to complete her essential research and collect all the needed information for the preparation of her progress report; and requested the Special Rapporteur to give attention in her next report on human rights and terrorism to the questions raised in the present resolution.
The results were as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Bahrain, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.
Against: None.
Abstentions: Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Uruguay.
ALEJANDRO SALINAS (Chile) said that his country reiterated that terrorism acts should be considered as criminal activities and that all States should combat terrorism. However, Chile would have to abstain on this vote because it could not accept some aspects contained in the draft resolution.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said the consideration and adoption of the draft resolution L.50/Rev.1 was obviously very important in the aftermath of the 11 September events. There were a number of aspects of the issue which required more focus: the need to address the root causes of terrorism, which included both poverty as well as foreign occupation, injustice and exclusions; the imperative of assuming that the campaign against terrorism in no way compromised the right of people to struggle for self-determination against foreign occupation; and the need for the continued observance of human rights and humanitarian law in the process of combatting international terrorism.
NORMA NASCIMBENE DE DUMONT (Argentina) reconfirmed his country's strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms. However, concerning this draft resolution, Argentina would have to abstain, since parts of the draft went against Argentina's policy providing that only States and their elements could be held responsible for such actions.
JOAQUIN PEREZ-VILLANUEVA Y TOVAR (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU), said that the EU reaffirmed its unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whoever committed, and whatever the considerations that might be invoked to justify them. Acts of terrorism could constitute acts of aggression threatening peace and security. The EU believed that the efforts to combat terrorism should at all times be compatible with the full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and that the fight against terrorism had to be carried out in accordance with international humanitarian law. As a matter of principle, the EU could not subscribe to the assertion that terrorist acts as such constituted human rights violations. Therefore, a clear distinction must be made between acts which were attributable to States, and criminal acts which were not, so as to avoid conferring on terrorists any status under international law. The EU had asked for the deletion of paragraph 23 of the preamble, and it regretted that this deletion had not been possible. For this reason, Spain would abstain on L.50.
MARIE GERVAIS-VIDRICAIRE (Canada) said that her country unequivocally condemned terrorism and had committed enormous efforts, both at the national and international level, to eradicate that scourge. Canada had supported all relevant resolutions against terrorism. It believed that the fight against terrorism could be won while respecting human rights and international humanitarian law. Given the importance Canada attached to the fight against terrorism, the Canadian delegation had worked very hard with other delegations in an effort to secure a consensus resolution on human rights and terrorism. The main concern laid with the notion that terrorist groups could commit human rights violations. Terrorist acts, undertaken by individuals or groups of individuals, were not violations of international human rights law. States had responsibilities and obligations to respect human rights law. Canada would abstain in its vote relating to L.50/Rev. 1.
SPOMENKA CEK (Croatia) said that his country fully aligned itself with the statement made by Spain on behalf of the European Union and that it would therefore abstain in the vote on draft resolution L.50.
NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI (Libya) said that her country would vote in favour of draft resolution L.50, but emphasized that distinction must be made between terrorism and the fight for self-determination. The resolution should not impinge on the right to self-determination of people suffering under foreign occupation.
Following a proposal by Pakistan that the Commission exclude the two words "sexual orientation" in operative paragraphs 6 and 12 of resolution E/CN.4/2002.L.51, the Commission decided to keep the two words. The result of the roll-call vote was 28 against and15 in favour, with 9 abstentions.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Bahrain, China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Viet Nam and Zambia.
Against: Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Venezuela.
Abstentions: Argentina, India, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland and Uganda.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002/L.51) on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, adopted in a roll-call vote of 36 in favour and 2 opposed, with 14 abstentions, the Commission strongly condemned once again all the extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions that continued to take place throughout the world; noted with deep concern that impunity continued to be a major cause of the perpetuation of violations of human rights, including extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; demanded that all Governments ensure that the practice of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions was brought to an end; reiterated the obligation of all Governments to conduct exhaustive and impartial investigations into all suspected cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; reaffirmed the obligation of Governments to ensure the protection of the inherent right to life of all persons under their jurisdiction and called upon Governments concerned to investigate promptly and thoroughly cases of killings committed in the name of passion or honour; stressed the importance of States taking effective measures to end impunity with regard to extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; expressed grave concern over the continued occurrence of violations relating to the right to life highlighted in the report of the Special Rapporteur; took note of the recommendations contained in the report of the Special Rapporteur; commended the important role placed by the Special Rapporteur and requested that she carry on with her mandate and continue to examine situations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and to submit her findings on an annual basis, together with conclusions and recommendations, to the Commission; strongly urged all Governments to cooperate with and assist the Special Rapporteur so that her mandate may be carried out effectively; and requested the Secretary-General to provide the Special Rapporteur with adequate human, financial and material resources in order to enable her to carry out her mandate effectively, including through country visits.
The results were as follows:
In favour:
Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Venezuela.
Against: Syrian Arab Republic and Zambia.
Abstentions: Algeria, Bahrain, China, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Viet Nam.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that the OIC would like to place on record its concern with regard to the inclusion of the expression "sexual orientation" in operative paragraphs 6 and 12. The OIC fully endorsed all elements contained in the draft resolution but would like to see the deletion of the words "sexual orientation". The OIC felt that the issue could have been addressed without making specific reference to these words. Consequently, the OIC would like to ask for a separate vote on these two words, but was open to further consultation on these words.
JOHAN MOLANDER (Sweden) took note that the delegation of Pakistan had endorsed its stand. The delegation of Sweden had tried to find common wordings.
TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said that the response of Sweden showed that there might be a way out of the situation. The sentence would skip the two words in paragraph 6 and in paragraph 12 it would read "persons exercising their right to freedom of opinion and expression" and end as such.
JOHAN MOLANDER (Sweden) said that the proposal by Pakistan on operative paragraphs six and twelve was quite clear and defeated the objective of the co-sponsors which was to have an all inclusive resolution which also included those having different sexual orientation.
NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI (Libya) said that the paragraph on sexual orientation of the draft resolution did not exist in the Arabic version. How could the delegation vote?
TURKI AL-MADI (Saudi Arabia) said that the decision to include the words "sexual orientation" in draft resolution L.51 was incompatible with the Sharia and therefore Saudi Arabia would find it difficult to vote in favour of such a draft resolution. Consequently, Saudi Arabia would call for a roll-call vote.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002/L.52) on integrity of the judicial system, adopted in a roll-call vote of 34 in favour, 19 abstentions, with none opposed, the Commission reiterated that every person was entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of his/her rights and obligations and of any criminal charges brought against them; that everyone had the right to be tried by ordinary courts or tribunals and that tribunals that did not use such procedures should not be created to displace the jurisdiction belonging to the ordinary courts or judicial tribunals; stressed the importance of everyone's right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty; urged States to guarantee that all persons brought to trial had the right to be tried in their presence and to defend themselves in person or through legal assistance of their own choosing; underlined that any court trying a persons charged with a criminal offence must be based on the principles of independence and impartiality; called upon States to ensure that persons being tried had the possibility to examine or have examined the witnesses against them and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on their behalf; reaffirmed that every convicted person should have the right to have his/her conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law; and called on States that had military courts for trying criminal offenders to ensure that such courts were an integral part of the general judicial system and used the duly established legal proceedings.
The results were as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Burundi, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Uganda, Viet Nam and Zambia.
Against : None.
Abstentions: Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, India, Japan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Thailand, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Venezuela.
MARIE GERVAIS-VIDRICAIRE (Canada) said that it regretted that it was not able to support L.52. The salient points would have been better incorporated in other resolutions that contained consensus language. Canada called for a roll-call vote and said that it would abstain on the draft resolution.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that the draft resolution on the integrity of the judiciary could be passed by consensus. If a roll-call vote was recorded, Cuba will vote in favour.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002/L.53) on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, adopted without a vote, the Commission condemned all such acts, which could never be justified; any action or attempt by States or public officials to legalize or authorize torture under any circumstances; urged Governments to provide redress and to prevent torture and other cruel treatment, including their gender-based manifestations; reminded Governments that corporal punishment, including of children, could amount to cruel punishment or even torture; reminded them that intimidation and coercion, including serious and credible threats, could amount to cruel treatment or to torture; stressed that under article 4 of the Convention against Torture, torture must be made an offence under domestic criminal law; stressed that all allegations of torture should be promptly and impartially investigated; stressed that States must not punish personnel for not obeying orders to commit actions amounting to torture or cruel treatment; that national legal systems should ensure that victims were awarded fair and adequate compensation and received appropriate rehabilitation; urged Governments to protect medical and other personnel for their role in documenting such offences; reminded all States that prolonged incommunicado detention could facilitate perpetration of torture and could itself constitute a form of torture or cruel treatment; urged all States to become parties to the Convention against Torture; called upon all Governments to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on the subject; urged them to respond to communications from the Special Rapporteur and to give serious consideration to requests from the Special Rapporteur to visit their countries; and appealed for annual contributions to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture.



* *** *