COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON RIGHT TO FOOD, UNILATERAL COERCIVE MEASURES, FOREIGN DEBT, ADEQUATE HOUSING, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

Commission on Human Rights
57th session
20 April 2001
Evening






Commission Approves Resolution on Chechnya



The Commission on Human Rights this evening adopted a resolution on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation, and then moved on to issues concerning economic, social and cultural rights and adopted resolutions on the right to food, unilateral coercive measures, structural adjustment policies and foreign debt, the right to adequate housing, the right to education and the realization of economic, social and cultural rights.

On the situation in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation, the Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 22 for, to 12 against and 19 abstaining, a resolution in which it called upon all parties to the conflict to take immediate steps to halt the ongoing fighting and the indiscriminate use of force and to seek as a matter of urgency a political solution. It strongly condemned the continued use of disproportionate and indiscriminate force by the Russian military forces, federal servicemen and State agents and strongly condemned all terrorist activities and attacks as well as breaches of international humanitarian law perpetrated by Chechen fighters. The Commission reiterated its call upon the Russian Federation to establish, according to recognized international standards, a national broad-based and independent commission of inquiry into alleged violations of human rights in Chechnya and expressed serious concern over the slow pace of investigations to date.

Starting to take action on resolutions under its agenda item on economic, social and cultural rights, the Commission adopted a resolution on the right to food by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour and 1 opposed, with no abstentions, in which it considered that it was intolerable that 826 million people, most of them women and children, throughout the world and particularly in developing countries, did not have enough food to meet their basic nutritional needs. The Commission stressed the need to make efforts to mobilize and optimize the allocation and utilization of technical and financial resources from all sources, including external debt relief for developing countries, to reinforce national actions to implement sustainable food security policies.

Concerning human rights and unilateral coercive measures, the Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 37 in favour and 8 opposed, with 8 abstentions, a resolution in which it urged all States to refrain from adopting or implementing unilateral measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, in particular those of a coercive nature with extraterritorial effects, which created obstacles to trade relations among States. The Commission also rejected the application of such measures as tools for political or economic pressure against any country, particularly against developing countries, because of their negative effects on the human rights of vast sectors of their populations. It called upon Member States that had initiated such measures to revoke them at the earliest possible time. The Commission reaffirmed that essential goods such as food and medicines should not be used as tools for political coercion and that under no circumstances should people be deprived of their own means of subsistence and development.

On the effects of structural adjustment policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, the Commission approved by a roll-call vote of 31 in favour to 15 opposed, with 7 abstentions, a resolution in which it reiterated that the permanent solution to the foreign debt problem lay in the establishment of a just and equitable international economic order and stressed the need for the economic programmes arising from foreign debt to be country-driven and for their macroeconomic and financial policy issues to be integrated with the realization of broader social development goals. The Commission also emphasized the need for new financial flows to debtor developing countries. The Commission requested the Independent Expert on the topic to present an analytical report to the Commission on an annual basis on the implementation of the present resolution.

With regards to the right to adequate housing, the Commission adopted by consensus a resolution in which it encouraged the Special Rapporteur to strengthen the integration of the rights relevant to his mandate into the Global Campaign for Secure Tenure launched by the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) and into other activities of the UN system. The Commission also called upon States to give full effect to housing rights.

On the right to education, the Commission adopted by consensus a resolution in which it
called upon States to give full effect to the right to education without discrimination of any kind and to eliminate obstacles limiting access to education, notably by girls. The Commission called upon States to ensure that primary education was compulsory, accessible and available free to all. It decided to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further three years.

And concerning the realization of economic, social and cultural rights and study of special problems which the developing countries face in their efforts to achieve those rights, adopted by consensus, the Commission called upon States to give full effect to economic, social and cultural rights. It urged States to give particular attention to vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals, such as women and girls and communities living in extreme poverty. And the Commission decided to appoint an Independent Expert to examine the question of a draft optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The Commission will meet at 10 a.m. on Monday, 23 April to continue to take action on draft resolutions.


Action on resolution under question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.24) on the situation in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation, adopted by a roll-call vote of 22 for, to 12 against and 19 abstaining, the Commission called upon all parties to the conflict to take immediate steps to halt the ongoing fighting and the indiscriminate use of force and to seek as a matter of urgency a political solution; strongly condemned the continued use of disproportionate and indiscriminate force by the Russian military forces, federal servicemen and State agents; strongly condemned all terrorist activities and attacks as well as breaches of international humanitarian law perpetrated by Chechen fighters; and welcomed the adoption of a comprehensive programme for the economic and social reconstruction of Chechnya and urged the Russian Government to implement it without delay.

The Commission reiterated its call upon the Russian Federation to establish, according to recognized international standards, a national broad-based and independent commission of inquiry into alleged violations of human rights in Chechnya; expressed serious concern over the slow pace of investigations to date; called upon the Russian Federation to ensure that all necessary measures were taken to investigate and solve all cases of forced disappearances; welcomed the commitment of the Russian Federation to cooperate with the special mechanisms of the Commission; called upon the Russian Federation to ensure an immediate return of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Assistance Group to Chechnya and to create the necessary conditions for the fulfilment of its mandate; urged the Russian Federation to ensure the protection of internally displaced persons; urged it to ensure humanitarian organizations free, unimpeded and secure access to Chechnya; and expressed its concern over the situation in detention centres and continued reports of ad hoc detention locations and "filtration camps", as well as the treatment of non-registered detainees and acts of torture and other cruel treatment of these detainees.

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

In favour (22): Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Latvia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, United Kingdom and United States.

Against (12): Burundi, China, Cuba, India, Kenya, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Venezuela and Viet Nam.

Abstentions (19): Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Peru, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Uruguay and Zambia.

A Representative of the Russian Federation said that his delegation had several times stated detailed opposition to this subject. The Commission knew that talks had been held to find some sort of consensus text on the situation in Chechnya. The European Union should be thanked for its input toward potential consensus. In the search for compromise, the Russian Federation had decided to compromise and to take into account many wishes that were expressed to the country. Some of the essential elements were the Russian Federation taking responsibility to finding a quick political solution to the situation in Chechnya. The Russian Federation had also taken upon itself investigating allegations of human rights abuses by servicemen. The Russian Federation had also committed itself to broadening cooperation with the mechanisms of the Commission. If the draft resolution was accepted, then it could become an example for the consideration of other States in such situations, and could provide a positive sign within the Commission, and provide hope for the future for the Commission. However, the draft resolution did not suit one delegation, and that delegation had undermined the consensus that was achieved. That delegation had been using the Commission for its interests. That delegation supported terrorism.

Unfortunately, the draft resolution was even worse than last year's draft, which the Russian Federation also did not agree with. This draft resolution did not reflect the reality, and it did not reflect the real developments in the situation or the real measures taken by the Government. Such an approach was unacceptable. The Russian Federation called on those who were against the distortion of truth and against double standards to vote against the draft resolution. Those delegations who supported dialogue and equal cooperation for human rights should vote against the draft resolution. The Russian Federation would not consider itself bound by the resolution, and the delegation would ask that no reference be made to it in the future. At the next session of the Commission, the Russian Federation would take into account today's experience. All delegations should vote against the draft resolution.

A Representative of Pakistan said that the situation in the Republic of Chechnya, which was part of the Russian Federation, had been a matter of concern for several Islamic countries, including Pakistan. While acknowledging the need for respect of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, the suffering that the Chechen people had had to endure was a matter of serious concern. Consequently, Pakistan had welcomed the submission of a draft resolution by the European Union on the issue. The Organization of the Islamic Conference was ready to cooperate to find a peaceful solution to the crisis. Terrorism could not be ascribed only to the Chechen fighters. Although Pakistan was not entirely happy with the content of the draft resolution, it would nevertheless vote in favour of L.24.

A Representative of China said his country considered that the situation in Chechnya was an internal matter for the Government of the Russian Federation to deal with; no other country could understand better any issue in Russia than Russia itself. The Russian Federation was capable of solving the matter of Chechnya better than any other country, and no other country was entitled to interfere. China also supported any Government in its efforts to fight terrorism, and the Russian Federation was making intensive and transparent efforts to combat terrorism in Chechnya. Unfortunately, because of the obstinate obstruction of the United States, the Commission had been unable to reach consensus on a Chairman's statement on the situation in Chechnya. China would vote against the draft resolution.

A Representative of Algeria said his delegation would have liked the draft resolution to have been a Chairman's statement, and despite everything, the European Union should be commended for its efforts. The Russian Federation should also be commended for its efforts. The Government of Algeria would abstain in the vote.

A Representative of Libya said that it would have liked to see a Chairman’s statement or a draft resolution which could satisfy all the parties and which could take into account the flexibility displayed by the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation had attempted to cooperate with human rights mechanisms, including the Commission, and had established its own human rights mechanisms. Nevertheless, Libya believed that more could be done. This said, Libya would vote against the draft resolution because it believed that the territorial integrity of States should be safeguarded and because the Russian Federation had committed itself to finding a political solution to the conflict and investigating allegations of human rights violations.

A Representative of Cuba said the Russian Federation had made untiring efforts to achieve a consensus on the issue of Chechnya, and Cuba had hoped for a Chairman's statement on the matter. Unfortunately, one delegation, the same one that always caused problems, the one that thought it held a monopoly on human-rights morality, had not allowed a consensus. Cuba could not support the draft resolution as presented and would vote against it.

A Representative of India said it was clear that sincere efforts had been made to arrive to a consensus. India had stated clearly in the past that the developments in Chechnya were the manifestation of the phenomenon of international terrorism. It was incumbent upon the Russian Federation to determine the steps it would take. While the draft resolution contained many positive steps, it was not a balanced document. It did not reflect the situation on the ground, and it did not reflect the efforts to achieve peace, and it was not likely to aid in reaching peace. India would vote against the resolution.

A Representative of Syria said that his delegation had abstained because it had hoped to see a balanced draft resolution which would examine the humanitarian situation in Chechnya and suggest practical solutions for the crisis.

A Representative of Indonesia said his delegation had abstained from the vote on resolution L.24 because it recognized Chechnya as being an integral part of the Russian Federation, and recognized the interests of Russia in maintaining its territorial integrity. On the other hand, Indonesia shared the international community's concerns at the continuing human-rights violations in Chechnya, including indiscriminate use of force by both sides. Indonesia thought the best approach was through cooperation and dialogue, and would have preferred a Chairman's statement on the matter.

A Representative of Venezuela said the monitoring function of the Commission should be fulfilled, but it should also stress cooperation with the countries involved so that peaceful objectives were not compromised.


Explanation of votes at the end of consideration of the agenda item on the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world

A Representative of Cuba said his delegation rejected the resolution voted on two days against his country. The European Union had renounced once again the opportunity to be a positive factor, choosing instead to continue to follow the leadership of the hegemonic power of the world. There were numerous violations of human rights in the United States, which perhaps thought that the more it spoke about violations of human rights in other parts of the world, the less there would be time in the Commission to discuss its own violations. Costa Rica also followed the path traced by Washington, even if it meant spreading anti-Cuban propaganda. Costa Rica should start by addressing its human rights violations, including police brutality, overcrowding of prisons, and the unbearable situation of the working class.

A Representative of the United States said the Chairman's statement issued on East Timor had the strong support of the United States, which also strongly supported the Commission's commitment to human rights in East Timor, and appreciated the efforts made by Indonesia to make consensus on the matter possible. It was important for Indonesia to carry through on its announced steps to respond to what had happened in East Timor; it was important for Indonesia to send a clear signal on this. The United States was pleased to here that Indonesia had today taken a further step towards establishing an ad hoc human rights court to deal with the violations in East Timor.

A Representative of Costa Rica said his country always decided on its activities independently, and its decision to support the resolution on Cuba was consistent with the decisions Costa Rica had carried out for many years. Costa Rica's defense of human rights was one of the fine pillars of its democracy. These were allegations which came from a country which had had a one-party totalitarian government for 40 years. Costa Rica dismissed the comments from Cuba's Foreign Minister. Costa Rica had always shown Cuba respect in this Commission. The attitude of Cuba in this respect was against the Code of Rules of the Commission. This was not a way to advance human rights. Costa Rica was a truly democratic country, and had earned this reputation over many years. Cuba had asked how it could reconcile this position? Costa Rica answered to just look at the history of Costa Rican decisions, to see how Costa Rica promoted human rights. Cuba was invited to visit Costa Rica so it could see how false its statements were.

A Representative of Cuba said that the Representative of Costa Rica did not respond to any of his questions. Cuba knew that its revolution was the freest and most democratic in the region.

A Representative of Costa Rica said Costa Rica's door was open for Cuban officials to come and see the reality in the country, and it was Costa Rica's wish that Cuba would do the same and open its door to the Commission's mechanisms. In such a fashion all in Latin Americans could come to know each other better.


Action on resolutions concerning economic, social and cultural rights

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.12) on the right to food, adopted by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour and 1 opposed, with no abstentions, the Commission considered it intolerable that 826 million people, most of them women and children, throughout the world and particularly in developing countries, did not have enough food to meet their basic nutritional needs; stressed the need to make efforts to mobilize and optimize the allocation and utilization of technical and financial resources from all sources, including external debt relief for developing countries, to reinforce national actions to implement sustainable food security policies; encouraged all States to take steps to achieve progressively the full realization of the right to food; requested the Special Rapporteur on the right to food to seek, receive, and respond to information on all aspects of the matter, including the urgent necessity of eradicating hunger; to establish cooperation with Governments and other relevant entities and actors on the promotion and effective implementation of the right to food; to identify emerging issues related to the right to food worldwide; to pay attention to the issue of drinking water; and to contribute effectively to the mid-term review of the implementation of the Rome Declaration on World Food Security and the Plan of Action of the World Food Summit; and recommended that the High Commissioner for Human Rights organize a fourth expert consultation on the right to food, with a focus on realization of this right as part of strategies and policies for the eradication of poverty, inviting experts from all regions.

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

In favour (52): Algeria, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Against (1): United States

Abstentions (0): None

A Representative of the United States said the international community clearly had an important role to play, but the primary role for ensuring food security and battling hunger lay with each Government. The United States was the largest food donor in the world, and made other major international efforts to ensure food security in other countries. Unfortunately, the United States could not support draft resolution L.12. The draft resolution was based on a general comment by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on the right to food, which claimed to have the authoritative definition of the subject; the comment contained a number of assertions that the United States could not accept, among them that individuals had the right to be provided food directly by their Governments. The United States regretted that it could not support the resolution.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.16) on human rights and unilateral coercive measures, approved on a roll-call vote of 37 in favour and 8 opposed, with 8 abstentions, the Commission urged all States to refrain from adopting or implementing unilateral measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, in particular those of a coercive nature with extraterritorial effects, which created obstacles to trade relations among States; and called upon all Member States to neither recognize these measures nor apply them, as well as to consider adopting administrative or legislative measures, when necessary, to counteract the extraterritorial application of such measures.

The Commission rejected the application of such measures as tools for political or economic pressure against any country, particularly against developing countries, because of their negative effects on the human rights of vast sectors of their populations; called upon Member States that had initiated such measures to revoke them at the earliest possible time; reaffirmed, in this context, the right of all peoples to self-determination; reaffirmed that essential goods such as food and medicines should not be used as tools for political coercion and that under no circumstances should people be deprived of their own means of subsistence and development; underlined that unilateral coercive measures were one of the major obstacles to the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development; and invited the open-ended Working Group on the right to development to give due consideration to the question of human rights and the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures.


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

In favour (37): Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Against (8): Canada, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Norway, Poland, United Kingdom, and United States.

Abstentions (8): Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Italy, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania and Spain.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.33) on the effects of structural adjustment policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, approved by a roll-call vote of 31 in favour and 15 opposed, with 7 abstentions, the Commission stressed that structural adjustment policies had serious implications for the ability of the developing countries to abide by the Declaration on the Right to Development and to formulate national development policies that aimed to improve the rights of their citizens; noted with concern the persistence of the external debt problem, that the vicious cycle of debt and underdevelopment had become further entrenched, that debt service had grown at a much greater rate than the debt itself and the burden of payments had become heavier in many developing countries; reiterated that the permanent solution to the foreign debt problem lay in the establishment of a just and equitable international economic order; stressed the need for the economic programmes arising from foreign debt to be country-driven and for their macroeconomic and financial policy issues to be integrated with the realization of broader social development goals; emphasized the need for initiatives on foreign debt to go beyond the Naples terms, to be extended, expedited, implemented completely and made more flexible; and emphasized the need for new financial flows to debtor developing countries.

The Commission requested the Independent Expert on the topic to present an analytical report to the Commission on an annual basis on the implementation of the present resolution; called upon Governments, international organizations and international financial institutions, as well as other organizations and the private sector, to take appropriate action for the implementation of commitments and decisions made at major UN conferences and summits organized since the 1990s on developments related to external debt; called upon them to consider the possibility of cancelling or reducing significantly the debt of the heavily indebted poor countries; urged them to take urgent measures to alleviate the debt problem of those developing countries particularly affected by HIV/AIDS; recognized that there was a need for more transparency, participation by States, and consideration of relevant resolutions by the Commission in the deliberations and activities of international and regional financial institutions; and requested the Economic and Social Council to authorize the open-ended Working Group on structural adjustment programmes to meet for two weeks to continue working on basic policy guidelines on structural adjustment programmes.


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

In favour (31): Algeria, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Against (15): Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (7): Argentina, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Qatar, Republic of Korea and Saudi Arabia.

A Representative of Belgium, on behalf of the European Union, said the EU was not neglecting discussions on foreign debt, although it believed that these issues went beyond the competence of this Commission and were better served in other fora. It also believed the draft resolution dealt with the relationship between States, and not the relationship between States and individuals, which should be the first consideration at the Commission of Human Rights. The EU was opposed to the mandate of the Working Group on structural adjustment. The EU felt there were many phenomena that could affect human rights, but this Commission was not always the proper fora to address all these issues. For these reasons, the EU did not support the draft resolution.

A Representative of Japan said that his delegation was well aware that foreign debt repayment obligations had imposed a heavy burden on the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries. It was because of this recognition that the G7 countries, including Japan, had agreed last year to strengthen their efforts for expeditious and effective implementation of the enhance HIPC initiative. However, debt relief was not a panacea to reduce poverty and to achieve development. Further, Japan did not believe that the Independent Expert and the Working Group were appropriate means or mechanisms to address these issues in light of the limited expertise and resources available in the mechanisms of human rights. Japan was of the view that these issues should be dealt with in other relevant fora, such as the World Bank and the IMF, which had both the expertise and the mandate. For these reasons, Japan would vote against the draft resolution.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.39) on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, adopted by consensus, the Commission encouraged the Special Rapporteur to strengthen the integration of the rights relevant to his mandate into the Global Campaign for Secure Tenure launched by the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) and into other activities of the UN system; encouraged him to cooperate with other mechanisms of the system, notably the Independent Expert on extreme poverty; requested him to give particular emphasis to practical solutions; to facilitate the provision of technical assistance; to review the interrelatedness of adequate housing with other human rights; called upon States to give full effect to housing rights; to ensure the observance of all legally binding national standards in the area of housing; to counter social exclusion and marginalization in such matters as housing; and to promote participation in decision-making processes aimed at developing an adequate standard of living and housing.

A Representative of the United States said the delegation was pleased to support the resolution on adequate housing. While supporting it, there was also concern about the initial work of the Special Rapporteur. His comments went far beyond his mandate, and interfered with the mandate of other Special Rapporteurs.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.41) on the right to education, adopted by consensus, the Commission called upon States to give full effect to the right to education without discrimination of any kind; to eliminate obstacles limiting access to education, notably by girls, including pregnant girls, children living in rural areas, children belonging to minority groups, indigenous children, migrant children, refugee children, internally displaced children, children affected by armed conflicts, children with disabilities, children with HIV/AIDS, and children deprived of their liberty; to ensure that primary education was compulsory, accessible and available free to all; to close the gap between school-leaving age and the minimum age for employment; to encourage regular attendance at school and reduce drop-out rates; to eliminate gender discrimination in education; to submit information on best practices to the Special Rapporteur; and decided to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further three years.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.42) on the realization of economic, social and cultural rights and study of special problems which the developing countries face in their efforts to achieve those rights, adopted by consensus, the Commission called upon States to give full effect to economic, social and cultural rights; to consider signing and ratifying, and States parties to implementing, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; to consider signing and ratifying the Convention No. 182 of the International Labour Office concerning the prohibition of the worst forms of child labour, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child; to guarantee that economic, social and cultural rights would be exercised without discrimination; to give particular attention to vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals, such as women and girls and communities living in extreme poverty; to help alleviate unsustainable debt burdens of Heavily Indebted Poor Countries; to promote effective and wide participation by civil society in decision-making related to such rights; to provide education and access to health information to all communities; called upon States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to withdraw incompatible reservations to the Covenant; and decided to appoint an Independent Expert to examine the question of a draft optional protocol to the Covenant; and to encourage the High Commissioner for Human Rights to strengthen the research and analytical capacities of her Office on the subject of economic, social and cultural rights.

Prior to adopting the resolution by consensus, the Commission had a roll-call vote on paragraph 8 c of the draft resolution concerning the appointment of an Independent Expert to examine the draft optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.


The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (44): Algeria, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Against (2): Saudi Arabia and United States.

Abstentions (7): China, India, Indonesia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Qatar.

A Representative of Cuba said that his delegation had witnessed the excellent work carried out by Portugal and the text before the Commission was the outcome of a delicate balance. Cuba called upon all delegates to adopt the draft resolution by consensus.

A Representative of the United States thanked the delegation of Portugal and was pleased to join consensus on resolution L.42. The United States had to oppose, however, the proposal to appoint an Independent Expert to look into an optional protocol on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that would allow an individual complaints mechanism. The United States held the view that such rights were meant to be progressively realized, rather than rights that could be actionable immediately on the part of citizens against their Governments. Following the vote on the paragraph, the United States would be pleased to join consensus on the entire resolution.

A Representative of India said Portugal should be thanked for coming up with such an important draft resolution. The understanding was that the implementation of this resolution would ensure the availability of resources to further realize economic, social and culture rights. India expressed doubts that there would be a Working Group on an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

A Representative of Japan said that his country would continue to support international efforts to ensure the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. For this reason, Japan had voted in favour of the draft resolution.



* *** *