COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN NIGERIA, LEBANON, IRAN, IRAQ AND SUDAN

AFTERNOON
HR/CN/99/55
23 April 1999



Commission Approves No-Action Motion Not to Consider Situation in China


The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon adopted resolutions on the situation of human rights in Nigeria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Sudan. The Commission also approved a no-action motion not to consider the situation of human rights in China.

Concerning the situation in Nigeria, the Commission welcomed the profound changes that had taken place in the country and commended the Government actions already taken to promote human rights, including the release of all political prisoners. The Commission, in a resolution which was adopted by consensus, decided to conclude its consideration of the situation of human rights in Nigeria.

In a resolution adopted by roll-call vote of 49 in favour to 1 against and three abstentions, the Commission deplored continued Israeli violations of human rights in southern Lebanon and west Bekaa, including abduction and arbitrary detention of civilians. It called on Israel to withdraw immediately, totally and unconditionally from all Lebanese territories.

With regards to the situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Commission adopted a resolution by roll-call vote of 23 in favour to 16 against and 14 abstentions which noted that the Government's plans for a tolerant, diverse and law-abiding society continued to unfold. The Commission expressed concern at continuing violations of human rights, in particular the high number of executions, cases of torture, and sentences to stoning and public execution. It decided to extend the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Iran for a further year.

As for the situation in Iraq, the Commission adopted by roll-call vote of 31 in favour to none against and 18 abstentions, a resolution which strongly condemned systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq. This resulted in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror. The Commission decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further year.

Concerning the situation in Sudan, the Commission welcomed the expressed commitment of the Government to respect and promote human rights and the rule of law. The resolution, which was adopted by consensus, urged all parties to the continuing conflict to respect human rights. It also decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Sudan for a further year.

During the discussion, many delegates stressed the importance of an open and constructive dialogue on human rights issues, rather than confrontation expressed through draft resolutions condemning countries. They noted that the latter could have a negative impact on those countries which had recently improved the status of human rights.

A draft resolution on human rights in China was not considered following a no-action motion tabled by China. The roll-call vote on the no-action motion was 22 votes in favour to 17 against and 14 abstentions.

Representatives of the following countries took the floor to comment on the draft resolutions: China, the United States of America, Cuba, Japan, Germany (on behalf of the European Union), Canada, Sudan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, El Salvador, Nigeria, Israel, Ecuador, Philippines, Guatemala, the Russian Federation, Qatar, Argentina, Iraq, Kuwait, Norway.

The Commission resumed taking action on draft resolutions in an extended evening meeting from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Action on draft resolutions

A roll-call vote on a no-action motion requested by China was approved by 22 votes in favour, 17 against and 14 abstentions. Thus no action was taken on draft resolution (E/.CN.4/1999/L.22) on the situation of human rights in China, in which the Commission would have expressed concern at continuing reports of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and severe restrictions on the rights of citizens to freedom of non-violent assembly, association, expression and religion, as well as to due legal process and to a fair trial, and would have expressed concern over harsh sentences for some seeking to exercise their rights; would have expressed concern at increased restrictions on the exercise of cultural, religious and other freedoms of Tibetans; and would have called on the Government of China to release political prisoners; to preserve and protect the distinct cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious identity of Tibetans and others; to continue to strengthen its bilateral dialogues and its cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights; and to cooperate fully with all thematic Special Rapporteurs and working groups of the Commission.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Cape Verde, China, Columbia, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Venezuela.

Against: Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, El Salvador, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Rwanda, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Abstentions: Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, Liberia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Romania, Senegal, Tunisia and Uruguay.

QIAO ZONGHUAI (China) said that it was firmly opposed to the draft resolution L.22, since, in opposition to the claims made by the United States, the human rights situation in China had improved in 1998. This was reflected not only in the remarkable accomplishments on economic, social and cultural rights, but also in the significant progress on civil and political rights. The human rights situation, for all ethnic groups including the Tibetan people, had improved rapidly. The draft resolution was also the outcome of double standards and the politicisation of human rights which went against the Commission's purpose of promoting and protecting human rights.

Mr. Qiao said gross violations of human rights in the United States were well recorded. The United States had sponsored this draft resolution purely for its domestic consumption which had nothing to do with human rights. The draft resolution ran counter to the current trend of dialogue and cooperation and had provoked political confrontation. China had always maintained that differences should be properly tackled through dialogue based on equality and mutual respect. The United States alleged that China's no-action motion was intended to block the discussion of the human rights situation in China by the Commission. This was untrue. All justice-upholding State Members of the Commission should join in voting in favour of the no-action motion on the draft resolution L.22.

HAROLD KOH (the United States) said it was committed to dialogue on human rights. That should happen here, before the Commission. To support no- action motions was to undermine the Commission's mission. Every country’s record on human rights was subject to scrutiny. It was not


interference with affairs to ask China to obey the same principles as the rest of the world. Members should vote no on China's motion, and yes on the draft resolution.

CARLOS AMAT FLORES (Cuba) said that it would vote in favour of the no-action motion on draft resolution L.22 because it was once again the intention of the United States to use the Commission as a tool of its foreign policy. It also wanted to satisfy its domestic policy. It was regrettable that the United States was unable to learn from past failures on this subject. The Commission had the right to continue its work without the introduction of unacceptable manipulation by some. State Members had the right to resist action. That the resolution concerned internal matters in China rendered that unacceptable. China had basic fundamental freedoms and human rights. The United States considered that the more time spent examining the state of human rights outside its borders, the less time would be spent examining the gross violations of human rights occurring within its borders. Cuba would support the no-action motion so that work could continue normally.

RYUICHIRO YAMAZAKI (Japan) said his country was of the view that dialogue and exchange of views were crucial when talking about human rights issues. The protection of human rights was a vital concern in the international community. A no-action motion would only impede the dialogue itself. Japan would not support the motion.

WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union and central and eastern European countries associated with it, expressed his country’s regret at the introduction of the no-action motion since such motions were aimed at preventing the Commission from dealing with particular country situations. Human rights were interdependent, therefore if the Commission decided to act upon a situation in any country, this was admissible and legal. There was dismay at the crackdown on democratic and civil rights in China and concern over the excessive use of the death penalty and the situation in Tibet. Progress on the ground was minimal. It was of critical importance to see tangible progress on the situation of human rights in China.

ROSS HYNES (Canada), talking about the general procedural issue, said his country generally opposed these kinds of motions. Canada subscribed to the views expressed by Japan. Canada recognized several progressive steps taken by China. At the same time, there was much that Canada opposed.

GASAM IDRIS (Sudan) said his country strongly believed that the promotion and protection of human rights was a vital issue. China had demonstrated its sincerity and cooperation on this issue. The no-action motion was supported.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said the Commission had been afflicted for several years with a disease that constrained its work on many of the issues on the agenda - the disease was the anti-China resolution. Last year, it was


thought that the disease had been cured, but like a bad fever, it had come back once again. Pakistan questioned the purpose of the draft resolution and its motivation, and it was extremely concerned about its effects.

Mr. Akram said the human rights of the Chinese people had obviously improved in recent years. In 1968, there were 250 million people in China living in total poverty, today that number was less than 40 million. That was progress. China's history spanned three millennia, and perhaps human rights there had never been better. It had been said that no one was above the Commission's scrutiny, but those who had sponsored this draft had advised others not to submit other resolutions about several other countries. A different standard was applied against China. Such double standards should be questioned because they were designed to exact pressure on China, perhaps to open its markets, perhaps for political purposes. The internationalization of domestic politics in this way should be rejected. This would end China's cooperation with the human rights machinery within the United Nations. Was this the purpose? There was a rule that provided for no-action motions. That was why they were put in. Canada had moved many no-action motions. The United States and members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization had also supported many of these. These double standards had to be rejected by the Commission.

IFTEKHAR CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) said that the rules of procedure did allow for a no-action motion. China brought to the global scene a model that was distinct in many ways. It had contributed much to global culture and civilisation; there was therefore great merit in encouraging China to join in the international community. China would feel discouraged by such a resolution as this one. Bangladesh supported the no-action motion.

G. S. PALIHAKKARA (Sri Lanka) said it had listened to the reasons stated on the no-action motion of China. It was a fact that no-action motions were not unique to this Commission alone. The General Assembly and other bodies used such motions frequently. It was an acknowledged fact that China had taken several positive steps in the field of human rights. The Commission needed to build on this success. For this reason, Sri Lanka supported the motion by China.

SHAMBHU RAM SIMKHADA (Nepal) said that it participated in the debate with a heavy heart. Its approach on any issue was guided by the principles of non-selectivity and universality of human rights. Any debate should occur on the principles of cooperation and discussion. Nepal maintained a clear position that singling out any particular country, unless it had consistently denied the rule of law, was not particularly conducive to good relations. Great developments of a positive nature on all aspects of society had taken place in China since the introduction of the reform policies. The resolution noted these developments, as well as the signature and ratification by China of various international instruments. The resolution against China was unjustified, and Nepal would support the Chinese no-action motion.



VICTOR LAGOS PIZZATI (El Salvador) said it considered that all Member States of the Commission had the right to express themselves on any resolution. Hiding the substance through procedural manoeuvres was not effective, and El Salvador did not support this no-action motion.



In a resolution adopted by consensus, (E/.CN.4/1999/L.24) on the situation of human rights in Nigeria, the Commission welcomed the profound changes that had taken place since the inception of the administration of General Abdulsalami A. Abubakar as described in the report and presentation by the Special Rapporteur; commended the Government for measures already taken to promote human rights, including the release of all political prisoners and detainees; measures to strengthen the judiciary; prison reform; repeal or amendment of decrees that had infringed on various basic human rights; and the recent establishment of a presidential committee on development options in the Niger delta; encouraged the Government to make further progress in these areas; commended the successful holding of free and fair elections; expressed its full support and cooperation with the Government in its efforts to improve national cohesion, develop the country's economy, and build a peaceful and stable Nigeria; called upon the Government to enhance the independence and effectiveness of the National Human Rights Commission; and decided to conclude its consideration of the situation of human rights in Nigeria.

AUWALU YADUDU (Nigeria) said that the current session was most important due to the draft resolution of the Commission on the issue of human rights in Nigeria. In the last four years, Nigeria had been undeservedly censored on the floor of the Commission. Profound changes had taken place in Nigeria since 1998, and great progress had been made and had been recognised by many, including for example the Special Rapporteur on Nigeria. The Commission should reverse its stance on Nigeria and rise above mere sentiments and partisanship. The proposed draft resolution was fair and balanced, and had forecast measures that would be most helpful to Nigeria. It was born out of the reality of the situation on the ground. The Commission should act appropriately by adopting the draft resolution without a vote. Nigeria was most grateful to all for the support and acknowledgement received at the session.

WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany), on behalf of the European Union and central and eastern European countries associated with it, said in past years, the European Union had shown its solidarity with Nigeria. Now Nigeria was offering its own resolution. Together with the whole international community, the European Union looked forward to the new situation in Nigeria. The Nigerian people had let it be known that recent free and fair elections reflected their wishes.

ROSS HYNES (Canada) said his country would join in the adoption of the draft resolution, and was happy to note the development of the situation of human rights in Nigeria. The Nigerian Government’s efforts remained a work

in progress, and this should be encouraged by all means possible by the United Nations and by the international community.



In a resolution adopted by roll-call vote of 49 in favour to 1 against and 3 abstentions, (E/.CN.4/1999/L.25/Rev.1) on the situation of human rights in southern Lebanon and west Bekaa, the Commission deplored continued Israeli violations of human rights in the regions it had occupied, including abduction and arbitrary detention of civilians, destruction of their dwellings, confiscation of their property, their expulsion from their lands, and the bombardment of villages and civilian areas; called upon Israel to withdraw immediately, totally, and unconditionally from all Lebanese territories and to respect the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Lebanon; called upon the Israeli Government to comply with the relevant Geneva Conventions; and called upon it to refrain from holding the abducted Lebanese citizens incarcerated in its prisons as hostages for bargaining purposes, and to release them immediately along with all other persons arbitrarily detained in the occupied Lebanese territories; affirmed the obligation for Israel to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross, the families of the detainees, and other international humanitarian organizations to resume visits to places of detention in order to verify conditions of detention and the circumstances of the decease of some detainees from the after-effects of ill-treatment or torture; and requested the Secretary-General to bring the present resolution to the attention of the Government of Israel and to invite it to provide information regarding its implementation.

The result of the vote was as follows:

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

Against: the United States.

Abstentions: Argentina, Liberia and Romania.

DAVID PELEG (Israel) said the draft resolution was completely wrong from a factual point of view. Israel accepted Security Council resolution 425. However, Israel would not withdraw from the territory without knowing that Israeli citizens in the area would not be harmed.




In a resolution adopted by roll-call vote of 23 in favour to 16 against and 14 abstentions, (E/.CN.4/1999/L.27) on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Commission welcomed the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General which noted that the Government's plans for a tolerant, diverse and law-abiding society continued to unfold and that their full implementation could have a major impact on human rights in Iran; the stated commitment by the Government to promote respect for the rule of law, including the elimination of arbitrary arrest and detention; the more open debate taking place on issues of governance and human rights, although the Commission remained concerned at instances of arbitrary closure of publications and cases of harassment and intimidation of journalists; the efforts undertaken by the Government to investigate the recent wave of disappearances, suspicious deaths and killings of intellectuals and political activists, and urged the Government to bring the alleged perpetrators to justice; the holding of the local elections; the assurances given by the Government that it had no intention of taking any action to threaten the life of Salman Rushdie or those associated with his work; and the invitation extended by the Government to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to visit Iran which would hopefully would take place in the near future.

The resolution also noted with interest positive statements by the Government about the need to review laws and attitudes which discriminated against women; the reported elimination of discrimination against Baha'i youth in enrollment in the pre-university year at the high school level, while remaining concerned that their entry to universities continued to be refused; and at the beginnings of a public discussion in Iran on the appropriateness of the death penalty for drug-related offenses; expressed its concern that no invitation had been extended to the Special Representative to visit the country; at continuing violations of human rights, in particular the high number of executions, cases of torture, and sentences to stoning and public execution; continued discrimination against religious minorities, in particular the unabated and, in some cases, worsened pattern of persecution against the Baha'is; continued lack of full and equal enjoyment by women of human rights; continued threats by the Khordad Founda tion on the life of Salman Rushdie; and called upon the Government to continue efforts to consolidate respect for the rule of law; to ensure that capital punishment was not imposed for other than the most serious crimes; to implement fully the conclusions and recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance relating to the Baha'is and other minority religious groups; to take all necessary steps to end the use of torture and the practice of amputation, stoning, and other forms of cruel punishment; to take further measures to end continued discrimination against women; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Representative for a further year.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour: Austria, Canada, Chile, Congo, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Gautemala, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Norway, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Against: Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Colombia, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia and Venezuela.

Abstentions: Argentina, Bostwana, Cape Verde, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Peru, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, South Africa and Uruguay.

ALI KHORRAM (Iran) said that overthrowing a despotic monarchy and installing a democratic system was a major step towards the promotion of human rights in Iran. Iran had always given human rights importance, and its current Government had committed itself to further promotion of fundamental freedoms and rights. Elections had been held which would lead to further enhancement of popular participation in all fields. There was no justification or excuse for the unwarranted and unproductive exercise as proposed by the European Union. There were other alternatives of a cooperative and innovative nature. There was hope for a consensus based on a realistic evaluation of the positive developments occurring in Iran. This draft resolution served no reasonable or objective purpose other than that of short-term political benefit. There was no need for the present draft resolution. The draft resolution fell short of any reflection of the situation of human rights in Iran. Iran remained committed to the promotion and protection of human rights, despite the untenable position of the sponsors of the draft, and the Commission should vote against the draft.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that on various occasions, there had been objections to the politicization of human rights. This draft resolution was one such case in point. Pakistan opposed the draft resolution. It was obviously designed to serve the objective of a few countries. It was not designed to help human rights. Targeted resolutions must end. Iran had made significant strides in the field of human rights. These needed to be supported. The draft resolution was biased and would not help human rights in Iran. It was another example of targeting several Islamic countries in the Commission. These were the reasons why the draft resolution should be defeated.

IBRAHIM IBRAHIM (Sudan) said that genuine concern for human rights should reflect the situation in a balanced manner. The Islamic Republic of Iran had achieved considerable progress in the field of human rights, and the draft resolution did not reflect this. Therefore, Sudan would vote against the draft.

IFTEKHAR CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) said there was only one way to vote rationally on this draft resolution. Iran was in the throes of change. The opportunity of weaving Iran into the global system would be a plus. Iran had given the world so much in the past, and there was more for country to give to the world in the future. Iran deserved encouragement, not the condemnation included in the draft. Bangladesh would vote against the resolution.


JAVIER SALINAS (Chile) said his country would vote in favour of the draft resolution L.27. However, Chile stressed that there had been various positive developments in Iran due to the consistent policy of the Government of that country. These positive developments should not only be recognised but should also encouraged. Certain situations remained to be remedied, such as the situation of women and the Bahai minority. It was hoped that next year, it would not be necessary to have such a resolution. Iran should continue its work.

LUIS GALLEGOS CHIRIBOGA (Ecuador) said the steps taken in Iran were positive and deserved recognition. The delegation would not support the draft resolution if it did not refer to these steps. The draft resolution talked about solutions there. This was not a political criticism of the country and its government. Ecuador had based its decision on the merit of information it had received from a number of sources.

DENIS LAPATAN (the Philippines) said that his country welcomed the recent positive developments achieved in Iran over the past year. A resolution would not send a message of encouragement, so the Philippines would therefore vote against the draft resolution.

DENIS LAPATAN (the Philippines) said that it welcomed the recent positive developments achieved in Iran over the past year. A resolution would not send a message of encouragement, so the Philippines would therefore vote against the draft resolution.

LUIS PADILLA MENENDEZ (Guatemala) said that it had also been the subject of a similar resolution. It had always worked with the special mechanisms of the United Nations, so it had sufficient knowledge of the subject. It was beneficial to Guatemala to have such scrutiny, both for the negotiation and building of peace and the improvement of human rights. In certain circumstances, this international monitoring could be useful, therefore Guatemala would vote in favour of the draft resolution.

WERNER CORRALES LEAL (Venezuela) said although it was important to have scrutiny of human rights in all parts of the world, it was also important to take into account the efforts that Governments had made. In Iran, it was understood that the President had taken efforts to make positive developments. The draft resolution would not contribute to the improvement of human rights in Iran. Venezuela would vote against the draft.

VLADIMIR PARSHIKOV (the Russian Federation) thought that the text was more balanced than that of the previous year. This was due to the Iranian Government’s consistent efforts towards improving the situation of human rights. There was need to send an encouraging signal to Tehran such as the removal of this issue from the agenda. The Russian Federation would signal Tehran by abstaining from the vote.

ABDULLA ALMANA (Qatar) said his country thought positive steps had been taken in Iran, particularly concerning freedom of expression and strengthened institutions for women. It was necessary to encourage Iran and to partake in objectivity and non-selectivity. Qatar would not support the draft resolution.

LI BAODONG (China) said his country had noted that the draft resolution had been under discussion for many years. To promote and protect human rights, all governments should adopt the appropriate legislature of their own accord. Draft resolutions could have an opposite effect. The Commission should encourage the efforts of Iran to improve the situation. China would vote against the draft.

MAY LORENZO ALCALA (Argentina) said his country would abstain. This decision could contribute to the making of a more tolerant society in Iran. It was recognized that there were several human rights problems that had not been resolved, and several that had moved backwards. At the same time, it was encouraging to see that the Government of Iran was going to punish those who were responsible for violations. It was regretted that the press there was controlled, but it was encouraging that the recent municipal elections would ensure greater freedom. The Government was urged to maintain its policy of openness.



In a resolution adopted by roll-call vote of 31 in favour to none against and 22 abstentions, (E/.CN.4/1999/L.28) on the situation of human rights in Iraq, the Commission strongly condemned systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror; suppression of freedom of thought, expression, information, association, assembly and movement; summary and arbitrary executions, including political killings and the continued so-called clean-out of prisons, as well as enforced or arbitrary disappearances; widespread, systematic torture and the use of cruel and inhuman punishment as a penalty for offences; called upon the Government of Iraq to abide by its freely undertaken obligations under international human-rights treaties; to bring the actions of its military and security forces into conformity with international law; to cooperate with United Nations mechanisms, in particular by receiving a return visit by the Special Rapporteur on Iraq and allowing the stationing of human-rights monitors throughout Iraq; to establish independence of the judiciary; to abrogate all decrees prescribing cruel and inhuman punishment, and to end all instances of torture; and to cease immediately its continued repressive practices, including forced deportation and relocation, against the Iraqi Kurds, Assyrians, and Turkmen, and against the population of the southern marsh areas.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Austria, Bhutan, Botswana, Canada, Chile, Czech
Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Norway, Peru, Philippines,

Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Senegal, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Against: None.

Abstentions: Bangladesh, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Tunisia.

The resolution urged Iraq to cooperate with the Tripartite Commission to establish the whereabouts and resolve the fate of missing persons, including prisoners of war, Kuwaiti nationals, and third-country nationals, victims of the illegal Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, and to pay compensation to the families of those who died or disappeared in the custody of Iraqi authorities; to release immediately all Kuwaitis and nationals of other States who might still be held in detention; to cooperate fully with international aid agencies; to continue to cooperate in the implementation of Security Council resolutions to ensure fully the equitable distribution, without discrimination, to the Iraqi population, including in remote areas, of the humanitarian supplies purchased with the proceeds of Iraqi oil; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further year. The Commission also voted to retain 5 paragraphs 2a, 3g, 3i, 3j, and 3k in the resolution by a roll-call vote of 35 in favour to none against and 18 abstentions.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Austria, Bhutan, Botswana, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Against: None.

Abstentions: Bangladesh, Cape Verde, China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Qatar, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Tunisia.

MOHAMMED AL-DORY (Iraq) said it was regrettable that once again, the European Union had presented an aggressive and hostile draft resolution against Iraq. It was entirely in line with the efforts of the United States against Iraq. If there was concern about human rights in Iraq, there should be a reminder of the consequences of the embargo. The authors of this draft were not interested in the humanitarian catastrophe the embargo had caused. This was genocide. The embargo had killed 1.5 million persons.

Mr. Al-Dory said what the United States and the United Kingdom had done violated the United Nations Charter. The basic need for food and drugs were not being met for the Iraqi people. Was that not a concern for the countries of the European Union? The first paragraphs of the draft resolution were based on a report that was exaggerated and was basically propaganda. The aim was to mobilize public opinion and turn groups against the Government of Iraq. The determination of the Iraqi people had made these efforts fail. The protection of human rights needed a certain peaceful environment. People in Iraq could not live in a normal way because of the embargo. Instead of mentioning positive actions, the draft resolution only prejudiced the country. Lies were utilized by the Special Rapporteur, and his term was going to be extended indefinitely.

DHARAR RAZZOOQI (Kuwait) said that the human rights situation in Iraq was clearly detailed in the draft resolution. The cooperation of Iraq was vital for the release of the prisoners held by that country. There was a legal framework and a humanitarian framework for this. The mechanisms were clear for Iraq's compliance with Security Council resolutions. Iraq was a party to the Geneva Conventions and should implement them since they stipulated the return of all prisoners at the end of a conflict. The international community was responsible to ensure this, and Iraq had to abide by the recommendations of the Commission. The Commission should stand firm in the cause of justice and peace.

OLEG MALGUINOV (the Russian Federation) said his country favoured bringing to an end all of the violations carried out in Iraq. It also favoured ensuring all economic, social, and cultural rights. The situation should be normalized. But the draft resolution did not take into account fully the multi-faceted activities that had gone on in the country. The draft was not balanced. There had also been a one-sided argument about national and religious minorities. The Russian Federation felt that the Government of Iraq must do a great deal more so there was a guarantee of internationally recognized standards. The delegation wanted to have a separate roll-call vote on certain parts of the draft. The Russian Federation would abstain, at the same time, it would vote for the draft resolution as a whole if the other items are voted upon.

GASAM IDRIS (Sudan) noted that the draft resolution had ignored any reference to the negative impact of the economic embargo on the Iraqi people. It was necessary to find a solution to the missing persons issue, since this was a humanitarian issue. Sudan would abstain from the vote.



In a resolution adopted by consensus, (E/CN.4/1999/L.13) on the situation of human rights in Sudan, the Commission welcomed the recent visit by the relevant Special Rapporteur to Sudan at the invitation of the Government and the full cooperation extended by the Government; the expressed commitment of the Government to respect and promote human rights and the rule of law; the stipulation of basic human rights in the Constitution which entered into force on 1 July 1998; the establishment of a Constitutional Court; improvements regarding freedom of expression and association; efforts to implement the right to education; liberation of political detainees; efforts to address the problem of internally displaced persons; the recent visit by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for children and armed conflict and the cooperation extended to him by the Government; expressed its deep concern at the impact of the current conflict on human rights and its adverse effect on the civilian population; at the occurrence of cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; at the occurrence, within the conflict in southern Sudan, or cases of enforced or involuntary disappearance, the use of children as soldiers and combatants, forced conscription, forced displacement, torture and ill-treatment of civilians; at the abduction of women and children to be subjected to forced labour; at the use of weapons, including landmines, against the civilian population; and expressed concern at violations of human rights in areas under control of the Government of Sudan and at the widespread occurrence of torture, arbitrary arrest and detention without trial, particularly of political opponents and at cases of severe restrictions on the freedom of religion and peaceful assembly.

The resolution urged all parties to the continuing conflict to respect human rights; to stop immediately the use of weapons, including landmines, against civilians; urged the Sudanese People's Liberation Army to abstain from using civilian premises for military purposes; to stop attacks on relief and humanitarian workers and to permit a thorough investigation into the deaths of four Sudanese relief workers and to return the bodies to their families; urged it not to divert relief supplies, including food, from their civilian recipients; called upon the Government of Sudan to comply fully with its international human-rights obligations; to ensure the rule of law; to end all acts of torture; to investigate reports of abduction of women and children and bring to trial any persons suspected of supporting or participating in such activities; to stop immediately the indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilian and humanitarian targets, including hospitals; to implement fully its commitment to the democratization process; to continue to pursue its dialogue with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights with a view to establishing a permanent representative of the High Commissioner in Khartoum; called upon the international community to expand its support for human-rights improvements in the Sudan; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further year.

IBRAHIM IBRAHIM (Sudan) said it noted with great appreciation that the draft resolution was the product of work between Germany on behalf of the European Union and Sudan. It had helped with the promotion and protection of human rights in Sudan. Having said that, the following needed to be clarified. Sudan had reservations about certain parts. The commitment to human rights had been affirmed by the Government. The Government was fully committed to have a constructive dialogue with the Commission. Sudan expressed its appreciation to Member States that had supported it in the past, and looked forward to their support in the future.

BJORN SKOGMO (Norway) said his country joined in the consensus, although it would have wished for a more balanced text. The desire of the Sudanese Government to gain the support of the international community was commended, and this was another reason for the Norwegian acceptance of the draft resolution.