COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON SITUATIONS IN FORMER YUGOSLAVIA, MYANMAR, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, AND RWANDA

EVENING
HR/CN/99/56
23 April 1999


Also Approves Chairman’s Statements on East Timor and Cyprus; Resolutions
on Debt Relief, “Unilateral Coercive Measures”, Human Rights Cooperation

The Commission on Human Rights wrapped up a daylong session of debate on resolutions the way it started -- with a lengthy deliberation about the situation in Kosovo.

The evening session featured a sizable debate on a comprehensive resolution condemning the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) for numerous human-rights violations; the omnibus measure also reviewed human-rights matters in Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina. One section of the resolution focussed on the situation in Kosovo, calling for an end to Serbian policies of ethnic cleansing, forced expulsions, and violent actions there, and also called for the Kosovo Liberation Army to end serious abuses committed there. The resolution was adopted by the Commission by a roll-call vote of 46 in favour and 1 opposed, with 6 abstentions.

In addition, the Commission passed by consensus resolutions on human-rights situations in Myanmar, Equatorial Guinea, and Rwanda, and adopted Chairman’s statements on matters in East Timor and Cyprus.

It approved by roll-call votes resolutions concerning human rights and unilateral coercive measures; and concerning the effects on the full enjoyment of human rights of economic-adjustment policies arising from foreign debt. And it passed by consensus a resolution on cooperation with representatives of United Nations human-rights bodies.

There was a long discussion about striking from the resolution on the former Yugoslavia the entire section specifically dedicated to Kosovo. The Russian Federation said it would have supported the resolution without the Kosovo chapter, but other countries maintained that elimination of the provision would make the entire measure meaningless and would trim the powers of the Special Rapporteur for the region.

A motion to delete section 3 of the resolution failed on a roll-call vote, with 33 in favour of retaining the section and 4 opposed, with 16 abstentions.

A representative of Croatia objected to the resolution’s summation of that country’s human-rights performance, saying the Croatian Government had made great progress and had cooperated fully with United Nations human-rights mechanisms and did not deserve to be included in a resolution dealing with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).

In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, the Commission welcomed progress in some areas, but expressed grave concern over what it said were continuing serious violations, including political repression and such offences as widespread and systematic use of forced labour, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, enforced disappearances, torture, abuse of women and children, arbitrary seizures of land and property, and oppressive measures directed at ethnic and religious minorities, including forced relocation.

A representative of Myanmar charged that the resolution was full of glaring lies, was politicized, was factually incorrect, and was insulting.

The resolution on Equatorial Guinea, among other things, encouraged the Government to improve the conditions of prisoners and detainees and to avoid torture; to investigate and impose penalties on those responsible for human-rights violations; and to limit military courts strictly to trying military offences committed by military personnel. As part of the resolution, the Commission decided to appoint a Special Representative for one year to monitor the situation of human rights in Equatorial Guinea

A representative of Equatorial Guinea said the country had cooperated with the Commission on numerous occasions but rejected those policies that did not respect self-determination and the rule of law, and said foreign intervention in its affairs should only be on the advisory level.

In its resolution on Rwanda, the Commission welcomed the continuing efforts of the Government to build a State based on the rule of law and respect for human rights; condemned the illegal sale and distribution of arms and all other forms of assistance to former members of the Rwandan armed forces, Interahamwe and other insurgent groups; reiterated its concern at conditions of detention; urged the Government of Rwanda and invited the International Tribunal for Rwanda to give utmost priority to the prosecution and punishment of crimes of sexual violence against women; and reiterated its appeal to the international community to provide financial and technical assistance to help strengthen protection of genocide survivors and witnesses and the administration of justice in Rwanda.

The following countries addressed the meeting: Rwanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mexico, Germany, China, Cuba, Hungary, Myanmar, Croatia, Pakistan, India, Russian Federation, Peru, United States, Argentina, Canada, France, Chili, Venezuela, Uruguay, Colombia, Mauritius, Equatorial Guinea, Japan, Tunisia, Nepal.

The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. Monday 26 April, to continue action on draft resolutions.

Action on resolutions

In a resolution (E/.CN.4/1999/L.31) on cooperation with representatives of United Nations human-rights bodies, adopted without a vote, the Commission urged Governments to refrain from all acts of intimidation and reprisal against those who sought to cooperate or had cooperated with representatives of United Nations human-rights bodies, or who had provided testimony or information to them; those who availed or had availed themselves of procedures established under United Nations auspices for the protection of human rights and all those who had provided legal assistance to them; those who submitted communications under procedures established by human-rights instruments; and those who were relatives of victims of violations; requested all representatives of United Nations human-rights bodies, as well as treaty bodies monitoring the observance of human rights, to continue urgent steps to help prevent the hampering of access to United Nations human-rights procedures in any way; requested them to help prevent the
occurrence of intimidation or reprisals; and requested them to include in their reports references to allegations of intimidation or reprisals or of hampering of access to human-rights procedures, as well as accounts of action taken by them in response.

LIU XINSHENG (China) said the delegation wanted to make some comments. Agenda Item 9 dealt with the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms everywhere in the world. There were still five resolutions remaining. But the delegation noticed that L.31 was the only non-country draft resolution. This was the first year since the agenda-reorganization effort. In view of the fact that this resolution was not compatible with this item, the delegation tried to make contact with the sponsors and explain this concern. L.31 should be under Item 18. This suggestion was rejected, however. It was very regrettable. The Chinese delegation did not oppose the text, and would not oppose it. But the resolution should have been changed to a more appropriate agenda item.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said Cuba endorsed the statement of China, since it had noted that the restructuring of the agenda had not been properly followed. Postponement was warranted. The issue should be postponed until the next session of the Commission.

ANDRAS DEKANY (Hungary) said the delegation was disappointed. This had always been a consensus resolution. Members were urged to adopt the resolution without a vote.

REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that in order to cooperate and help work progress, as long as the Commission's report stated the desires of Cuba upon this issue, Cuba would have no objection to the declaration being adopted by consensus.

In a resolution (E/.CN.4/1999/L.32) on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, adopted without a vote, the Commission welcomed the accession by the Government of Myanmar to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and earlier to the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the pardoning and release on humanitarian grounds of U Ohn Myint and Dr. Thida, but noted at the same time a significant increase in the number of political prisoners during 1998; welcomed the efforts currently being undertaken by the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for a visit in Myanmar; reaffirmed the need to provide adequate protection and assistance for persons fleeing from Myanmar; expressed grave concern at the continued closure of many institutions of higher education for political reason for over two years; that the composition and working procedures of the National Convention did not permit either members of Parliament-elect or representatives of ethnic minorities to express their views freely, and that the National Convention was not working towards national reconciliation; expressed concern at the widespread and systematic use of forced labour and the failure of the Government so far to ensure cessation of such practices, in particular by the military; that the Government refused to cooperate with and had yet to agreed to a visit by the Special Rapporteur; deplored continuing violations of human rights, including extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, enforced disappearances, torture, abuse of women and children, arbitrary seizures of land and property, and oppressive measures directed at ethnic and religious minorities, including forced relocation, destruction of crops and fields, and the widespread use of forced labour; the wide disrespect for the rule of law; violations of the rights of persons belonging to minorities, including systematic programmes of forced relocation directed against ethnic minorities, notably in Karen, Karenni, Rakhine and Shan States and in Tennasserim Division; continuing violations of the rights of women, especially women refugees, internally displaced women and women belonging to ethnic minorities or the political opposition; continuing violations of the rights of children, in particular through conscription of children into forced-labour programmes, through their military and sexual exploitation, and through discrimination against children belonging to minority groups; escalation in persecution of the democratic opposition; severe restrictions on freedoms of opinion, expression, assembly, and association; called upon the Government to establish a constructive dialogue with the United Nations system; to consider becoming a party to additional relevant international human-rights instruments; urged the Government to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur and to allow him, without preconditions, to carry out a field mission; strongly urged the Government to implement the Special Rapporteur's recommendations and to ensure full respect for human rights; to ensure the establishment of democracy in accordance with the will of the people as expressed in the democratic elections of 1990; to allow all citizens to participate freely in the political process; to release immediately and unconditionally those detained for political reasons, including those in Government "guest houses"; to improve conditions of detention and allow competent international humanitarian organizations to communicate freely and confidentially with prisoners; to ensure the safety and well-being of all political leaders, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi; urged all other parties to the hostilities in Myanmar to respect international humanitarian law; urged the Government to fulfil its obligations as a State party to the Forced Labour Convention; to cease the laying of landmines in particular as a means of ensuring forced relocation, and to desist from the forced conscription of civilians to serve as human minesweepers, as indicated in the report of the ILO Commission of Inquiry; to end enforced displacement of persons; and to fulfil its obligations to end impunity for perpetrators of human-rights violations, including among members of the military; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further year.

U AYE (Myanmar) said the delegation commended those Governments which had aided its efforts to inject truth and fair-play into the draft resolution. However, once again, a small handful of delegates harbouring vindictive views had caused the draft to be full of glaring lies that essentially politicized a humanitarian issue. Myanmar could not treat the draft, in consequence, with any seriousness, since the spirit of the draft had been contaminated. The draft was a patchwork of irrelevancies, untruths and inconsistencies. The Commission should note that the draft attempted to sabotage and undo the multitude of improvements to the human rights situation that had taken place in Myanmar, for example by inciting dissidents to destabilize the country, or by denigrating the efforts made by the present Government to improve the lives of the citizens of Myanmar. Some of the allegations were insulting, and Myanmar rejected them. The draft was factually incorrect and highly politicized, with allegations that had been proven to be untrue by independent observers. Myanmar wished to dissociate itself from the draft entirely.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.34/Rev.1) on the situation of human rights in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, approved by a roll-call vote of 46 in favour and 1 opposed, with 6 abstentions, the Commission stressed once again the crucial role that progress in promoting and protecting human rights had to play in the success of the Peace Agreement, and the need to focus international human rights efforts in the countries concerned on the core problems of lack of full respect for the human rights of all individuals; massive forced expulsions and obstructions of return of refugees and displaced persons in safety and dignity, and return to them property and occupancy rights of which they were deprived; the lack of resources for capacity building in the areas of rule of law and administration of justice, and lack of independence of the judiciary; lack of respect for the freedom of expression and association and for the freedom and independence of the media; continuing obstruction of the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; and missing persons; the Commission appealed once more to the international community to support efforts for the promotion and protection of human rights and insisted that the parties act to promote and protect democratic institutions of Government; requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-General to take concerted action with the assistance of the international community to develop early-warning procedures in the field of human rights.

In regard to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the Commission expressed its grave concern at ongoing abuses of human rights and the deteriorating humanitarian and human-rights situation; condemned the continued repression of the independent media, the passage of the Serbian Law on Public Information; regretted that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had not complied with the recommendations of the Personal Representative of the Chairman-in-Office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe; and also regretted the express refusal of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to allow a visit by the Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions; called upon authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to comply with all the previous resolutions of the Commission and with the recommendations contained in the reports of the Special Rapporteur and to cooperate with other relevant mechanisms of the Commission; to comply fully with its obligations to cooperate with the Tribunal; to institutionalize democratic norms; to end torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of persons in detention; to respect the rights of all persons belonging to minority groups, and to support the unconditional return of the long-term missions of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe; welcomed positive developments in Montenegro with regard to the democratization process, in particular freedom of the media and the efforts to give shelter to Kosovars, and called upon the international community to help the countries of the mandate to establish appropriate safeguards to ensure the security and fair treatment upon return of those who sought temporary protection and asylum, and to continue to support existing national democratic forces and non-governmental organizations in their efforts to build a civil society and to achieve multi-party democracy.

With regard to Kosovo, the Commission called upon the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) to ensure a verifiable stop to all military action and an immediate ending to all violence and repression against the civil population of Kosovo; to ensure the withdrawal from Kosovo of all military, police and paramilitary forces; to agree to the stationing of an international military peacekeeping presence; to agree to the unconditional return of all internally displaced persons and refugees; condemned the grave, horrendous and ongoing war crimes and abuses of human rights in Kosovo, especially the violent repression of the non-violent expression of political views, systematic terrorization of ethnic Albanians and others, torture, deaths in detention, summary executions, and illegal detentions and widespread destruction of property; also condemned the escalation of the Serbian military offensive against the civilian population in Kosovo in recent weeks; underscored the grave concern of member States regarding ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity; condemned abuses by elements of the Kosovo Liberation Army, in particular killings in violation of international humanitarian law, enforced disappearances and abduction and detention of Serbian police, as well as of Serb and Albanian civilians; emphasized that those found responsible for serious violations would be held accountable and would not escape justice; insisted that the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the ethnic Albanian leadership in Kosovo condemn acts of terrorism, refrain from all acts of violence, and encourage the pursuit of political ends through peaceful means; insisted that the combatants implement a cease-fire and demilitarize the province of Kosovo; insisted that the Government of Yugoslavia release all political detainees; allow establishment of democratic institutions in Kosovo; and cooperate with international humanitarian organizations in dealing with the issue of missing persons in Kosovo; and work on the basis of the Rambouillet Accords to establish a political framework agreement for Kosovo;; emphasized once again that improvement in the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Kosovo, as well as in the rest of its territory would assist the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in establishing a full range of relations with the international community; and expressed grave concern over the overwhelming humanitarian crisis in Kosovo and the forced expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Kosovar Albanians.

In regard to Croatia, the Commission welcomed the cooperation of the Government of the Republic of Croatia with the Special Rapporteur, and took note of the request of the Government for technical cooperation and assistance programmes; called upon the Government to undertake greater efforts to adhere to democratic principles and to continue its efforts to attain the highest level of compliance with international norms and standards of human rights and fundamental freedoms, by full and fair implementation of its programmes and by full cooperation with and implementation of the recommendations of the international organizations operating in the Republic of Croatia, respecting the freedoms of association and the press, respecting the right of non-governmental organizations to operate without restrictions, undertaking serious judicial reform and guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary, implementing swiftly and completely the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in all Government practices, continuing to fulfill rights and guarantees as pledged; endorsed the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur; called upon the international community to support the involvement of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in human-rights monitoring in the region of Eastern Slavonia, and continue to provide for an international presence.

In reference to Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Commission took note of the progress made in some areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the implementation of the Peace Agreement and improvement in respect for human rights; expressed its serious concern about continuing human-rights violations within Bosnia and Herzegovina and continuing obstruction of the full implementation of the human rights provisions of the Peace Agreement; emphasized that the primary responsibility for ensuring the progressive achievement of democratic goals and building a tolerant, multi-ethnic society lay with the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina; underlined the obligation of the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina at all levels to implement the recommendations of the High Representative and the decisions of the Commission on Human Rights for Bosnia and Herzegovina; called upon all parties to cease obstruction of the work of the common institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina; condemned the intimidation and perpetration of violence against minority refugees and all acts designed to discourage their voluntary return and called for the perpetrators to be brought to justice; called upon the officials of Bosnia and Herzegovina to cooperate with relevant international humanitarian agencies and their neighbours to facilitate such voluntary returns; endorsed the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur; emphasized the views of the General Assembly contained in paragraphs 18 and 19 of its resolution 53/163.

In the context of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the Commission called upon all States to meet their obligations to cooperate fully with the Tribunal and urged them to support the Tribunal to the fullest extent possible; called upon all indicted persons to surrender voluntarily to the custody of the Tribunal; urged all parties to respect the "rules of the road"; urgently called once again upon the competent authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to apprehend and surrender for prosecution all persons indicted by the Tribunal; noted with dismay that the large majority of those indicted were still at large and appeared to be living freely in Yugoslav territory; stressed the evidence that the most senior leaders of the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia were responsible for the continuing refusal of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to meet its obligations to cooperate with the Tribunal and demanded that they comply with their obligation to cooperate with the Tribunal; demanded that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; urged all parties to respect the primacy of the Tribunal in all cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions; called upon the international community to give the Tribunal every appropriate help to bring into custody suspects indicted by it.

In reference to missing persons, the Commission expressed its satisfaction with the progress made in the exhumation of remains and the identification of missing persons; welcomed the increased level of cooperation in the joint exhumation process in Bosnia and Herzegovina; insisted that Federal Republic of Yugoslavia authorities cooperate with international humanitarian organizations in dealing with the issue of missing persons in Kosovo.

In reference to the Special Rapporteur, the Commission decided to renew for one year the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the region; requested that the Special Rapporteur pay particular attention to discrimination against persons belonging to ethnic minorities and displaced persons, refugees and returnees who fell within his mandate, and address human rights issues that transcended the borders between the States covered by his mandate and which could be addressed only through concerted action in more than one country.

The roll-call vote on resolution L.34/Rev.1 was as follows:

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

Against: the Russian Federation.

Abstentions: China, Congo, Cuba, India, Mexico and Nepal.

An earlier roll-call vote was held on section 3 of resolution L.34/Rev.1, with the section retained after 33 voted in favour, 4 against, and 16 abstained.

The roll-call vote was as follows:

In favour: Austria, Bangladesh, Botswana, Canada, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Morocco, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Sudan, Tunisia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Uruguay.

Against: China, Cuba, India and Russian Federation.

Abstentions: Argentina, Bhutan, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Ecuador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Venezuela.


SPOMENKA CEK (Croatia) said the Commission would shortly for the eighth time take action upon this issue. Strengthening of human rights was a constant effort made by the Croatian Government, despite constant Serbian aggression. Croatia was the only country in the region where organized return of refugees was a reality. This was the result of a long process of confidence-building measures taken by the Government. These measures were not adequately reflected in the resolution. There had been a change of focus of the international community. Attention had shifted from war to the building of peace and security after conflict. The resolution dealt with gender issues and other matters in a way that generally occurred under thematic issues. Croatia’s human-rights performance had been distinguished from that of the other countries involved by the international community. The current approach of the Commission towards the three countries of the mandate was redundant, and Croatia should be separated from the other two countries. The technical cooperation programme soon to be signed was welcomed. With its implementation, Croatia would move towards a truly democratic country, and it was hoped that the Commission would recognize this.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said the draft resolution strongly pronounced on the situation of human rights in Kosovo. The would have had co-sponsored the draft if some suggestions had been considered. The delegation had asked to have language included asking the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)to respect humanitarian law. It had requested in paragraph 19 a phrase condemning terrorism. It would have been realistic to delete paragraph 16 and amend 19 to deal with current realities. Bosnians should have been listed among the minorities. However, at the very least, Pakistan had suggested that in paragraph 9 there should be a reference to the Muslin minority. The United States should consider this suggestion. It should not have been difficult for the co-sponsors to accept this. Having said that, the delegation would vote for the resolution. It was hoped that these concerns would be taken into account in the future.

H.K. SINGH (India) said that in several previous interventions, it had expressed serious concern over the serious human-rights violations occurring in the FRY and the Kosovo area. Full respect for human rights, including minority rights, was vital. It was regrettable that several elements of the draft resolution were imbalanced, notably section 3, which did not even indicate that Kosovo was an integral part of the FRY. This section ignored the fact that the resolution of incidents of this nature required immediate cessation of conflict. A peaceful solution obtained through negotiation was necessary. India could not go along with this section, and requested that this section be cut from the resolution.

VLADIMIR PARSHIKOV (Russian Federation) said delegation had frequently given its assessment of what was happening in Yugoslavia. It rejected NATO's involvement, and the violation of NATO's charter. The aggressors who were subjecting civilians to daily bombing did not have the moral right to talk about proper behaviour. NATO had bombed radio and television stations while complaining about the treatment of media. The delegation supported the proposal of the Indian delegation that there be a separate vote on part 3, and the delegation would vote against it. The delegation asked the Chairwoman to put the entire resolution to a roll-call vote, and Russia would vote against it. Without the Kosovo portion, the delegation would have voted for the draft.

RODRIGO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that with regard to the request for a separate vote on section 3, Cuba had voted in favour of condemning the violations perpetrated by all sides of the conflict. Section 3 was most unbalanced. It was hypocritical that it was the United States, which was bombing the FRY and causing deaths, was the one to propose this resolution. Cuba would be voting against the resolution.

JORGE VOTO-BERNALES (Peru) said it would like to reiterate its position; it would vote for the entire text of the pending resolution.

HAROLD KOH (United States) said the delegation could not support the proposal of India, since section 3 was the heart of the resolution. To remove Kosovo from the mandate of the Special Rapporteur would be to make his mandate pointless. The US would vote yes to keeping section 3, and yes to the resolution.

HERNAN PLORUTTI (Argentina) said the delegation was struck by the fact that the resolution was divided into chapters. In this way, the Serb province would have had its own chapter. With regard to paragraphs 13 and 20 of chapter 3, the delegation would abstain. Those elements were for the Security Council to deal with.

MARIE GERVAIS-VIDRICAIRE (Canada) said it was gravely concerned over the situation in Kosovo, and stressed the responsibility of the Serbian authorities. Canada would vote in favour of section 3.

WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany) said it was regrettable that matters involving Kosovo might be separated from the resolution. Such a decision would make it difficult for the Special Rapporteur to operate there. The EU would vote in favor of the section, and the entire text.

PHILIPPE PETIT (France) said that France supported the statement of Germany. If there were to be a separate vote on section 3, France would vote for it, and for two reasons. First, the section had the merit of recalling the five conditions set to Belgrade to put a stop to the intervention of NATO; second, the text condemned the grave violations of human rights that had given rise to a humanitarian disaster.

JAVIER ILLANES (Chile) said it had already expressed its concern about the human rights situation in Kosovo. It would have liked for this resolution to be more balanced. Now, there was this third section, which could be voted on separately, and the delegation would abstain. It lacked balance, it was too dense, it was full of opinions and judgments. On the resolution as a whole, it would vote yes.

VICTOR RODRIGUEZ (Venezuela) said that as with previous resolutions, it had grave concern for the human rights situation in the FRY. In voting on section 3, it would abstain, since there was not sufficient balance. In voting on the resolution as a whole, it would vote in favour. A separate chapter on the situation of the human rights in Kosovo could in no way insult the territorial integrity of the FRY.

CARLOS SCARBI (Uruguay) said it supported the text of the resolution, and it would vote for it as a whole. It felt, however, that there were formal defects since it set Kosovo on the same footing as sovereign States.

CAMILO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Colombia) said there was grave concern over the violation of human rights in Kosovo, and the responsibility for them lay with the Belgrade authorities. Colombia would vote in favour of the resolution as long as it was not construed as an insult to the territorial integrity of the FRY. In the case of a vote upon section 3, Colombia would abstain.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said it believed that the section relating to Kosovo was indeed the most important part of the draft resolution given the current grave developments. It would vote in favor of that section, as well as the entire resolution.

LIU XINSHENG (China) said that Kosovo was part of the FRY, and the issue was part of the internal affairs of the FRY. The solution should be found via dialogue, considering all the issues and respecting the territorial integrity of the FRY. NATO should cease its military actions against the FRY to avoid further casualties. Some elements of the draft resolution were not in conformity with the position of China, so it would abstain from the vote on the entire draft.

DHURMAHDASS BAICHOO (Mauritius) said Mauritius would vote in favor of the resolution.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.36/Rev.1) on the situation of human rights in Equatorial Guinea and assistance in the field of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Commission encouraged the Government of Equatorial Guinea to ensure the independence and effectiveness of its national commission on human rights; recognized that elections held on 7 March were organized and conducted in a peaceful and calm atmosphere but took note with concern that some flaws and irregularities were observed during the electoral process, and therefore called upon the Government to continue its dialogue with all political parties and to ensure the independence and effectiveness of the national electoral commission, so as to guarantee fair, transparent and democratic conditions in the future; encouraged the Government to strengthen its efforts to improve the conditions of prisoners and detainees; encouraged the Government to pursue efforts already undertaken to integrate women effectively into the process of socioeconomic, cultural and political development of the country; encouraged it to promote the necessary conditions for the full enjoyment of economic, social, and cultural rights, including the rights of the child; recommended that the Government ratify the basic international human-rights instruments; encouraged it to strengthen further its efforts to improve the functioning of the judiciary and the training of judges, prosecutors, lawyers, police and security forces, and to limit military courts strictly to trying military offences committed by military personnel; encouraged it to publish regularly laws, decrees and other Governmental acts; to reiterate its instructions to the forces of law and order not to order or make arbitrary arrests and to respect the rights of individuals to security, physical integrity and freedom; to avoid torture; to investigate and impose penalties on those responsible for human-rights violations; encouraged the Government and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to elaborate a comprehensive programme of technical assistance in the field of human rights; and decided to appoint a Special Representative for one year to monitor the situation of human rights in Equatorial Guinea.

RUBEN MAYE NSUE MANGUE (Equatorial Guinea) said it had respect for the struggle for self-determination by all peoples, since the State of Equatorial Guinea had achieved such goals through struggle itself. Equatorial Guinea had cooperated with the Commission on numerous occasions. However, this cooperation had been rooted in the new mentality the world had assumed after the Cold War. Equatorial Guinea rejected those policies that did not respect self-determination and the rule of law. The initiative of consolidating human rights and democracy should come from the people and the leaders of the country. Foreign intervention should only be on the advisory level. Dialogue should continue. The text of the resolution on the country had been the object of intense negotiations. Equatorial Guinea was concerned over paragraph 3, which had flaws and irregularities.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.37) on the situation of human rights in Rwanda, adopted by consensus, the Commission welcomed the continuing efforts of the Government of Rwanda to build a State based on the rule of law and respect for human rights; reiterated its strong condemnation of the crime of genocide and crimes against humanity that had been committed in Rwanda in 1994; reaffirmed that all persons responsible for these crimes were individually responsible and accountable for them; reiterated its request that all States cooperate fully with the Government of Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in ensuring that all those responsible for such crimes were brought to justice; noted the efforts which the International Tribunal had made to improve its performance and encouraged further measures to enhance its efficiency; expressed concern over the effectiveness of the Tribunal's witness-protection programme and called for its improvement; noted indications of improvement in the situation in Rwanda; recognized that promotion and protection of human rights were essential for achieving security and stability in the Great Lakes region; reiterated its solidarity with genocide survivors; condemned the illegal sale and distribution of arms and all other forms of assistance to former members of the Rwandan armed forces, Interahamwe and other insurgent groups; reiterated its concern at conditions of detention; urged the Government of Rwanda and invited the International Tribunal to give utmost priority to the prosecution and punishment of crimes of sexual violence against women; reiterated its appeal to the international community to provide financial and technical assistance to help strengthen protection of genocide survivors and witnesses and the administration of justice in Rwanda; commended the Government on its continued efforts to improve the situation of children; regretted that no agreement could be reached on a new mandate for the Human Rights Field Operation in Rwanda and encouraged the Government to seek cooperation within a mutually agreed framework to obtain financial and technical support to reconstruct the human-rights infrastructure in the country; welcomed the creation by Rwanda of a National Human Rights Commission and encouraged members of the Commission to hold as soon as possible a round table meeting with the Special Representative on Rwanda to develop a plan of action; welcomed the commitment of the Government to promoting national unity and reconciliation; recommended that the international community continue to provide development assistance for reconstruction and the long-term stability of Rwanda; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Representative for another year.

AUBIN MINAKU NDJALANDJOKI (Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) said delegation wanted to clarify its participation dealing with the situation of human-rights in Rwanda. The delegation expressed its reservations because of a number of concerns. These concerns would have required substantive amendments. In paragraph 25, the delegation noted that the Government was carrying out forced groupings. The delegation wanted to express its grave concerns over this policy of establishing hamlets on ethnic grounds. It was not unlike apartheid. The delegation was bothered by the fact that the resolution said nothing about the field operation by the UN, which had been interrupted by Rwanda. On 9 April, the Security Council said that uninvited troops were located in the DRC. They were armed troops, and the Government of Rwanda recognized this. The Commission should have had at least expressed concern about that. The ongoing ethnic conflict was the fundamental cause of the unhappy situation in the DRC and in Central Africa today.

WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany), speaking on behalf of the EU, the Central and Eastern European Countries, and Cyprus, welcomed the resolution. The promotion and protection of human rights for all was necessary. A regional element the resolution should have addressed was cross-border violations by the DRC. Rwanda was offered support for all future progress.

In a measure on the situation of human rights in East Timor, the Commission, having discussed the human-rights situation in East Timor, expressed its deep concern at the serious human-rights situation and at the outbreaks of violence, particularly the recently reported killings of civilians in Liquica and Dili. The Commission took into account that talks under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General aimed at achieving a just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution to the question of East Timor taking place in New York were now at a critical stage. The Commission requested the Secretary-General to present a report on the human-rights situation in East Timor at its fifty-sixth session.

In a measure on the question of human rights in Cyprus, the Commission decided, without a vote, to retain on its agenda sub-item (a), entitled "Question of human rights in Cyprus" of the current item 9 and to give it due priority at its fifty-sixth session, it being understood that action required by previous resolutions of the Commission on the subject would continue to remain operative.

HAROLD KOH (the United States), addressing voting under item 9 of the agenda, said the US believed that resolution L.29 was deeply flawed. It should have avoided euphemisms in the body of the text, for example -- “forced labour” should have been replaced by “slavery”, since this, along with religious persecution, was often an element of a war in Sudan. The resolution should not have welcomed the peace agreement as described as such by the Sudanese Government. The resolution expressed concern for arbitrary executions on both sides, but the overwhelmingly guilty party was the Sudanese Government. Reports of recent improvement should not have been welcomed. The US joined consensus so as to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, so that continuing reports would be received.

RYUICHIRO YAMAZAKI (Japan), explaining two votes under item 9, said the delegation had found resolution L.27 well-balanced, and welcomed the improvement of human rights in Iran, and hoped that the Government would take further action. However, Japan thought the international community should allocate resources to States which showed a commitment to improving the state of human rights. Regarding L.32, Japan had certain reservations regarding the text. The Government of Myanmar should be encouraged to continue to improve the situation of human rights on its own initiative. The text showed the concern of the international community, and it was in the interest of the Government of Myanmar to allow a visit of the Special Rapporteur. Japan was prepared to help Myanmar.

KAMEL MORJANE (Tunisia) said that in resolution L.28 which had been adopted today, Tunisia supported the request referring to the disappearance of Kuwaitis. The delegation was thinking solely of the humanitarian issues, hoping that it would result in detente between Iraq and Kuwait. The international community should work towards alleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people, particularly children, who were suffering because of a lack of medication.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said in reference to resolution L.28 that the Government was concerned about the situation in the Gulf, which had resulted in a grave humanitarian crisis in Iraq. This element had been missing from the text of the resolution. Iraq should resolve the issue of missing Kuwaitis and should cooperate with the Tripartite Commission on this issue and others. This human tragedy should not be allowed to fester any longer.

SHAMBHU RAM SIMKHADA (Nepal) said the delegation had abstained in the vote on the situation of human rights in the States of the former Yugoslavia because of the inclusion of section 3 of the resolution.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.12) on human rights and unilateral coercive measures, adopted by a roll-call vote of 37 in favour and 10 opposed, with 6 abstaining, 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, thus impeding the full realization of human rights, in particular the right to development; 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, among them children, women, the elderly, the disabled, and ill people; reaffirmed the right of all peoples to self-determination; also 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 means of sustenance and development; underlined that unilateral coercive measures were one of the major obstacles to implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development; invited the new working group on the right to development to give due consideration to the issue of unilateral coercive measures; invited relevant Special Rapporteurs and thematic mechanisms of the Commission to pay due attention to such coercive measures; and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to pay due attention and give urgent consideration to the present resolution.

The roll-call vote was as follows:

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

Against: Austria, Canada, Germany, Japan, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Romania, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Abstentions: Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and Republic of Korea.

HAROLD KOH (the United States) said the US it was unable to support the resolution since each nation had the right to choose with which nation it chose to trade.

In a resolution (E/.CN.4/1999/L.17) on the effects on the full enjoyment of human rights of the economic adjustment policies arising from foreign debt, and, in particular, on the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development, adopted by a roll-call vote of 30 in favour and 15 opposed, with 8 abstentions, the Commission stressed that structural-adjustment policies had serious implications for the ability of developing countries to abide by the Declaration on the Right to Development and to formulate national development policies; stressed the importance of continuing to implement immediate, effective and durable actions for alleviating the burdens of debt and debt-service of the developing countries with debt problems; affirmed that the permanent solution to the problem lay in the establishment of a just and equitable international economic order which guaranteed the developing countries better market conditions and commodity prices, stabilization of exchange rates, easier access to financial and capital markets, adequate flows of new financial resources and easier access to the technology of developing countries; stressed the need for economic programmes arising from foreign debt to take account of the specific characteristics, conditions and needs of the debtor countries and the need to incorporate the social dimension of development; affirmed that the exercise of the basic rights of people of debtor countries to food, housing, clothing, employment, education, health services and a healthy environment could not be subordinated to the implementation of structural-adjustment policies and economic reforms arising from debt; emphasized the important need for initiatives on the foreign debt, in particular the debt initiative for the heavily indebted poor countries, and the decision of the Paris Club to go beyond the Naples terms, and noted with concern the rigidity of the eligibility criteria approved by the international creditor community in the context of those initiatives; emphasized the need for new financial flows to debtor developing countries from all sources, in addition to debt-relief measures that included debt cancellation; requested the Special Rapporteur on the effects of foreign debt to present an analytical report to the Commission, paying particular attention to the negative effects of debt and policies adopted to deal with it, and to measures taken by Governments, the private sector and international financial institutions to alleviate such effects; called upon Governments, international financial institutions and the private sector to consider canceling or reducing the debt burdens of the countries worst effected; and considered that, to find a durable solution to the problem, there was a need for a political dialogue between creditor and debtor countries within the UN system.

The roll-call vote was as follows:

In favour: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Cape Verde, China, Congo, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Uruguay and Venezuela.

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

Abstentions: Argentina, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Mexico, Peru, Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation.

SEBASTIEN SIGOUIN (Canada) said the delegation recognized that the question of foreign debt had great implications for the economic development of developing countries, and the quality of life of citizens of these countries. Canada had frequently annulled foreign debt. However, Canada would vote against the resolution, due to concerns that it did not address the matter in focus of the Commission’s concern for human rights, and that it misrepresented the nature of foreign debt.

RYUICHIRO YAMAZAKI (Japan) said the country was the biggest donor of foreign aid and would continue to be in the future. This resolution addressed reducing debt. The Commission was not the appropriate forum for discussing this issue. The World Bank had the expertise and the mandate to address it, and for that reason, Japan did not support the resolution.

GEORGE MOOSE (the United States) said the US supported forgiveness and the restructuring of debt. It would vote against the resolution because it soughtto impose conditions upon agreements which had been privately negotiated.