COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS SIX RESOLUTIONS, TWO MEASURES ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS,CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

Commission on Human Rights
57th session
23 April 2001
Morning




Renews Mandate of Special Rapporteur on
Toxic Waste for Three Years



The Commission on Human Rights this morning adopted six resolutions dealing with a number of issues ranging from human rights and extreme poverty; globalization; access to medication in the context of pandemics like HIV/AIDS; women’s right to ownership of land, property and adequate housing; and illicit movement of toxic wastes; to the strengthening of popular participation, equity, social justice and non-discrimination as the foundation of democracy.

The Commission also adopted two measures relating to the work of its main subsidiary body, the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

In a resolution on human rights and extreme poverty, adopted by consensus, the Commission reaffirmed that extreme poverty and exclusion from society constituted a violation of human dignity and that urgent national and international action was required to eliminate them. The Commission said that it was essential for States to foster participation by the poorest people in the decision-making processes for the societies in which they lived and for such people and vulnerable groups to be empowered to organize themselves and to participate in all aspects of political, economic, and social life. The Commission requested the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to consider the need to develop guiding principles on the implementation of existing human rights norms and standards in the context of the fight against extreme poverty.


Concerning the impact of globalization on the full enjoyment of human rights, the Commission adopted a resolution in a roll-call vote of 37 in favour and 15 opposed, with 1 abstention, in which it recognized that whatever the impact of globalization, the promotion and protection of all human rights was first and foremost the responsibility of the State. The Commission reaffirmed that efforts to make globalization fully inclusive and equitable must include policies and measures at the global level which corresponded to the needs of developing countries. And it stressed that globalization had to be monitored and managed with a view to enhancing its positive impacts and alleviating its negative consequences.

On the issue of access to medication in the context of pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, the Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour and none opposed, with one abstention, a resolution in which it recognized that access in such circumstances was a fundamental element for achieving for everyone the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. The Commission called upon States, on a non-discriminatory basis, to refrain from measures to deny or limit equal access to all persons to preventive, curative or palliative pharmaceuticals and medical technologies used to treat such pandemics, and called upon States, at the international level, to facilitate access in other countries to essential preventive, curative or palliative pharmaceuticals or medical technologies, as well as to extend necessary cooperation, especially in times of emergency.

The Commission also adopted by consensus a resolution on women's equal ownership of, access to and control over land and the equal rights to own property and adequate housing, in which it urged Governments to comply fully with their international and regional obligations and commitments concerning land tenure and the equal rights of women to own property and to an adequate standard of living, including adequate housing. The Commission encouraged Governments to support the transformation of customs and traditions which denied these rights. And it recommended that Governments encourage financial lending institutions to ensure that their policies and practices did not discriminate against women.

Concerning the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, the Commission adopted a resolution by a roll-call vote of 38 in favour to 15 opposed, with no abstentions, in which it categorically condemned such dumping in developing countries. The Commission urged Governments to take measures to prevent such illegal international trafficking and transfer of toxic and hazardous products and wastes. The Commission also urged the international community and relevant UN bodies to give appropriate support to developing countries, upon their request. It decided to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the subject for a further three years.

And on the strengthening of popular participation, equity, social justice and non-discrimination as the foundations of democracy, the Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 28 in favour to 4 opposed, with 21 abstentions, a resolution in which it reaffirmed that democracy was based on the freely expressed will of the people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural system. The resolution also affirmed that while all democracies shared common features, there was no one universal model of democracy. It urged all States to foster a democracy that facilitated development with equity and justice and encouraged the most comprehensive and full participation of citizens in the decision-making process and in the debate over diverse issues affecting society.


The Commission also adopted by consensus two measures in which it decided to authorize the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to hold a forum on economic, social and cultural rights, to be known as the Social Forum, during its fifty-third session; and to ask the Subcommission to review the terms of reference for a proposed study on the right of drinking water supply and sanitation and also to review the level of United Nations support requested for such a study.

The Commission will resume its meeting at 3 p.m. to continue to take action on draft resolutions.


Action on resolutions and measures concerning economic, social and cultural rights

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.45) on human rights and extreme poverty, adopted by consensus, the Commission reaffirmed that extreme poverty and exclusion from society constituted a violation of human dignity and that urgent national and international action was required to eliminate them; that the right to life included within it existence in human dignity with the minimum necessities of life; that it was essential for States to foster participation by the poorest people in the decision-making processes for the societies in which they lived and for such people and vulnerable groups to be empowered to organize themselves and to participate in all aspects of political, economic, and social life; that widespread poverty rendered democracy and popular participation fragile; that national and international action were required to eradicate poverty; that special attention must be given to the plight of women and children; called upon States and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to continue to take into account, in the activities to be undertaken within the framework of the United Nations Decade for the Eradication of Poverty, the link between human rights and extreme poverty, as well as efforts to empower people living in poverty to participate in decision-making processes on policies that affected them; and requested the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to consider the need to develop guiding principles on the implementation of existing human rights norms and standards in the context of the fight against extreme poverty and to report to the Commission on the matter at the Commission’s fifty-eighth session.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.48) on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 37 in favour and 15 opposed, with 1 abstention, the Commission recognized that whatever the impact of globalization, the promotion and protection of all human rights was first and foremost the responsibility of the State; recognized that States had a further, collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality, and equity at the global level; reaffirmed that efforts to make globalization fully inclusive and equitable must include policies and measures at the global level which corresponded to the needs of developing countries; expressed concern that while globalization held out the promise of prosperity, it brought with it severe challenges for developing countries, and that the promise of prosperity had not touched the vast majority of the world’s population; emphasized that a narrowing of the gap between rich and poor, both within and between all countries, was required; and stressed that globalization had to be monitored and managed with a view to enhancing its positive impacts and alleviating its negative consequences.


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

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

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

Abstentions (1): Republic of Korea

A Representative of the United States said that his delegation did not accept the premise that the net effect world-wide of the many phenomena grouped under the term globalization had been an increase in poverty, nor that globalization had had a broad negative impact on the enjoyment of human rights. In its non-economic aspects, the vastly increased information flows facilitated by globalization had allowed a much brighter light to be focused on human rights abuses around the world, bringing greater international attention than ever before. As for globalization's economic aspects, the past three decades had seen more people rise out of absolute poverty than in any other comparable period in the world's history. The lessons of recent decades were clear. The developing countries with the fastest growth rates for extended periods had been those that were most integrated in the world economy and the most involved in the process of globalization. This reality was not reflected in the current draft. Consequently, the United States opposed this draft resolution.

A Representative of Canada restated her delegation’s belief in the importance of ensuring that the benefits and promises of globalization were shared more broadly among all peoples and regions. Governments had a key role to play in the formulation and implementation of policies to promote financial, social and economic stability and to harness the benefits of globalization. It was of concern that this draft resolution had not recognized the complexities of the issues involved in globalization, including the benefits it could bring, or the importance of domestic measures that needed to be taken to address the challenges of globalization.

A Representative of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union and countries associated with it, said the issue of globalization was not new to the Commission, which had repeatedly dealt with the matter in ways that were relevant to issues of human rights. The European Union found it difficult to address globalization as a separate issue, however, in the Commission; the issue was complex and interrelated with economic, social, and financial matters. The European Union believed that most concerns of delegations on the issue of globalization had been and could be dealt with under existing agenda items and mechanisms, such as under the right to development and the Working Group on the right to development. The European Union would vote against draft resolution L.48.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.50) on access to medication in the context of pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, adopted by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour and none opposed, with one abstention, the Commission recognized that access in such circumstances was one fundamental element for achieving for everyone the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; called upon States to pursue policies to promote the availability in sufficient quantities of pharmaceuticals and medical technologies used to treat such pandemics as HIV/AIDS; the accessibility to all without discrimination of such pharmaceuticals and technologies and their affordability for all; the assurance that such pharmaceuticals and technologies were scientifically and medically appropriate and of good quality; called upon States, on a non-discriminatory basis, to refrain from measures to deny or limit equal access to all persons to preventive, curative or palliative pharmaceuticals and medical technologies used to treat such pandemics; to safeguard access to such treatments from any limitations by third parties; to promote effective access to them; called upon States, at the international level, to facilitate access in other countries to essential preventive, curative or palliative pharmaceuticals or medical technologies, as well as to extend necessary cooperation, especially in times of emergency; called upon the international community, the developed countries in particular, to provide financial and technical support and the training of personnel for the developing countries in their fight against such pandemics; and invited the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, when considering the human-rights dimension of combatting such pandemics, to give attention to the issue of access to medication.

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

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

Against (0): None

Abstentions (1): United States

A Representative of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union and countries associated with it, reiterated its recognition of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of heath. Necessary steps which should be taken by States in order to achieve the full realization of this right included prevention, treatment and control of epidemics as well as the creation of conditions which would ensure medical service and medical attention. Medication still constituted only a limited part of the actions needed to improve lives for people living with a pandemics such as HIV/AIDS. The importance of prevention and health care infrastructure as well as sustainable leadership could not be emphasized enough. The European Union was making a major contribution to global efforts to address the communicable disease burden and to improve the health of people living in developing countries. There was need to step up and accelerate existing health and development operations by establishing innovative strategies involving partnership between public authorities, civil society and the private sector for the rapid improvement of access to pharmaceutical services and products and of their coverage and quality.

A Representative of Norway said that universal access to drugs for combatting disease was not a new issue. While these drugs needed to be a public good, they had been manufactured largely by multinational corporations and accessible only to those that could afford them while they remained unavailable to the poor. It was not enough to note and analyse inequities in the global market. Governments needed to provide changes in the treatment of the poor. This issue had reached a new urgency because of the AIDS pandemic which had given an extraordinary push forward to the international community to deal with poverty. Development of public and private resources, nationally and internationally was needed. The path ahead called for an ethical framework to establish parameters for change and accountability. Managing drugs as public goods included, among others, pricing, stress on prevention, and mobilizing all sectors of society. Efforts needed to be continued to strengthen developing countries’ health systems. In spite of wanting a broader approach emphasizing prevention, Canada would support this draft resolution.

A Representative of Italy said his country had co-sponsored the draft resolution and felt the pandemic was becoming daily a more anguishing reality. Most victims had no possibility of access to costly medications vital for their survival. Italy, as President of the G-8 for 2001, planned to submit a proposal on the health-care crisis and AIDS crisis in the developing world. It hoped the present resolution would give rise to new solidarity around the world in confronting the pandemic.

A Representative of the United States said his country was strongly committed to addressing the AIDS pandemic internationally, including access to treatment and care. However, the United States believed that this draft resolution was flawed in a number of ways. It would limit the rights of States to set priorities within their national policies and strategies for dealing with such pandemics. It was clear that an over-emphasis on the use of pharmaceuticals detracted from the more fundamental need for primary prevention. The draft resolution appeared to question the validity of internationally agreed protection of intellectual property rights. In so doing, it could well have the unintended consequence of discouraging investment in the important research desperately needed to find cures. Complex health matters were best dealt with by the UN organization that had the technical competence in those matters - the WHO. The United States was also concerned about references which appeared to be aimed at creating a new category of rights, such as the reference to the right to the "highest attainable standard of physical and mental health".

A Representative of the United Kingdom said her country interpreted the text in operative paragraph 3 (b), "from any limitations by third parties" to mean limitations arisen as a matter of abuse of applicable international law, including international agreements acceded to, and on that basis the United Kingdom supported this draft resolution.

A Representative of Nigeria said the question of access to medication for HIV was a basic human right; it was at the core of basic humanity as the world faced this mounting pandemic. Nigeria would this week be hosting a conference on HIV/AIDS; it was hoped that the conference would be attended by the international community. Nigeria would vote in favour of resolution L.50.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.53) on women's equal ownership of, access to and control over land and the equal rights to own property and adequate housing, adopted by consensus, the Commission affirmed that discrimination against women in these matters constituted a violation of women's human right to protection against discrimination; reaffirmed women's right to an adequate standard of living; urged Governments to comply fully with their international and regional obligations and commitments concerning land tenure and the equal rights of women to own property and to an adequate standard of living, including adequate housing; encouraged Governments to support the transformation of customs and traditions which denied these rights;
encouraged Governments and relevant organizations to provide judges, lawyers, political and other public officials, community leaders and other concerned persons, as appropriate, with information and education concerning such rights; recommended that Governments encourage financial lending institutions to ensure that their policies and practices did not discriminate against women; recommended that international, regional, national, and local housing financial and other credit facilities promote the participation of women and take into account their views; and invited all relevant UN organizations and bodies to undertake further initiatives to promote equal rights for women in these matters.

A Representative of Mexico said that her delegation had asked the United States to withdraw the amendment on L.53. This amendment was not just technical. Operative paragraph 5 was one of the key paragraphs in draft resolution L.53. The amendment proposed by the United States was a direct attack on one of the most important economic, social and cultural rights, namely the right to adequate housing. WHO studies highlighted the link between morbidity and mortality and the lack of adequate housing. Regretfully, this right was not considered as a priority in some countries. The United States was urged to withdraw its amendment. If that was not the case, then Mexico would ask for a roll-call vote.

A Representative of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that operative paragraph 5 had been agreed to by the European Union as a whole. The adoption of the draft resolution was a step forward in the recognition of social, cultural, and economic rights of women including, among others, women's equal right to inheritance and ownership of housing. It was the opinion of the European Union that operative paragraph 5 ought not to be reopened and weakened and the European Union worried that putting this paragraph to vote could set a bad precedent when it came to the rights of women. The European Union supported the inclusion of the paragraph.


In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.54) on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 38 in favour to 15 opposed, with no abstentions, the Commission categorically condemned such dumping in developing countries; urged Governments to take measures to prevent such illegal international trafficking and transfer of toxic and hazardous products and wastes; invited the United Nations Environment Programme, the secretariat for the Basel Convention, the Commission on Sustainable Development, the International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Labour Office, the World Health Organization, and regional organizations to continue to intensify their cooperation and technical assistance on environmentally sound management of such substances; urged the international community and relevant UN bodies to give appropriate support to developing countries, upon their request; decided to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the subject for a further three years; invited the Special Rapporteur to include information in her report to the Commission’s next session, among other things, on persons killed, maimed or otherwise injured through the illicit movement or dumping of toxic products and wastes; the question of impunity for such activities; and the question of rehabilitation of and assistance to victims; and encouraged the Special Rapporteur to continue to provide Governments with an appropriate opportunity to respond to allegations transmitted to her, and to have their observations reflected in her report to the Commission.


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

In favour (38): Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.

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

Abstentions (0): None

A Representative of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union and the countries associated with it, said that the EU thought that some of the issues raised in this draft resolution were very important. The EU felt strongly however that the Commission was not the right forum in which to discuss them. The competency and expertise to address these issues was already available in existing international regulatory frameworks and the bodies that serviced them. The Commission could not add any value to international oversight or action in this area. In this context, the EU was concerned that elements of the draft resolution cut across and replicated the work of these existing frameworks and also pre-judged their effectiveness. As such, the EU thought that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, which was already too broad and unrealistic, was further extended by the draft resolution. Consequently, the EU could not support either the draft resolution or the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and it would vote against draft resolution L.54.

A Representative of Japan said that the illicit movement and dumping of toxic products and wastes was a serious issue. Sympathy was expressed for those countries affected by such actions as well as resentment against those committing them. However, it was very doubtful that the Commission on Human Rights was an appropriate forum for dealing with this issue and that it would be better taken up in more relevant bodies with more expertise and mandate. Because of that, Japan would vote against the resolution.


In a measure (E/CN.4/2001/L.37) on a forum on economic, social and cultural rights, adopted by consensus, the Commission decided to authorize the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to hold such a forum, to be known as the Social Forum, with the participation of members of the Subcommission, taking into consideration equitable geographical representation and expertise in the field, during its fifty-third session.

A Representative of Kenya thanked Norway for taking into account the concerns of the African Group. The two amendments were very important and the African Group would support them.


A Representative of Nigeria said that his delegation appreciated the efforts of the delegation of Norway and shared the sentiments expressed by the Kenyan delegation. It was noted that the draft decision contained elements that were acceptable. However, Kenya would have wished to have a decision as originally heard by the draft commission, including elements on the holding of pre- and inter-sessional debates. A balanced and equitable allocation of time to the issues without losing the essence of the initiative of the social forum was desirable.


In a measure (E/CN.4/2001/L.43) on a proposed study on the right to drinking water supply and sanitation, adopted by consensus, the Commission decided to ask the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to review the terms of reference for the proposed study and also to review the level of United Nations support requested for such a study.


Action on resolution concerning civil and political rights

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.8/Rev.1) on the strengthening of popular participation, equity, social justice and non-discrimination as the foundations of democracy, adopted by a roll-call vote of 28 in favour to 4 opposed, with 21 abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed that democracy was based on the freely expressed will of the people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems; affirmed that while all democracies shared common features, there was no one universal model of democracy; stressed that the consolidation of democracy required that sustained economic growth and sustainable development of countries and communities fostered the promotion and consolidation of democracy; affirmed that the consolidation of democracy required the promotion and protection of all human rights for everyone; stressed that it required sustained economic growth and sustainable development of countries and communities; declared that full popular participation was only feasible if societies had democratic political and electoral systems and provided equal access to public services; urged all States to foster a democracy that facilitated development with equity and justice and encouraged the most comprehensive and full participation of citizens in the decision-making process and in the debate over diverse issues affecting society; and requested all States and the international community to endeavour to promote effective measures to eradicate poverty and promote just, equitable and inclusive societies.

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

In favour (28): Algeria, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Senegal, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Against (4): Germany, Japan, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (21): Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, France, Guatemala, Italy, Latvia, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain and Uruguay.


The Commission also adopted by a roll-call vote of 24 for to 17 against and with 12 abstentions, a sub-amendment to the amendments in L.94 concerning draft resolution L. 8 in which it changed “reaffirming” to “noting” in the new preambular paragraph which should now read: “Noting resolution 55/96 of the General Assembly dated 4 December 2000 and resolution 2000/47 of the Commission dated 25 April 2000".

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

In favour (24): Algeria, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Kenya, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, South Africa, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic and Viet Nam.

Against (17): Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (12): Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, India, Indonesia, Mauritius, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Zambia.

A Representative of Canada said her country firmly believed in the importance of democracy for the promotion of all human rights. It also believed that there were many elements to a strong democracy. Resolutions on the matter last year in the Commission and General Assembly had been passed by consensus; there had been widespread agreement on the basic elements of these texts, which had been negotiated constructively among participants. The present draft resolution had some positive elements; but last year’s resolution had struck a better and more delicate balance. The current measure focused on some elements of democracy but not on others and had the potential to undermine agreements and arrangements now under way based on those previous resolutions. Canada would thus abstain on the vote on resolution L.8/Rev.1.

A Representative of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union and the countries associated with it, said that the EU was founded on the principles of human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. Consequently, it supported the resolutions voted on last year by the General Assemble and Commission. The draft resolution currently before the Commission did not build on the agreements of last year on how Member States should promote democracy. Consequently, the EU could not accept a resolution that undermined the consensus achieved by Member States.

A Representative of India said that while his country had voted for the resolution, and supported the elements of democracy espoused therein, it needed to be noted that these were not the only elements necessary to sustain democracy. Also needed were free and fair elections, the existence of a free press, an independent judiciary, and accountability of the police and military forces. Without the inclusion of these elements, democracy remained incomplete.


* *** *