COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS TEN RESOLUTIONS, MEASURES ON THE DEATH PENALTY, IMPUNITY, AND OTHER ISSUES CONCERNING THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Commission on Human Rights
57th session
25 April 2001
Afternoon






Asks Secretary-General to Consider Appointing
Independent Expert on Impunity



The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon adopted ten resolutions and decisions under its agenda item on the promotion and protection of human rights, including on the issues of the death penalty and impunity.

On the question of the death penalty, the Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 27 for, to 18 against and 7 abstentions, a resolution in which it called upon all States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that had not yet done so to consider acceding to or ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant, aiming at abolition of the death penalty. The Commission called upon States that still maintained the death penalty progressively to restrict the number of offenses for which it could be imposed, and to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to completely abolishing the death penalty.

Concerning the issue of impunity, the Commission adopted a resolution by a roll-call vote of 39 for, to none against and with 13 abstentions, in which it emphasized the importance of combatting impunity to the prevention of violations of human rights and urged States to give necessary attention to the question, including for violations perpetrated against women and children, and to take appropriate measures to address this important issue. And it requested the Secretary-General to seek the views of Governments and relevant organizations on the issue of the possible appointment of an Independent Expert charged with examining all aspects of the issue of impunity.


With regards to the promotion of the right of peoples to peace, the Commission adopted a resolution by a roll-call vote of 29 for, to 16 against and with 7 abstentions, in which it solemnly declared that the preservation of the right of peoples to peace constituted a fundamental obligation of each State. The Commission affirmed that all States should promote peace and security, and, to that end, should do their utmost to achieve general and complete disarmament under effective international control, as well as to ensure that the resources released by effective disarmament measures were used for comprehensive development, in particular that of the developing countries.

A number of country delegates regretted that several resolutions and measures had to be voted on instead of being adopted by consensus. They said that more open and adequate consultations were needed in order to avoid this in the future.

In a consensus resolution on human rights and bioethics, the Commission invited the Secretary-General to draw up proposals concerning ways to ensure proper coordination of activities and thinking on bioethics throughout the United Nations system and to consider establishing a Working Group of independent experts which would reflect on possible follow-up to the Universal Declaration. The Commission also drew the attention of Governments to the importance of research on the human genome and its applications for the improvement of the health of individuals and mankind as a whole, and to the need to safeguard the rights of the individual and his/her dignity, as well as identity and unity, and the need to protect the confidentiality of genetic data concerning a named person.

Resolutions and measures were also adopted concerning the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights; reservations to human rights treaties; observance of the human rights and fundamental freedoms contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by States which were not parties to the International Covenants on Human Rights; the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights; human rights and human solidarity; and human rights and human responsibilities.

The Commission was scheduled to resume its work in an evening meeting from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. to continue to take action on draft resolutions.


Action on resolutions on the promotion and protection of human rights

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.78) on the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, adopted by consensus, the Commission considered that international cooperation in this field should make an effective and practical contribution to the urgent task of preventing violations of human rights; reaffirmed that international action in this field should be guided by the principles of universality, non-selectivity, objectivity, and transparency, in a manner consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter; called upon Member States, specialized agencies and intergovernmental organizations to continue to carry out a constructive dialogue and consultations for the enhancement of the understanding and the promotion and protection of human rights; invited States and relevant United Nations mechanisms and procedures to continue to pay attention to the importance of mutual cooperation, understanding and dialogue in ensuring the promotion and protection of human rights; and welcomed the decision of the General Assembly to proclaim the year 2001 the United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.93) on the question of the death penalty, adopted by a roll_call vote of 27 in favour, to 18 against and 7 abstentions, the Commission called upon all States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that had not yet done so to consider acceding to or ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant, aiming at abolition of the death penalty; urged all States that still maintained the death penalty to comply fully with their obligations under the International Covenant and the Convention on the Rights of the Child; to ensure that the notion of “most serious crimes” did not go beyond intentional crimes with lethal or extremely grave consequences and that the death penalty was not imposed for non-violent financial crimes or for non-violent religious practice or expression of conscience; and not to enter any new reservations under article 6 of the International Covenant which would be contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant and to withdraw any such existing reservations.

The Commission urged all States to observe the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty and to comply fully with their international obligations, in particular with those under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations; not to impose the death penalty on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder or to execute any such person; not to execute any person as long as any related legal procedure, at the international or national level, was pending; called upon States that still maintained the death penalty progressively to restrict the number of offenses for which it could be imposed; to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to completely abolishing the death penalty; and requested States that had received a request for extradition on a capital charge to reserve explicitly the right to refuse extradition in the absence of effective assurances from relevant authorities that capital punishment would not be carried out.

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

In favour (27): Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Against (18): Algeria, Burundi, China, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, United States and Viet Nam.

Abstentions (7): Cameroon, Cuba, Guatemala, India, Madagascar, Senegal and Zambia.

There was a proposal to delete paragraphs 4 (f), 5 (b) and 6 which was rejected by a roll-call vote of 26 in favour, to 18 against and with 7 abstentions.

A Representative of India said that the international community had thus far not reached a consensus on the issue of capital punishment. India agreed with some of the goals of the draft resolution relating to the need to resort to capital punishment only for the most serious crimes and through the due process of law in strict accordance with the international human rights standards. In India, the death penalty was imposed only in the rarest of rare cases, where the crime committed was so heinous so as to shock the conscience of society. It was therefore an exception rather than the rule. Death sentences in India must be confirmed by a superior court. The accused had the right to appeal to the High Court or the Supreme Court and to file a mercy petition before the Governor of the State concerned or the President of India.

A Representative of the United States said his delegation would not support the resolution as drafted. International law did not prohibit the death penalty. Each nation should decide for itself through democratic processes whether its domestic law should permit capital punishment. In the United States, there was an ongoing public debate. But the people were of one mind in that when the death penalty was used, due process should be followed. The United States would vote against the draft resolution.

A Representative of Libya called for a roll-call vote on L.93 and indicated that her delegation would vote against the draft resolution. Libya had joined the United Nations because it originally upheld the principle of the sovereign right of States. This principle was being eroded under various pretexts such as humanitarian intervention and interference with the legal systems of States. This applied to the subject under discussion. The draft resolution disregarded the dignity of the victims who were killed or assassinated. The death penalty concerned the justice system and was not a question of human rights. Indeed, If one wanted to promote human rights, one had to consider the rights of victims. In Libya the death penalty was applied only to the most serious crimes. Libya would therefore vote against L.93.

A Representative of Algeria said the draft resolution created a problem. The text tried for universality, but that was not compatible with the sovereign rights of States to promote their own domestic legislation. What should be looked at were the deaths of children and adults by sanctions. These situations were a death penalty handed down by the international community. There were several different notions of the death penalty. A problem like this would never be solved by strong-armed tactics. The delegation understood what was happening. Algeria, which found itself in a special situation because it dealt with terrorism, decided to have a moratorium on the death penalty. That was the path that should be encouraged. Algeria did not want to enter into confrontation when everyone was concerned with preserving life.

A Representative of Thailand said that his country had conducted a public hearing on the question of the death penalty in 1999. The result of the public hearing showed that the majority of the Thai people were still convinced that it was necessary to retain the death penalty as a crime deterrent measure as well as to ensure protection of the rights of the victims and their families. As a democratic country, the Government must abide by the decision of the Thai people. In practice Thailand only applied the death penalty to the most serious crimes such as rape, murder, narcotics and treason. Persons under 18 were not subjected to the death penalty. The death penalty was prohibited for pregnant women until the child was delivered. As for the means of execution, Thailand had approved the use of lethal injection instead of execution by firing squad. Thailand had also placed considerable efforts and attention to preventive measures and rehabilitative schemes which it believed were much more effective and productive in dealing with this problem at its root causes.

A Representative of Saudi Arabia, speaking on behalf of several dozen countries, said that they dissociated themselves from the European Union’s draft resolution on the death penalty. Because of the time constraints, Saudi Arabia asked that the statement be circulated among delegates.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.95) on the promotion of the right of peoples to peace, adopted by a roll-call vote of 29 for, to 16 against and with 7 abstentions, the Commission solemnly declared that the preservation of the right of peoples to peace constituted a fundamental obligation of each State; emphasized that ensuring the exercise of that right demanded that the policies of States be directed towards the elimination of the threat of war, particularly nuclear war, the renunciation of the use of force in international relations and the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means; affirmed that all States should promote peace and security, and, to that end, should do their utmost to achieve general and complete disarmament under effective international control, as well as to ensure that the resources released by effective disarmament measures were used for comprehensive development, in particular that of the developing countries; urged all States to refrain from using weapons with indiscriminate effects on human health, the environment and economic and social well-being; expressed concern at the real danger of the weaponization of outer space, and the risk of the global arms race gaining new momentum; and urged all States to refrain from taking measures which encouraged the resurgence of a new arms race.

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

In favour (29): Algeria, Burundi, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Against (16): Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Spain, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (7): Argentina, Brazil, Cameroon, Colombia, Guatemala, India and Senegal.

A Representative of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union and the countries associated with it, said that while underlining the linkage between peace and human rights, the EU believed that some of the issues contained in the draft resolution should be dealt with in other fora. The draft resolution addressed the relationship between States and not States and citizens, which was the core mandate of the Commission. Furthermore, the EU was uncomfortable with the idea that there was a right to peace, which had not been established in any human rights instruments. Consequently, the EU could not support this draft resolution and would vote against it.

A Representative of Canada, in a joint statement with Norway, said the present draft resolution reiterated several provisions of the declaration of the right of peoples to peace, passed by the General Assembly several years ago. Neither Canada nor Norway had supported that declaration. There were concerns about the specific obligations of States. These questions and concerns were not addressed in this draft resolution. This was better dealt with in other fora, like the General Assembly. Canada and Norway would not support the draft resolution.

A Representative of the United States said his delegation was concerned that much of the draft resolution L.95 focused not on human rights but on disarmament and relations between States, both of which were dealt with in other UN bodies. The United States was of the view that the Commission should not be used to address subjects which were addressed in other bodies.

A Representative of India said the draft resolution L.95 contained a number of ideas, for example, the importance of respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a State. However, the delegation did not believe the Commission was the appropriate forum to examine issues such as disarmament. Therefore, the delegation would abstain.

A Representative of Costa Rica said that the draft resolution L.95 was a complement to other resolutions on human rights adopted by the Commission with a view to promoting a culture of peace. Costa Rica believed that the Commission was the appropriate forum to address disarmament. Costa Rica had no army and allocated resources which would have normally gone to the army to education and to the promotion of human rights.

In a consensus resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.103) on reservations to human rights treaties, the Commission, recalling the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights resolution 2000/26 of 18 August 2000, and bearing in mind its decision 2000/18 of 26 April 2000, decided to request the Subcommission to reconsider its request to appoint Francoise Hampson as a Special Rapporteur to carry out a comprehensive study on this issue in the light of the work under way by the International Law Commission.

In a consensus measure (decision 11) on observance of the human rights and fundamental freedoms contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by States which were not parties to the international covenants on human rights, the Commission decided to approve the request made by the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and to recommend a draft decision to the Economic and Social Council that the High Commissioner for Human Rights convene, with the participation of members of the Subcommission, a seminar of such States to discuss obstacles to the ratification of the international covenants and ways to surmount them.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.77/Rev.1) on impunity, adopted by a roll-call vote of 39 for, to none against and with 13 abstentions, the Commission emphasized the importance of combatting impunity to the prevention of violations of human rights and urged States to give necessary attention to the question, including for violations perpetrated against women and children, and to take appropriate measures to address this important issue; emphasized the importance of holding accountable perpetrators, including their accomplices; welcomed progress made in the fight against impunity, including the recognition of the principle of complementarity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; called upon all States to consider ratifying or acceding to the Statute; called upon the High Commissioner for Human Rights to consider providing States, upon their request, with concrete and practical assistance and cooperation in combatting impunity; and called upon States to continue to support the work of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and to consider ways to support the initiatives to establish special judicial mechanisms currently under consideration in a few countries in cooperation with the United Nations.

The Commission recognized that for victims, public knowledge of their suffering and the truth about the perpetrators, including their accomplices, were essential steps towards rehabilitation and reconciliation, and urged States to intensify their efforts to provide victims with a fair and equitable process through which these violations could be investigated and made public; welcomed in this regard the publication in some States of the reports of commissions of truth and reconciliation and encouraged other States where serious human rights violations had occurred in the past to establish appropriate mechanisms to expose such violations; and requested the Secretary-General to seek the views of Governments and relevant organizations on the issue of the possible appointment of an independent expert charged with examining all aspects of the issue of impunity.


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

In favour (39): Algeria, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Zambia.

Against (0): None

Abstentions (13): China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, United States and Viet Nam.

A Representative of China said that his country attached great importance to the issue of impunity and recognized the importance of international cooperation on this subject. Therefore, China had joined the consensus on the resolution last year. China was of the view that the issue of impunity should be addressed by domestic legislation. In this regard, China indicated that it had adopted effective measures to combat impunity. China had not been able to participate in consultations on the draft resolution. China had consequently submitted its proposals, which were rejected. Such an approach led to a spirit of confrontation and many resolutions which could have been adopted by consensus had to be subjected to a roll-call vote. China requested a roll-call vote on the draft resolution and indicated it would abstain.

A Representative of Cuba said the question of impunity had been given ample consideration in the last three years in the Commission. This issue was complex. Cuba was interested in having a resolution on this matter, but unfortunately, the delegation did not get access to the draft resolution. The first time the delegation saw it was the night before the day it was to be introduced. There were major problems in the text of the draft resolution that could have been worked out if more open negotiations were held. For example, it addressed impunity in specific cases -- the International Tribunals on Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The delegation was surprised by the selectiveness. There was no reference in the draft to the impunity that Israeli soldiers enjoyed in the occupied territories. Cuba would abstain in the vote, and hoped in the future there would be a more comprehensiveness approach with a more balanced treatment of countries.

A Representative of India said that his country recognized the importance of combatting impunity. However, it had a reservation concerning references made to the International Criminal Court despite the fact that the instrument had not come into force as yet. The Rome Statute would bring under the preview of the Court matters relating to national sovereignty and could be used for political purposes. For this and other reasons, India would abstain on the draft resolution.

A Representative of Algeria said it was a shame that this was the same thing that had happened with the resolution on torture. Consensus could have been reached, for example, if the Chinese delegation had been able to participate in consultations. There was concern that there was reference to the Rome Statute that had not yet entered into force. Having said that, Algeria would support the draft resolution.



A Representative of the United States said that his delegation regretted that it was obliged to abstain on the resolution as presented. The United States was committed to the fight against impunity at the national and international levels. However, it had serious reservations about mention of the International Criminal Court.

A Representative of Colombia said that because some decisions were presumptuously assumed, and some of the issues were taken up with considerable haste, consensus could not be reached, which would have been of greater help to the Commission. The greatest and most visible capital of the Commission was the resolutions adopted by consensus, and generally these guided societies in promoting and protecting human rights.

A Representative of Norway said that his delegation had voted in favour of the draft resolution. However, it had reservations on several paragraphs used in the text. Human rights obligations rested solely with Governments. When dealing with the question of combatting impunity, only States could be called upon to bring to justice those who had committed a criminal offence.

In a consensus resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.87) on human rights and bioethics, the Commission invited the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the World Health Organization, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and other UN bodies and specialized agencies concerned to report to the Secretary-General on the activities conducted in their respective areas to ensure that the principles set forth in the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights were taken into account; and invited the Secretary-General to draw up proposals concerning ways to ensure proper coordination of activities and thinking on bioethics throughout the United Nations system and to consider establishing a working group of independent experts which would reflect on possible follow-up to the Universal Declaration.

The Commission invited the High Commissioner for Human Rights to pay all due attention to this question within her area of competence; drew the attention of Governments to the importance of research on the human genome and its applications for the improvement of the health of individuals and mankind as a whole, to the need to safeguard the rights of the individual and his/her dignity, as well as identity and unity, and the need to protect the confidentiality of genetic data concerning a named person; invited Governments to consider establishing committees of ethics in this context; and again requested the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to consider what contribution it could make to the reflections of the International Bioethics Committee on the follow-up to the relevant Universal Declaration.

In a consensus resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.88) on the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights, the Commission, among other things, recognized that a transparent, responsible, accountable and participatory government, responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people, was the foundation on which good governance rested, and that such a foundation was a sine qua non for the promotion of human rights, including the right to development; emphasized, in this context, the need to promote partnership approaches to international development cooperation and to ensure that prescriptive approaches to good governance did not impede such cooperation; and welcomed the provision by States of practical examples of activities that had been effective in strengthening good governance practices for the promotion of human rights at the national level for inclusion in a compilation of ideas and practices that could be consulted by interested States, in response to an invitation of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

A Representative of India said that the draft resolution was based on some important principles with which India agreed. The strengthening of good governance at the national level was a continuous process for all Governments regardless of the level of development of the countries concerned. Good governance practices necessarily varied according to the particular circumstances and needs of various societies. The responsibility for determining and implementing such practices at the national level rested with the State concerned. All these essential elements were contained in this year's resolution. However, it needed to be noted that last year's resolution had clearly recognized that prescriptive approaches to good governance should not impede international development cooperation. In other words, it was acknowledged that good governance practices could not be imposed from outside. In India's view, operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution left some ambiguity in this regard.

A Representative of Algeria said his delegation had joined the consensus despite some hesitation. Algeria was concerned about the paragraph that spoke about good governance being paramount for a respect for human rights. It believed that it was too restrictive. It was one of the aspects, but socio-economic conditions were just as important.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2001/L.96) on human rights and international solidarity, adopted by a roll-call vote of 36 for, to 16 against and no abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed the interdependence between the concepts of democracy, development, and respect for human rights; welcomed the recognition set forth in the Declaration of the Millennium Summit of the fundamental value of solidarity to international relations, in stating that global challenges must be managed in a way that distributed costs and burdens fairly, and that those who suffered, or who benefitted least, deserved help from those who benefitted most; urged the international community to consider urgently ways and means to promote international assistance to developing countries; and decided to continue its examination of this issue at the fifty-eighth session under the same agenda item.

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

In favour (36): Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Against (16): Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Spain, Uruguay and United States.

Abstentions (0): None

A Representative of Japan said that his delegation fully understood the impact of economic issues on the enjoyment of human rights. However, some draft resolutions and in particular L.96, seemed to have gone beyond the mandate of the Commission. Japan was of the view that issues of economic development should be examined in other fora with the relevant expertise. Consequently, Japan was unable to support this draft resolution.


A Representative of Canada, in a joint statement with Norway, said there were concerns about the draft resolution, specifically the paragraphs concerning globalization. The quotations in these paragraphs were taken out of context or were unclear, such as the reference to "international solidarity." Canada and Norway would be voting against the draft resolution.

A Representative of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union and countries associated with it, said that draft resolution L.96 dealt only with the relationship between States and not the relationship between the State and its citizens, which was the core mandate of the Commission. The present draft resolution also failed to reflect the advances and efforts made by the international community in trying to tackle and address the obstacles to development. For this and other reasons, the European Union could not support this draft resolution.

A Representative of France said the delegation believed the draft resolution jeopardized the advances already made in the Working Group on the right to development. There was no enough time to discuss the amended resolution. France was committed to discussions and negotiations to make progress on the important question of the right to development. France would vote no on the draft resolution because it did not have a chance to discuss it.

A Representative of the United Kingdom said that her delegation had voted against L.96 since it quoted selectively and not always accurately from key documents relevant to the important field of international development cooperation. Furthermore, the resolution dealt with the relationship between States and not the relationship between States and their citizens, which was the proper business of the Commission.

In a measure (decision 14) on human rights and human responsibilities, adopted by a roll_call vote of 34 for, to 14 against and with 4 abstentions, the Commission recommended a draft decision for adoption by the Economic and Social Council to appoint Miguel Alfonso Martinez of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to undertake a study on the issue of human rights and human responsibilities.

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

In favour (34): Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Against (14): Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Spain, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (4): Costa Rica, Guatemala, Norway and Republic of Korea.

A Representative of Cuba said that the draft decision dealt with, first and foremost, the question between human rights and human responsibilities. Cuba called on all members of the Commission, particularly those developing countries which needed help in implementing mandates, to support the draft decision.


A Representative of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union and countries associated with it, said the EU did not subscribe to the idea that human rights could only be enjoyed or protected if the same individual fulfilled his obligations vis a vis the community and/or the State. Each individual's rights should be promoted and protected unconditionally. The very reference to duties and responsibilities might be used by Governments to impose limits or restrictions upon existing internationally recognized standards and had to be rejected. For this and other reasons, the EU would vote against the draft resolution.

A Representative of Cuba said the Subcommission established clear guidelines for the Experts’ objectives. The delegation was prepared to proceed to a roll-call vote, and it would vote in favour of the draft resolution.

A Representative of Algeria recalled that the Commission had already adopted a resolution on the work of the Subcommission, which gave the Subcommission latitude to undertake studies.

A Representative of Costa Rica, speaking in explanation of vote on decision 14 which was adopted this afternoon, said that the delegation had abstained in the vote, but not because of the issue at hand. The Independent Experts needed to base themselves on facts, not presuppositions.

A Representative of Portugal, speaking on decision 11 which was adopted this afternoon, said his delegation expected the Subcommission to consider holding as a priority the proposed seminar of States which were not parties to the international covenants on human rights on the observance of the human rights and fundamental freedoms contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

A Representative of the United Kingdom said that her delegation would like to associate itself with the statement of Portugal.

A Representative of Spain said his delegation also wished to associate itself with the statement made by Portugal. The delegation trusted that the Commission would organize a seminar on the issue that had just been discussed.

A Representative of Italy said his delegation associated itself with what was said by the Representative of Portugal, and supported the holding of the seminar.

A Representative of France said his delegation also associated itself with the comments of Portugal.


* *** *