Commission on Human Rights approves measures on promotion and protection of human rights, other issues

Commission on Human Rights
59th session
24 April 2003
Afternoon





Decides to Extend the Mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Human Rights Defenders


The Commission on Human Rights continued to take action this afternoon on resolutions and decisions, approving a series of measures tabled under its agenda items on the promotion and protection of human rights, indigenous issues and the report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
In a resolution on the promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of all human rights by all, adopted by a roll-call vote of 33 in favour and 16 against, with 4 abstentions, the Commission solemnly declared that the preservation of peace and its promotion constituted a fundamental obligation of each State and emphasized that the policies of States should be directed towards the elimination of the threat of war, particularly nuclear war, the renunciation of the use or threat of use of force in international relations and the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations. The United States, Ireland on behalf of the European Union, and Algeria addressed the Commission on this resolution.
In a resolution on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 in favour, 15 against, with 7 abstentions, the Commission called upon Member States to maximize the benefits of globalization through, inter alia, the strengthening and enhancement of international cooperation to increase equality of opportunity for trade, economic growth and sustainable development; affirmed that such an order required, inter alia, the right of all peoples to self-determination; to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources; the right of all to development; the right of all to peace; and the right to an international economic order based on equal participation in the decision-making process, interdependence, mutual interest, solidarity, and cooperation among all States and on transparent, democratic, just and accountable international institutions.
Representatives of Ireland, the United States and Algeria took the floor on this resolution.
Concerning human rights defenders, the Commission condemned all human rights violations committed against human rights defenders; called upon all States to ensure the protection of such persons; emphasized the importance of combating impunity in cases of violations of the rights of human rights defenders; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders for a further three years.
On the question of the death penalty, the Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 24 in favour, 18 against, with 10 abstentions, a resolution in which it called upon States to progressively restrict the number of offenses for which the death penalty could be imposed, to abolish the death penalty completely and, in the meantime, to establish a moratorium on executions. Before the vote on the resolution on the death penalty, and following a proposal by the delegation of India to delete operative paragraphs 4(j), 5(b) and 7, the Commission decided to retain them by a recorded vote of 24 in favour and 20 against, with 8 abstentions.
Representatives of India, Algeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Kenya, Kenya, Thailand and Libya made statements on this resolution.
Also adopted under the agenda item on the promotion and protection of human rights were consensus resolutions on the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights; enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights; development of public information activities in the field of human rights, including the World Public Information Campaign on Human Rights; and on the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
A decision on "human rights and human responsibilities" was rejected.
Following extensive debate on a draft resolution on human rights and sexual orientation, further consideration was postponed until Friday, 25 April. Before the decision to postpone it, a motion of no-action, proposed by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, was rejected by a recorded vote of 22 in favour and 24 against, with 6 abstentions.
In action under its agenda item on indigenous issues, the Commission approved a measure on the presentation of the reports of the Working Group on indigenous populations on its twentieth and twenty-first sessions to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues; and under its agenda item on the report of its principal subsidiary body, the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, it adopted a resolution on the parameters and principles of the Sub-Commission's work.
The Commission will meet at 10 a.m. on Friday, 25 April to finish taking action on draft resolutions and to conclude its fifty-ninth session.

Action on Measure on Indigenous Issues
In an amended measure by the United Kingdom on the presentation of the reports of the Working Group on indigenous populations on its twentieth and twenty-first sessions to the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Commission endorsed, without a vote, the view of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights that the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group be invited to attend the second session of the Forum to present the reports.
A Representative of the United Kingdom proposed an amendment to prevent the Commission from assuming the outcome of the decision of the Economic and Social Council on the Working Group on indigenous populations.
A Representative of the United States said that her delegation strongly supported the amendment proposed by the United Kingdom.

Action on Resolution on Report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
In a resolution on the work of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (E/CN.4/2003/L.66), adopted by consensus, the Commission decided that the Sub-Commission could best assist the Commission by providing it, among other things, with independent expert studies and working papers solely carried out by its members or alternates, nevertheless, the expertise of former members of the Sub-Commission could continue to be used to carry out some activities requested by the Sub-Commission and confirmed by the Commission; requested the Bureau of the Commission to study further the proposals made by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on issues raised by the Sub-Commission; recommended that the Sub-Commission further improve its methods of work by focusing on its primary role as an advisory body to the Commission; respecting strictly the highest standards of impartiality and expertise and avoiding acts which would affect confidence in the independence of its members, in particular in situations where they could have a conflict of interest; taking further steps to accomplish its work in a three-week session; focusing strictly on questions relating to human rights in accordance with its mandate; avoiding duplication of work; and requested States when nominating and electing members to ensure that the body was independent and seen to be so; and to select members with acknowledged expertise in human rights.
A Representative of Cuba said it was necessary to have the draft agreed upon by consensus. Since the delegation of Luxembourg had been so understanding with regards to aspects of the amendments proposed by Cuba, Cuba would not insist on its other amendments.
A Representative of Algeria said that Algeria had decided to withdraw its amendment, particularly in light of the Commission's decision to allow Mrs. Daes to complete her work.
A Representative of the United States said his delegation would join the consensus in adopting L.66; however, he regretted that it did not retain some of the points raised during the negotiations, such as refraining from appointing someone holding governmental responsibilities, which would have been incorporated in the text.

Action on Resolutions on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.39) on the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Commission reaffirmed that it was one of the purposes of the United Nations and the responsibility of all Member States to promote, protect and encourage respect for human rights through, inter alia, international cooperation; considered that such cooperation should make an effective and practical contribution to the urgent task of preventing violations of human rights; reaffirmed that the promotion of human rights should be guided by the principles of universality, non-selectivity, objectivity and transparency; and urged all actors to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equality, human dignity, mutual understanding, and promotion of and respect for cultural diversity and universal human rights.
In a resolution on the promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of all human rights by all (E/CN.4/2003/L.76), adopted by a roll-call vote of 33 in favour and 16 against, with 4 abstentions, the Commission solemnly declared that the preservation of peace and its promotion constituted a fundamental obligation of each State; emphasized that the policies of States should be directed towards the elimination of the threat of war, particularly nuclear war, the renunciation of the use or threat of use of force in international relations and the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations, and urged all States to respect and put into practice the principles and purposes of the Charter in their relations with all other States, irrespective of their political, economic or social systems, as well as of their size, geographical location or level of economic development.
The results were as follows:
In favour (33): Algeria, Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guatemala, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.
Against (16): Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Paraguay, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.
Abstentions (4): Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, and India.
A Representative of the United States said a resolution on this topic did not belong in the Commission on Human Rights. For that reason, the United States called for a recorded vote and would vote "no".
A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union's Member States of the Commission, said that while underlining the linkage between peace and enjoyment of human rights, the Union believed that some issues raised in the present resolution were better dealt with in other fora, which had the competence to do so. The Union could not support the resolution and would vote against it.
A Representative of Algeria said the adoption of this resolution would be an important event since chapter 10 of the Charter talked about strengthening peace. Strengthening peace was the same as strengthening human rights.
In a resolution on the development of public information activities in the field of human rights, including the World Public Information Campaign on Human Rights (E/CN.4/2003/L.80), adopted without a vote, the Commission encouraged the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue the development of human rights education and training materials; encouraged the Office to establish guidelines on gender inclusivity in all the official languages of the United Nations, for use in the preparation of all its communications, reports and publications; urged the Department of Public Information to continue to use fully and effectively the United Nations information centres for the purpose of disseminating basic information and reference materials on human rights; urged it to produce information material, in particular audio-visual material, on all aspects of human rights, in connection with the World Public Information Campaign on Human Rights and the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education; stressed the importance of an effective and comprehensive international strategy to increase public awareness of human rights through the media; called upon Governments to accord priority to the dissemination in their relevant languages of information on international human rights instruments; and urged Member States to develop comprehensive and effective national plans of action for human rights education and public information.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.84) on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 in favour, 15 against, with 7 abstentions, the Commission called upon Member States to maximize the benefits of globalization through, inter alia, the strengthening and enhancement of international cooperation to increase equality of opportunity for trade, economic growth and sustainable development, global communication and increased intercultural exchange through the preservation and promotion of cultural diversity; affirmed that such an order required, inter alia, the right of all peoples to self-determination; to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources; the right of all to development; the right of all to peace; the right to an international economic order based on equal participation in the decision-making process, interdependence, mutual interest, solidarity, and cooperation among all States; transparent, democratic, just and accountable international institutions; a free, just, effective and balanced international information and communication order; respect for cultural diversity and the cultural rights of all; a healthy environment; and equitable access to benefits from the international distribution of wealth through enhanced international cooperation, in particular in economic, commercial and financial relations; and expressed its rejection of unilateralism and stressed its commitment to multilateralism.
The results were as follows:
In favour (31): Algeria, Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.
Against (15): Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.
Abstentions (7): Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay.
A Representative of the Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union believed that some issues in the draft of L.84 were very important. However, several references in the draft went far beyond the mandate and competence of the Commission. The draft dealt with the relationship between States and not the relationship between States and citizens, which was the core of the work of the Commission. The European Union would therefore vote against the draft.
A Representative of the United States said that vague concepts such as "international order" had been inappropriately linked to specific international instruments such as the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While the co-sponsors of the resolution might wish to divert the Commission from its proper mandate to examine the performance of Governments in the field of human rights and to further extend the enjoyment of fundamental human rights and freedoms to all people, their effort should be rejected. The United States delegation would vote against draft resolution L.84.
A Representative of Algeria said Algeria was troubled to hear a call for a vote on principles consecrated by the UN Charter over the last 50 years. More troubling was the fact that a call for the democratization of the international system was being put into question. For these reasons, Algeria called upon Commission members to vote in favour of the resolution.
In a measure (E/CN.4/2003/L.86) on human rights and responsibilities, in a recorded vote of 25 in favour and 25 against, with 3 abstentions, the Commission rejected a decision to recommend to the Economic and Social Council that it authorize Miguel Alfonso Martinez, Special Rapporteur on the topic, to send again to Member States and relevant organizations the questionnaire contained in the annex to his preliminary report.
The results were as follows:
In favour (25): Algeria, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.
Against (25): Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, and Uruguay.
Abstentions (3): Armenia, Gabon, and Venezuela.
A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that while the European Union acknowledged the importance of moral, ethical and even philosophical issues which underpinned the debate on the relationship between the individual, his or her community and the State, the EU did not subscribe to the idea that human rights could only be enjoyed or protected if the same individual fulfilled his or her obligations vis-à-vis the community and/or the State. Each individual's human rights must be promoted and protected unconditionally. Furthermore, the European Union did not consider that the elaboration of a pre-draft declaration on Human Social Responsibilities was included in the mandate given to the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission. For these reasons, the European Union would call for a vote and vote against the draft.
A Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said the Special Rapporteur on human rights and human responsibilities was entrusted with a very important task and was known for his expertise. For this reason, Syria supported the resolution and would vote in favour.
In a resolution on human rights defenders (E/CN.4/2003/L.87), adopted without a vote, the Commission called upon all States to promote and give full effect to the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; condemned all human rights violations committed against human rights defenders; called upon all States to ensure the protection of such persons; emphasized the importance of combating impunity in cases of violations of the rights of human rights defenders; urged all Governments to cooperate with and assist the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders; urged Governments to respond without delay to the communications transmitted by the Special Representative; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Representative for a further three years.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.90) on the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Commission recognized that transparent, accountable and participatory government, responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people, was the foundation on which good governance rested; welcomed the intent of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene a seminar as soon as possible on the issue of practical approaches and activities that had been effective in strengthening good governance practices for the promotion of human rights at the national level; requested the High Commissioner to invite States and relevant institutions to the seminar; and requested him to compile indicative ideas and practices arising from the seminar and the material provided by participants that could be consulted by interested States when required.
In a resolution on the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (E/CN.4/2003/L.91), adopted without a vote, the Commission reaffirmed the significance of the Convention; invited States to ratify the Convention; and called upon all Member States to continue to give serious consideration to the matter of the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide.
Following extensive debate on a draft resolution on human rights and sexual orientation (E/CN.4/2003/L.92), further consideration was postponed until Friday, 25 April. Before the decision to postpone L.92, a motion of no-action, proposed by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, was rejected by a recorded vote of 22 in favour and 24 against, with 6 abstentions.
The results were as follows:
In favour (22): Algeria, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, India, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
Against (24): Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Abstentions (6): Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Russian Federation, South Africa, and Thailand.
A Representative of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, said this draft created new rights that were in discord with several religious and cultural values of several States. It was not a proper subject that belonged within the framework of the Commission. It would create discord, at best, and huge divisions within the Commission at worst. The Organization of the Islamic Conference therefore proposed a motion of no-action on draft resolution L.92.
A Representative of Brazil said Brazil deeply regretted the request by Pakistan for a no-action motion on L.92. Brazil requested that the no-action motion be put to a registered vote and urged all members to vote "no".
A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said it was the Union's principle to vote against no-action motions, which were clearly aimed at preventing the Commission from dealing with specific human rights situations. A motion not to take action on an initiative would undermine the principles of transparency and non-selectivity which were essential for the work of the Commission. The very notion of no-action was in itself contrary to the spirit of dialogue to which everyone was attached. The EU urged members to vote against the no-action motion.
A Representative of Canada said that Canada, on a point of principle, opposed motions of no action on specific human rights issues. The draft raised important human rights issues in a constructive manner. Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation remained a serious problem throughout the world. In fact, before 1969 in Canada, same-sex practices between consenting adults were considered a crime punishable by imprisonment. That year, the Canadian President had rightly said that "the State has no business in the bedroom of the nation". Since then, Canada had taken many steps to remove discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This resolution set out important goals and principles for all States to follow.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.93) on the question of the death penalty, adopted by a vote of 24 in favour, 18 against, with 10 abstentions, the Commission called upon States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to consider ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant, aimed at the abolition of the death penalty; urged all States that still maintained the death penalty not to impose it for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age, and to exclude pregnant women from capital punishment; not to impose it for any but the most serious crimes; to ensure that all legal proceedings conformed to the minimum procedural guarantees contained in article 14 of the Covenant; 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 acts such as financial crimes, non-violent religious practice or expression of conscience and sexual relations between consenting adults; not to enter any new reservations under article 6 of the Covenant; to observe the safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty; not to impose the death penalty on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder; to exclude mothers with dependent infants; to ensure that when capital punishment occurred, it was carried out so as to inflict the minimum possible suffering, and not in public; not to execute any person as long as any related legal procedure, at the international or national level, was pending; progressively to restrict the number of offenses for which the death penalty could be imposed; and to abolish the death penalty completely and, in the meantime, to establish a moratorium on executions.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (24): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Against (18): Bahrain, China, Japan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, United States, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (10): Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Senegal, and Sri Lanka.
Before the vote on draft resolution L.93 and following a proposal by the delegation of India to delete operative paragraphs 4(j), 5(b) and 7, the Commission decided to retain them by a recorded vote of 24 in favour and 20 against with 8 abstentions.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (24): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Against (20): Bahrain, China, Cuba, India, Japan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, United States, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (8): Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guatemala, Kenya, Senegal, and Sri Lanka.
A Representative of India said that the international community had not reached a consensus on capital punishment. Promoting the abolitionist cause could be achieved only progressively, however. India agreed that capital punishment should be resorted to only in the case of the most heinous crimes. In India, the death penalty was an exception. Furthermore, juvenile offenders could not be sentenced to death under any circumstances and the application of the death penalty was suspended in the case of pregnant women. India called for a separate vote on paragraphs 4(J), 5(b) and 7 of draft resolution L.93.
A Representative of Algeria said that his country understood well the spirit of the text, and had been implementing the content of the resolution for the last ten years by observing a moratorium on the practice of capital punishment. A clear debate should be carried out on the issue of the death penalty. In the meantime, Algeria would continue to abide by the principles enumerated in the draft resolution and would observe the moratorium on the application of the death penalty.
A Representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said his country was a party to almost all international and regional human rights instruments. Concerning the supreme punishment – the death penalty – the Democratic Republic of the Congo recognized it in the legal code, but it was reserved only for those who had perpetrated extremely serious crimes and it was never administered to minors. In its attempts to create a real democracy, information, development and peace were needed. Since this was a long-term goal, with several obstacles, the fact was that the Democratic Republic of the Congo lacked resources. His country would like to abolish the death penalty and had imposed a moratorium on this form of punishment for the last two years. However, the resolution made imposing demands and required conditions that his country was not in a position to fulfill. His country would therefore abstain in a vote on the resolution.
A Representative of Saudi Arabia, speaking on behalf 46 Observers and other States, said that they dissociated themselves from the draft resolution on the question of the abolition of the death penalty submitted by the European Union. A joint statement was available explaining the reasons why. In the interest of time, the Representative requested that the Chairperson circulate the joint statement as an official document.
A Representative of the United States said that his delegation could not support the resolution as drafted. International law did not prohibit the death penalty when due process safeguards were respected and when capital punishment was applied only to the most serious crimes. Each State could decide for itself the punishment it might find appropriate within its domestic law. The delegation of the United States would vote against the draft resolution.
A Representative of Kenya said that there was no international consensus on the abolition of the death penalty. Equally, there seemed to be no national consensus on the issue either. In Kenya, capital punishment could be administered to perpetrators of burglary with violence and murders. However, it was pointed out that this form of punishment had not been administered for over a decade. The abolishment of the death penalty was still surrounded by controversy and would perhaps only be gradually implemented, and for this reason the delegation of Kenya would abstain in a vote on the draft.
A Representative of Thailand said that since there had never been international consensus that the death penalty should be abolished, the Government of Thailand was of the opinion that the death penalty by itself did not constitute a violation of human rights. The question rather was to ensure that the necessary safeguards be put in place so that the death penalty should comply with international norms.
A Representative of Libya said that his delegation could not support the resolution. In his country, the death penalty was in the statute book but was not applied. The application of the death penalty was restricted by higher judicial instances of the country whenever the issue was dealt with.



* *** *