COMMISSION REQUESTS SECRETARY-GENERAL TO APPOINT SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE ON TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS

Commission on Human Rights
AFTERNOON
20 April 2005


Adopts Resolutions on Technical Assistance to Burundi, Sierra Leone,
Cambodia and Nepal; Extends Mandate of Special Rapporteur on Racism


The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon continued to take action on resolutions and a decision under its agenda items concerning racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination; the promotion and protection of human rights; effective functioning of human rights mechanisms; and advisory services and technical cooperation in the field of human rights.

Under its agenda item on the promotion and protection of human rights, the Commission, among other texts, adopted a resolution on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises in which it requested the Secretary-General to appoint a Special Representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises.

On advisory services and technical cooperation in the field of human rights, the Commission adopted resolutions on Burundi, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Nepal. Concerning Burundi, the Commission strongly condemned all acts of violence and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and called upon the Transitional Government to put an end to impunity within the context of the rule of law. With regards to Sierra Leone, the Commission urged the Government to continue to promote and protect human rights in Sierra Leone, among other things, through the early constitution and effective functioning of the National Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone. On the situation in Cambodia, the Commission urged the Government of Cambodia to continue to strengthen its efforts to establish the rule of law, and to continue to strengthen its efforts at judicial reform. And with regards to Nepal, the Commission called upon the Government of Nepal to reinstate immediately all civil and political rights, to cease all state of emergency-related and other arbitrary arrests, to lift the far-reaching censorship, and to restore freedom of opinion, expression and the press as well as the freedom of association.

The Commission also adopted a resolution on the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, in which it, among other measures, decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance for a period of three years.

On specific groups and individuals, the Commission adopted a resolution on the human rights of persons with disabilities in which it urged Governments to take active measures to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by persons with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and to prevent and prohibit all forms of discrimination against persons with disabilities

With regards to the promotion and protection of human rights, the Commission adopted a resolution on the right to truth in which it requested the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare a study on the right to the truth, including information on the basis, scope and content of the right under international law. In a resolution on human rights defenders, the Commission condemned all human rights violations committed against persons engaged in promoting and defending human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world and urged States to take all appropriate action to eliminate such human rights violations. On the role of good governance in the promotion and protection of human rights, the Commission urged States to respect and protect the independence of judges and lawyers in order to achieve the full realization of human rights. With regards to human rights and transitional justice, the Commission called upon the international community and regional organizations to assist countries in the context of transitional justice to ensure the promotion and protection of international human rights. The Commission also adopted a decision relating to a study on legal implications of the disappearance of States and other territories for environmental reasons.

Under its agenda item on the effective functioning of human rights mechanisms, the Commission adopted resolutions on regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asian Pacific region; on the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights; on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights; and on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights.

In response to comments made on the composition of the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, High Commissioner Louise Arbour said that it was her firm belief that a human rights office ought to have a representation from all voices, as well as a gender balance, and she would work to ensure that this was the case.

When the Commission reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 21 April, it will continue to take action on remaining resolutions and decisions before it concludes its annual session on Friday, 22 April.

Action on Resolution on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and All Forms of Discrimination

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.13/Rev.1) on the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by a roll-call vote of 38 in favour to one opposed, with 14 abstentions, the Commission urged States to mainstream a gender perspective in the design and development of prevention, education, promotion and protection measures aimed at the eradication of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance at all levels, to ensure that they effectively targeted the distinct situations of women and men; expressed deep concern at recent attempts to establish hierarchies among emerging and resurgent forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and urged States to adopt measures for addressing these scourges with the same emphasis and vigour, with a view to preventing this practice and protecting victims.

The Commission requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in consultation with Member States, to convene high-level seminars during the first five days of the fourth session of the Intergovernmental Working Group and to convene the fourth session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action on suitable dates prior to the sixty-second session. The Commission also condemned all acts of racism in sporting events, whether manifested through violence, words or gestures, and whether committed by the public, management or players, and urged all States and national, regional and international sporting associations and federations to adopt firm measures for the prevention of such acts, and to impose severe penalties on the perpetrators of acts of racism. Finally, the Commission decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance for a period of three years.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (38): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe.

Against (1): United States

Abstentions (14): Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

Before the Commission voted on the draft resolution, it moved to act on the motion for no-action on the European Union’s two proposals to amend the draft resolution. It approved the decision to take no action on the European Union’s proposals to amend the text by a recorded vote of 27 in favour to 23 against, with three abstentions.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (27): Bhutan, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe.

Against (23): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (3): Brazil, Ecuador and Mexico.


IAN DE JONG (Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union) in a general comment, said the European Union had repeatedly stressed that international follow-up to Durban should be done by consensus, and had in this spirit made a number of proposals for amendment, the overwhelming majority of which had not been integrated into the text. It therefore suggested amendments to paragraph 16ii, to paragraph 29, and to paragraph 30. These proposals aimed at aligning the text with others that had been adopted by consensus in other fora. Should additional follow-up be needed, the Durban Conference should be part of the United Nations integrated follow-up on conferences. If a vote was called on the proposed amendments, they should be considered separately.

FISSEHA YIMER (Ethiopia, in a general comment on behalf of the African Group), said the African Group remained deeply concerned that some members of the European Union had used the sessions of the Working Group as a forum for renegotiating the outcome of the Durban Conference. This negative trend, which had appeared over the past three sessions, was worrisome. The proposed amendments were a clear representation of this negative trend, and they had no relation to the subject matter at hand, which was follow-up to the Durban Conference and Programme of Action. The European Union’s proposed amendments failed to make an obvious reference to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and other intolerance. By that conspicuous omission, the European Union had failed to recognize the Durban outcomes as the framework for action to eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and other intolerance. This was an intentional attempt to undermine the letter and spirit of the Durban commitments. Should the European Union not withdraw its amendments, which were clearly inimical to the Durban Conference, the African Group would ask for a movement for no-action to be taken on the European Union amendments.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), in a general comment, said the draft resolution was quite revolutionary and Cuba would add its name to the list of the co-sponsors. Cuba could not accept the amendments presented by the European Union. It was essential to stress what the Ethiopian delegation said concerning the revision of the Durban Declaration through the debates going on in the sessions of the Working Group. The aim of the resolution was to prevent racism occurring in the western countries.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands, in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union), said regarding the question of no-action motions, the European Union was against these in principle, as they aimed at preventing the Commission from dealing with specific issues. All were called upon to vote against the no-action motion, as the substance should be voted on. Regarding the points at issue, the first amendment used the same language used in the conclusions of the Working Group that were adopted by consensus. Therefore it was not understood why the African Group had a problem with that language, and there was dismay from the European Union. Secondly, the European Union did not understand what the problem was with the second amendment, or why both amendments had to be eliminated, as they dealt with different issues. The vote should be on the substance, and all should vote against the no-action motion.

CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Zimbabwe wished to second the motion for no-action raised by Ethiopia. Motions for no-action were covered under the rules of procedure. Zimbabwe was opposed to the amendments proposed by the European Union, which would dilute the spirit of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

LUIS JAVIER CAMPUZANO (Mexico, in a general comment on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries - GRULAC), said GRULAC had been endeavouring with the African Group to find a compromise on the draft. The effort made by the African Group and GRULAC with the European Union had not borne fruit. Mexico and GRULAC would abstain on the vote concerning the no-action motion.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), in an explanation of the vote, said the Commission had to work on the basis of rule 62 when considering the substance of a text. The delegation of Mexico and any other delegation from the region had a point. Cuba was a Latin American country, but it welcomed hearing proposals from the African Group. Cuba would under no circumstances vote for the European Union proposal, and would vote in favour of the no-action proposal submitted by the African Group, and wished to make it utterly clear that it was doing so as a Latin American country.

DORU COSTEA (Romania), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the delegation of Romania would vote against the no-action motion on principle. Romania also felt the amendments were worth examining separately.

The representative of Japan, speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the delegation of Japan regretted that efforts to reach consensus had not borne fruit. As for the proposal of no-action, Japan would vote against the motion as a matter of principle.

LUCY TAMLYN (United State), in an explanation of the vote before a vote, called for a roll-call vote.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union had repeatedly stressed that international follow-up to Durban should be agreed by consensus. It was in that spirit that the European Union had engaged in negotiations on the resolution this year, just as the Union had done in previous years both in Geneva and New York. The European Union reiterated its firm will to cooperate with all delegations combating racism and racial discrimination. The Union had made every attempt to preserve a consensual approach to the resolution currently for consideration. During the consultations on the draft, the Union had proposed a number of amendments, and some of the proposals of the Union had been taken. However, many of them were not taken into consideration. The obstacles to overcoming racial discrimination and achieving equality mainly lay in the lack of political will, weak legislation and lack of implementation strategies and concrete action by States. The European Union would abstain on the vote on that draft resolution.

Action on Resolution on Specific Groups and Individuals

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.65) on the human rights of persons with disabilities, adopted as amended and without a vote, the Commission urged Governments to take active measures to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by persons with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms; prevent and prohibit all forms of discrimination against persons with disabilities; ensure equal opportunities for full participation of persons with disabilities in all spheres of life; and integrate a gender perspective in all efforts to promote and protect the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights by persons with disabilities. The Commission also requested the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare an expert paper, focusing on the lessons learned from existing monitoring mechanisms, on possible relevant improvements, and possible innovations in monitoring mechanisms for a comprehensive and integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities, and to make the paper available to the Ad Hoc Committee at its seventh session.

The Commission urged Governments to address fully, in consultation with, among others, national human rights institutions and organizations of persons with disabilities, the question of the human rights of persons with disabilities in complying with their reporting obligations under the relevant United Nations human rights instruments and welcomed the efforts of those Governments that have begun to do so; and called upon all United Nations organizations and specialized agencies and intergovernmental institutions for development cooperation to integrate a disability and human rights perspective into their activities and to reflect this in their activity reports.

SHA ZUKANG (China), in a general comment, said the co-sponsors were to be thanked. China had worked on the protection of disabled persons. The supervision mechanism of the Convention on Disabled Persons should be established by Member States of the United Nations. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights could play a positive role in this process and should review the existing problems in the mechanism and submit a reliable and balanced document. The amended text was balanced, and the Chinese delegation would withdraw its amendment in a spirit of consensus.

Action on Resolutions on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.84) on the right to truth, adopted without a vote, the Commission welcomed the establishment in several States of specific judicial mechanisms, as well as other non-judicial mechanisms such as truth and reconciliation commissions that complemented the justice system, to investigate violations of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, and appreciated the elaboration and publication of the reports and decisions of these bodies; and encouraged the States concerned to disseminate, implement, and monitor implementation of the recommendations of non-judicial mechanisms such as truth and reconciliation commissions, and to provide information regarding compliance with the decisions of judicial mechanisms. The Commission also requested the Office of the High Commissioner to prepare a study on the right to the truth, including information on the basis, scope and content of the right under international law, as well as best practices and recommendations for effective implementation of this right, in particular, legislative, administrative or any other measures that may be adopted in this respect, taking into account the views of States and relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, for consideration at its sixty-second session.

PAULA BARTON (United States), in a general comment, said the United States was pleased to join the consensus on the draft resolution on the right to truth, which in other legal systems could variously be known as the right to be informed, freedom of information, and the right to know. The United States thanked Argentina for putting this matter before the Commission, and for all its work on the issue. The United States position on this issue had not changed since the 2003 International Committee of the Red Cross Conference on the missing. The United States would continue to advance the cause of families of the missing, but did not acknowledge any new international right in that regard. The right to know had been referred to in the first additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions. The United States, which was not a party to that protocol, respected the spirit of this protocol, but had no obligation under it.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.85) on human rights defenders, adopted without a vote, the Commission condemned all human rights violations committed against persons engaged in promoting and defending human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world and urged States to take all appropriate action, consistent with the Declaration and all other relevant human rights instruments, to eliminate such human rights violations; called upon all States to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of human rights defenders, and to ensure and maintain an environment conducive to the work of human rights defenders; and called upon all States to ensure, protect and respect the freedom of expression and association of human rights defenders. Moreover, the Commission urged States to ensure that any measures to combat terrorism and preserve national security complied with their obligations under international law, in particular, under international human rights law, and did not hinder the work and safety of human rights defenders; urged States to ensure that complaints from human rights defenders about threats or violations against them and their relatives were investigated promptly and addressed in a transparent, independent and accountable manner; and urged all States to cooperate with and assist the Special Representative in the performance of her tasks and to furnish all information for the fulfilment of her mandate upon request.

An amendment to the draft resolution on human rights defenders (contained in document E/CN.4/2005/L.99) was rejected by a recorded vote of 20 in favour to 27 against, with six abstentions.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (20): Bhutan, China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Against (27): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (6): Burkina Faso, Gabon, Guinea, Nigeria, Swaziland and Togo.


IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), in a general comment on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union strongly opposed the amendment because it would undermine the resolution and the work of the Secretary-General on this issue. The Commission, by adopting this resolution, would send a signal of its concern about human defenders and their protection. The European Union would call for a vote and would vote against the amendment.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said some 20 delegations supported the amendment, clearly indicating some concern and lack of balance in the draft. Cuba was asking for a vote on the amendment with a deep sense of regret; if possible it would have refrained from doing so out of respect for the work of the Independent Expert. As the amendment was rejected, Cuba disassociated itself from the consensus, and would abstain from calling for a vote on the resolution.

SUNU MAHDI SOEMARNO (Indonesia), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the protection and promotion of human rights defenders was of significant importance to the delegation of Indonesia. The Government of Indonesia was proud of its flourishing civil society, which worked in human rights protection. Indonesia supported the work of human rights defenders and their role in promoting democratic values in society. Human rights defenders must be able to exercise their activities freely, and without restrictions. Human rights defenders promoted dialogue with Governments to promote human rights. Given that States were the only duty bearers for protection of human rights defenders, they must give protection to human rights defenders in all instances, without exception. On this understanding, Indonesia could support the draft resolution.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.86) on the role of good governance in the promotion and protection of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Commission urged States to provide transparent, responsible, accountable and participatory government, responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people, including members of vulnerable and marginalized groups, and to respect and protect the independence of judges and lawyers in order to achieve the full realization of human rights; and welcomed the report on the seminar, jointly organized by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Development Programme, on good governance practices for the promotion of human rights which took place in Seoul on 15 and 16 September 2004. Moreover, the Commission requested the Office of the High Commissioner to convene a seminar in 2006, from extra-budgetary resources, on the role of anti-corruption measures at the national and international levels in good governance practices for the promotion and protection of human rights.

The Commission rejected an amendment proposed by Cuba in a roll-call vote of seven in favour, to 35 against, with 11 abstentions.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (7): China, Congo, Cuba, Guinea, Pakistan, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe.

Against (35): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (11): Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Sudan.


JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), in a general comment, requested the deletion of "Community of Democracies" in the preambular paragraph of the text. The delegation of Cuba would vote in favour of the amendment proposed.

AMANDA GORELY (Australia), in a general comment, said the reference to the Community of Democracies should be retained. Australia believed that in this context, it should be acceptable to all delegations. Australia therefore called for a vote on the proposed amendment.

IN-KOOK PARK (Republic of Korea), in a general comment, said it was regrettable that a request for a vote had been called. The term "Community of Democracies" commanded regional support. The paragraph under discussion contained well-recognized terminology and expressions supported by the international community. The paragraph only recognized the leading role played by the United Nations in promoting and developing human rights, and recognised the role of other bodies.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the delegation of Cuba would not call for a vote, and would allow the draft resolution to be adopted by consensus. However, Cuba would not commit to passing any reference to the "Community of Democracies". Time would show that it was farcical, that it was neither a community, nor a democracy.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.87) on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, adopted by a roll-call vote of 49 in favour to three against, with one abstention, the Commission requested the Secretary-General to appoint a Special Representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, for an initial period of two years, who should submit an interim report to the Commission on Human Rights at its sixty-second session and a final report at its sixty-third session, with views and recommendations for the consideration of the Commission, with the following mandate: to identify and clarify standards of corporate responsibility and accountability for transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights; to elaborate on the role of States in effectively regulating and adjudicating the role of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights, including through international cooperation; to research and clarify the implications for transnational corporations and other business enterprises of concepts such as “complicity” and “sphere of influence”; to develop materials and methodologies for undertaking human rights impact assessments of the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises; and to compile a compendium of best practices of States and transnational corporations and other business enterprises.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (49): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Zimbabwe.

Against (3): Australia, South Africa and United States.

Abstention (1): Burkina Faso


LEONARD LEO (United States), in a general comment, said the United States had the strongest environmental regulations. Throughout the world, international corporations provided protection of human rights and they were providing education and health facilities. The private sector was active in all aspects with regard to the protection and promotion of human rights. The draft resolution seemed to reflect an anti-business tendency. Human rights obligations were incumbent upon States and not on non-State actors. The resolution was damaging to the development to the private sector. For those reasons, the United States would request a vote and would vote “no” on the draft.

MOHAMED SALECK OULD MOHAMED LEMINE (Mauritania), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Mauritania would be voting in favour of the resolution, even though it did not mention the important work done by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

BRIDGITTE MABANDLA (South Africa), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said South Africa had informed the sponsors that if there was no full agreement, it would like to suggest an amendment, but as this was not the appropriate time to suggest that amendment, South Africa would vote against any changes made to this resolution.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.91) on human rights and transitional justice, adopted without a vote, the Commission called upon States to assist the United Nations in its ongoing work on the relevant recommendations of the report of the Secretary-General on the rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies (S/2004/616); and called upon the international community and regional organizations to assist countries in the context of transitional justice to ensure the promotion and protection of international human rights. The Commission also requested the Office of the High Commissioner to enhance its leading role in assisting States to develop and implement transitional justice mechanisms from a human rights perspective, while stressing the importance of close cooperation between the Office of the High Commissioner and other relevant parts of the United Nations as well as other international and non-governmental organizations with regard to the ongoing process of strengthening the United Nations system in the area of the rule of law and transitional justice.

ADAM T. MULAWARMAN (Indonesia), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that justice and the rule of law were vital elements to the functioning of States, and to creating stability. In light of the situation in conflict and post-conflict countries, administration of justice must begin with the recognition that there could be differences between national contexts. Each should be placed in its own context, and should include the full range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. The international community must be careful to avoid importing foreign models that would not be of any help in these situations. Any initiatives taken by United Nations should strengthen, not undermine, national legal processes. This was important to ensure that administration of justice got full support from every element of society, which was the only way to realize a holistic transition to justice and the rule of law. On that understanding, Indonesia joined the consensus on the draft resolution.

The Commission adopted, by a recorded vote of 51 in favour to two against, with no abstentions, a decision, recommended by the Sub-Commission, related to the legal implications of the disappearance of States and other territories for environmental reasons, by which it welcomed the working paper on the human rights situation of indigenous peoples in States and other territories threatened with extinction for environmental reasons, and endorsed the request for Françoise Hampson to update and expand her work, and to submit an expanded working paper to the fifty-seventh session of the Sub-Commission. The Secretary-General was requested to facilitate her contacts with States, including by transmitting a questionnaire.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (51): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Zimbabwe.

Against (2): Australia and United States.


STACY BARRIOS (United States), in an explanation of the vote before a vote, said the delegation of the United States would call for a vote and would vote against draft decision 5.

MIKE SMITH (Australia), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said Australia questioned whether the Commission was the appropriate forum for the discussion of this issue. The paper referred to in the draft decision was unbalanced, and therefore Australia would vote against it.

Action on Resolutions on Effective Functioning of Human Rights Mechanisms

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.68) on regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asian Pacific region, adopted without a vote, the Commission welcomed the convening of the Inter-Sessional Expert Meeting on National Human Rights Plans of Action and Human Rights Education in the Asian-Pacific Region (Bangkok, 20-22 October 2004) and the Sub-regional Workshop for Judges and Lawyers on the Justiciability of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in South-East Asia (Manila, 3-5 November 2004); and the efforts of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in developing partnerships for the implementation of its activities under the Framework for Regional Technical Cooperation to enhance national capacities for the promotion and protection of human rights in the region. It also requested the Secretary-General to submit to the Commission at its sixty-second session a report containing the conclusions of the thirteenth Workshop on Regional Cooperation for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Asian Pacific Region and information on the progress achieved in the implementation of the present resolution.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.70) on the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 36 in favour to 15 against, with two abstentions, the Commission expressed its concern that, while nationals of 30 out of 43 developed countries were represented in the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the overwhelming majority of developing countries, 102 out of 148, did not have a single national on the staff of the Office. It also expressed concern at the conclusion contained in the report of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU/REP/2003/6) that the unbalanced geographical distribution of staff was a serious, endemic problem in the Office of the High Commissioner. The Commission requested the Office of the High Commissioner to observe fully United Nations human resources policies, regulations, rules and practices and, therefore, to align without further delay its human resources practices and procedures; and requested once again the Secretary-General to take the necessary measures to ensure that particular attention was paid to recruiting personnel from un-represented and under-represented Member States.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (36): Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe.

Against (15): Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Romania, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (2): Guatemala and Peru.


SHA ZUKANG (China), in a general comment, said that his colleagues who had been present during last year’s session would probably recall his statement at the time, when he had noted that China was only a small country -- it had only one-quarter of the world’s population -- and yet, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was a huge office, and there were no Chinese working there. At the time, the Deputy High Commissioner had corrected him to the effect that there was, indeed, one Chinese person who was working in the Office. However, the Chinese delegation had since discovered that this particular individual was of Chinese descent, raised in the United States, married to a French man, and at the time had been at the P-2 level. She had now been promoted to the P-3 level. China was now aware of the true state of imbalance in the composition of the High Commissioner’s Office, and it was growing. China had been told it did not have any qualified people; that was a fair comment, as the two parties were looking for different criteria. The composition of the Office of the High Commissioner was completely unacceptable. China had been advised that the Office was fair, balanced, and ready to promote the human rights of all peoples. Yet, he observed, the Chinese were people too, and they would be staying on earth. China could not accept the situation. The country had no difficulty with the Office, but the imbalance in its composition must be redressed.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India), in a general comment, said every year, the Commission adopted a number of resolutions and questioned if those resolutions were doing any good to improve the human rights situation of the world. With regard to the geographical representation in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, he said that India, like China, with a large population, had no staff representation.

LOUISE ARBOUR, High Commissioner for Human Rights, responding to the comments made by the Chinese and Indian delegates, said she apologised for not being present when the discussion was held, but she had other commitments. Regarding geographic distribution, it was her firm belief that a human rights office ought to have a representation from all voices, as well as a gender balance. She would work to ensure that this was the case, and would take all initiatives that it was within her power to take. There had already been improvement in this regard in the context of senior posts, which indicated that work was already being done in the right direction, and she would continue to work in this direction within the constraints of United Nations directives.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union could not extend its support to the draft resolution on the composition of the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Pursuant to the Charter, and as clarified by the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary), the General Assembly was the sole body qualified to consider questions related to management, budget and human resources. The European Union reaffirmed its support for the prerogatives and responsibilities of the Secretary-General, who was the ultimate head of the Office, as conferred by the Charter of the United Nations. The dominant consideration in recruitment and determining the conditions of employment must be to ensure that the Organization received the services of staff possessing the highest qualities of performance, competence and quality. Due consideration would be given to recruitment carried out on as broad as possible a geographical basis. However, it was not always possible to ensure equitable geographical distribution of staff, as candidates with the best qualifications did not always come from the ideal geographical area. The European Union supported the Secretary-General’s efforts to improve the geographical and gender balances in staff. The Union also recalled that the Fifth Committee had the exclusive authority to examine the budgetary requirements regarding staffing decisions. The European Union called for a vote on the draft resolution for these reasons, and would be voting against it.

GRIGORY LUKIYANTSEV (Russian Federation), in a general comment, thanked the High Commissioner for her determination to resolve the problem of balanced geographical representation in her staff. The delegation of the Russian Federation would vote for the draft tabled by Cuba. The Russian Federation trusted that the issue reflected in the draft would be taken into consideration by the High Commissioner and other parts of the United Nations system.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.76) on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Commission recognized that progress in promoting and protecting all human rights depended primarily on efforts made at the national and local levels, and that the regional approach should imply intensive cooperation and coordination with all partners involved, while bearing in mind the importance of international cooperation. The Commission stressed the importance of the programme of technical cooperation in the field of human right. It welcomed the progress achieved in the establishment of regional and sub-regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights; invited States in areas in which regional arrangements in the field of human rights did not yet exist to consider concluding agreements with a view to establishing, within their respective regions, suitable regional machinery for the promotion and protection of human rights; and requested the Secretary-General to continue to strengthen exchanges between the United Nations and regional intergovernmental organizations dealing with human rights.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.92/Rev.1) on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Commission reaffirmed the importance of the development of effective, independent, pluralistic national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights consistent with the Principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (the Paris Principles); recognized that national institutions had a crucial role to play in promoting and ensuring the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights and called upon all States to ensure that all human rights were appropriately reflected in the mandate of their national human rights institutions when established.

Action on Resolutions on Advisory Services and Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.37/Rev.1) on advisory services and technical assistance for Burundi, adopted without a vote, the Commission strongly condemned all acts of violence and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and called upon the Transitional Government to put an end, as soon as possible, to impunity within the context of the rule of law and to ensure that those responsible for violence in general, and violence against women in particular, were brought to justice in accordance with international conventions and the law. It also condemned the sale and illegal distribution of weapons and related materials. Moreover, the Commission demanded that the murderers of the Apostolic Nuncio, Mgr. Michael Courtney, be brought to justice.

The Commission declared its profound concern at the sexual violence against women and children and requested the Transitional Government to take, in cooperation with civil society, special measures to protect women and children. The Commission called upon the Transitional Government to establish an independent national human rights commission, in conformity with the Paris Principles, and encouraged the international community to make greater assistance available to the judicial system and the National Commission for the Rehabilitation of Sinistrés (Survivors). It also strongly condemned the massacre committed against the civilian Banyamulenge refugee population at Gatumba on 13 August 2004 and demanded that the perpetrators of these killings were brought to justice. Lastly, the Commission requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in close consultation with the Government of Burundi, to continue her programme of technical assistance.

ZACHARIE GAHUTU (Burundi), in a general comment, said the draft resolution referred to a resolution adopted by consensus in 2004. The Government of Burundi had continued to adopt a number of measures and had made considerable progress. The Transitional Government had adopted the Rome Statues of the International Criminal Court, and a new Constitution had been adopted in March 2005, as well as other legislation. The draft mentioned the recent declaration by the FNL movement to halt the armed struggle and return to the negotiating table. The African Group was involved in these negotiations. The text should be adopted by consensus.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.78/Rev.1) on assistance to Sierra Leone in the field of human rights, adopted without a vote, the Commission urged the Government of Sierra Leone to continue to promote and protect human rights in Sierra Leone, among other things, through the early constitution and effective functioning of the National Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone; to continue to give priority attention, in cooperation with the international community, to programmes aimed at addressing the plight and special needs of all mutilated victims and their dependants, and of women and children in its care, in particular those sexually abused and gravely traumatized and displaced as a result of the conflict; to continue to facilitate, in cooperation with the international community, the effective functioning of the National Commission for War-Affected Children; and to fully implement the legislative measures taken to promote and protect the human rights of women and to consider developing further programmes aimed at combating discrimination against women.
The Commission decided to request the international community to continue its support and provide technical assistance to the judicial system in Sierra Leone, including the juvenile justice system; to assist in the early constitution and functioning of the National Human Rights Commission of Sierra Leone; and to support the Government of Sierra Leone in seeking durable solutions to the problem of international trafficking of persons, particularly children, orphans and juveniles. It also requested the High Commissioner and the international community to assist the Government of Sierra Leone in strengthening its capacity to continue to undertake, as a matter of urgency, the review, revision and updating of national legislation, in particular those areas of legislation that affected women, children and other vulnerable segments of society, and to continue to assist the Government of Sierra Leone in disseminating the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and encourage timely publication of the Government White Paper and the implementation of the Commission’s recommendations.

JOE ROBERT PEMAGBI (Sierra Leone), in a general comment, said the draft resolution captured most of the essential elements of last year’s resolution. Since the adoption of last year’s resolution, tremendous gains had been made in the field of human rights, including through efforts to promote women’s rights, and to establish a national human rights commission. Sierra Leone appealed to the Commission to adopt the text by consensus.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.83) on technical cooperation and advisory services in Cambodia, adopted without a vote, the Commission welcomed the ratification by Cambodia of the Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Cambodia, with regard to the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, to establish the Extraordinary Chambers in the courts of Cambodia exercising their jurisdiction in accordance with international standards of justice, fairness and due process as set out in the Agreement; urged the Government of Cambodia to continue to strengthen its efforts to establish the rule of law, including through the adoption and implementation of essential laws and codes for establishing a democratic society; to continue to strengthen its efforts at judicial reform, especially to ensure the independence, impartiality, transparency and effectiveness of the judicial system as a whole and to combat corruption and impunity; to continue its efforts to improve human rights, especially those of women and children; and to strengthen its efforts for resolving equitably and expeditiously land ownership issues in a fair and open manner in accordance with the spirit of the Prime Minister’s speech of 18 October 2004 as well as the Land Law.

Lastly, the Commission invited the Secretary-General, agencies of the United Nations system present in Cambodia, as well as the international community, including non-governmental organizations, to continue to work with the Government of Cambodia in improving democracy as well as ensuring the protection and promotion of the human rights of all people in Cambodia, including by providing assistance, among other things, in the fields of drafting various laws necessary for protecting and promoting human rights; and capacity-building for strengthening legal institutions, including improving the quality of judges, prosecutors, lawyers and court staff.

IAN DE JONG (Netherlands, in a general comment speaking on behalf of the European Union), said the European Union was satisfied with the consultation process in drafting the resolution. The Government’s initiation to bring the perpetrators of crimes during the Khmer Rouge would do justice to the victims and would resolve impunity. The European Union believed that democracy differed from country to country but the principles should apply to all States. The land law should be implemented so that the problem related to land ownership could be resolved. He encouraged other States to support the adoption of the draft resolution by consensus.

DONNA LEE (United States), in a general comment, said the United States appreciated the efforts made for Cambodia. The discussion came at a poignant time as it was 30 years ago that the Khmer Rouge had marched into Phnom Penh and started their reign of terror. The United Nations had taken the lead in providing the Cambodian Government and people with assistance in human rights. Cambodia had undergone a dramatic change, and the resolution showed progress and work still to be done. Over the last few months, however, there was concern for events in Cambodia, including the decision to suspend the parliamentary immunity of certain opposition parliamentarians by the National Assembly, as this was a setback, and called into question the integrity of the democratic institutions. The political leadership should allow all citizens to express their political views without fear of intimidation.

VUN CHHEANG (Cambodia), in a general comment, said that progress had been made in moving towards democracy and human rights. Cambodia would continue to make every effort to refurbish its image as a democratic state. Regarding the case of suspension of parliamentary immunity referred to by the United States, this was a matter falling under the authority of the judicial authorities only. The draft resolution presented a realistic picture of the country’s situation, based on tolerance and respect, and would enable Cambodia to live up to obligations to its population. Reaffirming commitment to cooperation with the United Nations and the international community, he said he wished to thank them for their support in the protection and promotion of human rights in Cambodia.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.90) on technical cooperation and advisory services in Nepal, adopted without a vote, the Commission called upon the Government of Nepal to reinstate immediately all civil and political rights, to cease all state of emergency-related and other arbitrary arrests, to lift the far-reaching censorship, to restore freedom of opinion, expression and the press as well as the freedom of association, to release immediately all detained political leaders and activists, human rights defenders, journalists and others, to allow all citizens to enter and exit the country freely and to respect all international and national obligations as well as the twenty-five points of the commitment of 26 March 2004, as freely undertaken by Nepal. The Commission also strongly condemned the repeated practices of members of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), such as: unlawful killings, rape, extortions, forced displacement, mass abduction and forced recruitment and labour targeted at civilians; and persecution and attacks against the life, integrity and safety of political leaders and party members, human rights defenders, journalists, peace activists and others.

The Commission strongly urged the members of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to comply with international humanitarian law and to respect the legitimate exercise of all human rights by the people of Nepal as well as immediately and unconditionally to cease and renounce violence, disarm, and enter into negotiations with the genuine intention of rejoining the political process, thereby helping to ensure that the people of Nepal were free to choose their own Government. It urged the Government of Nepal to take all necessary measures to prevent and put an end to extrajudicial and summary killings, all forms of sexual violence, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests, illegal incommunicado detention as well as torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; to take all appropriate measures to clarify the fate of all cases of persons allegedly victims of enforced disappearance, including, where appropriate, taking into account the work of the national committee and international expert bodies in this field; and to request the technical assistance of the international community and the United Nations in planning free and fair local elections, following their announcement. The Commission further called upon the Government of Nepal to provide urgent protection and assistance to internally displaced persons and to ensure continued independence, institutional continuity and stability of the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India), in a general comment, said the delegation of India had taken note of the advisory services and technical cooperation ongoing with Nepal. India shared common spiritual and land borders with Nepal. The measures taken on 1 February 2005 in the country was a concern to his country. India had taken note of the agreement made between Nepal and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to set up an office in the country.

SHIGERU ENDO (Japan), in a general comment, said the Government of Japan had been carefully watching the situation in Nepal since the dismissal of the Prime Minister and the dissolution of the Council of Ministers, and had been urging the Maoists to achieve peace through dialogue. That the resolution had been written as a result of intensive negotiations was welcomed, and Japan would join the consensus in the spirit of dialogue and cooperation, and this spirit should be maintained, cherished and carried forward. Nepal would, it was hoped, resolve the situation soon, and the resolution and the establishment of an office of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Nepal would serve the protection of human rights in that beautiful country.

GYAN CHANDRA ACHARYA (Nepal), in a general comment, said Nepal was going through a difficult time due to the insurgents’ activities. Ensuring the security of the population and national integrity were the primary concerns of the country. It was the Government’s fervent desire to restore peace, stability and democracy, which was the primary concern of the people and Government of Nepal, and the Government continued to respect its obligations under international human rights instruments. Respect for and promotion of all human rights would contribute to liberty and freedom for all, the Government recognized, as well as to security and stability in the long run. Every possible effort was being made to promote human rights. However, the situation was complex and should be seen in context. The insurgents knew no bounds; they had targeted populated areas and conducted systematic attacks against civilians, abductions of schoolchildren, and blockades.

The High Commissioner had highlighted the unscrupulous methods of the insurgents during her visit to Nepal. These were the reasons why the Government had committed to work with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and had agreed to establish a local branch in Nepal, to assist the Government in the protection and promotion of human rights, and to monitor the situation in the country. Nepal wished to work with the international community to improve the human rights situation. Concerning the draft resolution, the level of allegations of the security forces’ involvement in human rights violations was incorrect. Resolving the problem of the insurgency, restoring stability and security and the full functioning of multiparty democracy were the fundamental goals of the Government, which had taken action in all instances in which allegations of violations of human rights by security forces had been proved. The text should have better reflected this, and the steps taken over the years to strengthen the human rights mechanisms in the country. However, the resolution’s spirit remained dedicated to the strengthening of the human rights situation in Nepal.

* *** *
For use of information only, not an official record