Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Commission on Human Rights
Default title
26 April 2000
Share
Commission on Human Rights
56th session
26 April 2000
Afternoon
The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon adopted a number of resolutions on, among others, capital punishment, impunity, and dumping of toxic and dangerous wastes.
The resolution on the question of the death penalty, adopted by a roll-call vote of 27 in favour, 13 against and 12 abstentions, 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, aimed at the abolition of the death penalty. It called upon all States that still maintained the death penalty to progressively restrict the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed, and to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to completely abolish the death penalty.
In the resolution on impunity, adopted without a vote, the Commission emphasized the importance of combatting impunity for the prevention of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, and urged States to give necessary attention to the question of impunity for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including those perpetrated against women and children, and to take appropriate measures to address this important issue.
Concerning a resolution on the dumping of toxic and dangerous wastes, which was adopted by a roll-call vote of 37 in favour and 16 against with no abstentions, the Commission categorically condemned the dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes in developing countries, which adversely affected the human rights to life and health of individuals in those countries. It also urged all Government to take legislative and other appropriate measures with a view to preventing illegal international trafficking in toxic and hazardous products and wastes.
The Commission also adopted resolutions on the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights; promoting a culture of peace; the status of the international covenants on human rights; fundamental standards of humanity; enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights; reservations on human rights treaties; information and education; the composition of the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
(More)Rights; regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asia and Pacific region; the effective implementation of international instruments on human rights, including reporting obligations under international instruments on human rights; and on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights.
The Commission continued to take action on its remaining draft resolutions in an extended evening meeting from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. The Commission will next meet in public at 10 a.m. on Friday, 28 April, to conclude its fifty-sixth session.
Action on draft resolutions
In a resolution on the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights (E/CN.4/2000/L.80), accepted by a roll-call vote of 50 in favour to none against and 2 abstentions, the Commission recognized that a transparent, responsible, accountable and participatory Government, responsive to the needs 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; requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to invite all States to give practical examples of activities that had been effective in promoting good governance outcomes at the national level, including activities in the context of development cooperation between States, for inclusion in a compilation of indicative ideas and practices that could be consulted by interested States when required; and decided to continue consideration of the question of the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights at its fifty-seventh session under the same agenda item.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan Swaziland, Tunisia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: None.
Abstentions: China and Cuba.
ALVARO MENDONCA E MOURA (Portugal), on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said the EU welcomed draft resolution L.80 on the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights and congratulated its main cosponsors. The EU was convinced that only good governance could fully ensure the promotion of human rights. Good governance also promoted human development. It was essential for States to use their resources with a view to promoting respect for human rights. The EU was glad to support the draft resolution.
ALFREDO LABBE (Chile) thanked the delegation of Cuba for expressing in a clear and serious manner its views on the draft resolution before the Commission and for withdrawing its amendments as this facilitated the work of the Commission. The delegation did not share all the views of the delegation of Cuba, however, it had taken note of the specific discrepancies mentioned. On such a complex issue it was clear that positions would vary.
MUNAWAR SAEED BHATTI (Pakistan) said that for his country, good governance meant an accountable and transparent Government which tried to create an inclusive society. Pakistan had undertaken a campaign aimed at promoting transparent Government institutions that responded to the needs and aspirations of the citizens. At the international level, however, there was no definition of good governance. The concept was open to interpretation and could become an instrument of conditionality. Pakistan would vote in favour of the draft resolution, with a clear understanding of the exclusive prerogative of each State to determine the concept of good governance.
IFTEKHAR CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) thanked the cosponsors of the draft resolution for having stewarded the work to date, and the Cuban delegation for its constructive and cooperative spirit. Some of the points made by the delegation of Cuba merited consideration. Good governance was not sharply defined, however, to define was also to limit. Good governance resulted only from national and international cooperative endeavours, including a transparent, responsible, accountable and participatory government which was at the heart of the contemporary definition. Bangladesh was willing to do anything to enhance the quality of citizens’ lives to obtain larger civic freedom and would vote in favour of the draft resolution.
SHARAT SABHARWAL (India) said that while the term "good governance" had been in use in different fora for sometime now, no consensus had emerged on a precise definition. India was of the view that a transparent, responsible, accountable and participatory government was the foundation on which good governance rested. India also believed that good governance was contextual in nature and therefore the responsibility for determining good governance practices, according to the particular conditions prevailing in different countries, rested with the States concerned. Externally imposed practices were more often than not counterproductive. India was also firmly of the view that prescriptive good governance practices should not become conditionalities to international development cooperation. Draft resolution L.80 addressed the need to ensure that prescriptive approaches to good governance did not impede international development cooperation. In view of these considerations, India was willing to accept the use of the term good governance in the context of this draft resolution and would vote for it.
XU JIANG (China) believed that the international community had failed to reach a common understanding of what good governance meant. Any such notion was determined by cultural, economic and social backgrounds and there was no unified standard to judge the institutions of good governance. It was not in the interest of cooperation in the human rights area to act on this draft resolution. The Chinese delegation had suggested that the terms 'accountable and transparent institutions' replaced the term 'good governance'. It was regrettable that this suggestion had not been taken into consideration and China would hence be forced to abstain if there was a vote on the draft resolution.
In a resolution on the question of the death penalty (E/CN.4/2000/L.81), 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, aimed at the abolition of the death penalty; urged all States that still maintained the death penalty, among other things, to comply fully with their obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child and not to impose the death penalty for any but the most serious crimes and only pursuant to a final judgement rendered by an independent and impartial competent court and to not impose it for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age, to exclude pregnant women from capital punishment and to ensure the right to a fair trial and the rights to seek pardon or commutation of sentence; and 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 religious practice or expression of conscience.
The Commission urged States parties not to enter any new reservations under article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which may be contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant and to withdraw any such existing reservations, given that article 6 of the Covenant enshrined the minimum rules for the protection of the right to life and the generally accepted standards in this area; 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 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 was pending. The resolution called upon all States that still maintained the death penalty to progressively restrict the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed, to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to completely abolish the death penalty, and to make available to the public information with regard to the imposition of the death penalty. The resolution 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 of the requesting State that capital punishment would not be carried out.
The above resolution was accepted by a roll-call vote of 27 in favour to 13 against and 12 abstentions after a separate vote to retain operative paragraphs 3f, 4b and 5 was carried on by a roll-call vote of 26 in favour to 15 against and 11 abstentions.
The result of the vote on operative paragraphs 3f, 4b and 5 was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Venezuela.
Against: Bangladesh, Botswana, China, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Japan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Sudan, Swaziland, and.
the United States.
Abstentions: Bhutan, Burundi, Guatemala, Madagascar, Morocco, Niger, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tunisia and Zambia.
The result of the vote as a whole was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, Niger, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Venezuela.
Against: Bangladesh, Botswana, China, Indonesia, Japan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Sudan, Swaziland, and the United States.
Abstentions: Bhutan, Burundi, Cuba, Guatemala, India, Madagascar, Morocco, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tunisia and Zambia.
SHARAT SABHARWAL (India) said that the international community had not reached consensus on the question of capital punishment. It also must be recognized that promoting the abolitionist cause could be achieved only progressively. It was also agreed that the death penalty should be applied only in the case of the most serious crimes and in compliance with international law. India applied the death sentence only in cases that shocked the conscious of society. The application of the death penalty was an exception rather than the rule. Further, the death penalty was not applied to certain categories of offenders such as pregnant women and juveniles. India would abstain on draft resolution L.81 (the question of death penalty)
VALDIMIR PARSHIKOV (the Russian Federation) said that his country had always strictly obeyed international human rights standards with regards to the death penalty. The Russian Federation was in favour of this draft resolution and would like to be included amongst its cosponsors.
HAROLD KOH (the United States) recalled that international law did not prohibit the use of the death penalty. Each State should be allowed to decide whether its domestic law could impose the death penalty, in accordance with international law and in observance of due process. The United States would therefore vote against L.81 (the question of death penalty).
In a resolution entitled towards a culture of peace (E/CN.4/2000/L.83), adopted without vote, the Commission on Human Rights welcomed with satisfaction the adoption by the General Assembly, by its resolution 53/243 of 13 September 1999, of the Declaration and Plan of Action on a Culture of Peace; also welcomed the proclamation by the General Assembly of the year 2000 as the International Year for the Culture of Peace; as well as all other activities that Governments, non-governmental organizations, civil society and the United Nations system were currently undertaking in order to commemorate this special occasion; strongly reiterated its invitation to States to promote a culture of peace based on the purposes and principles established in the Charter of the United Nations and in the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace, as an integral approach to preventing violence in its diverse manifestations; requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in coordination with the Bureau of the Commission at its fifty-sixth session, to organize, provide the necessary resources, including financial resources, and coordinate, during the course of the International Year for a Culture of Peace, a panel/forum on a culture of peace, with participation open to Governments, non-governmental organizations and other interested organizations, focusing on the contribution of the promotion, protection and realization of all human rights to the further development of a culture of peace; requested the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to take into account and reflect in its deliberations, as appropriate, the provisions of the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace, as well as the contribution of the promotion, protection and realization of all human rights for the further development of a culture of peace; decided to continue considering the question of a culture of peace at its fifty-seventh session.
In a resolution on the status of international covenants on human rights (E/CN.4/2000/L.84), adopted without a vote, the Commission reaffirmed the importance of the international covenants on human rights as major parts of international efforts to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms; appealed strongly to all States that had not yet done so to become parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as to accede to the Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and to make the declaration provided for in article 41 of that Covenant; invited the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to intensify systematic efforts to encourage States to become parties to the international covenants on human rights and, through the programme of technical cooperation and advisory services in the field of human rights, to assist such States, at their request, in ratifying or acceding to the Covenants and to the Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; stressed the importance of avoiding the erosion of human rights by derogation, and underlined the necessity of strict observance of the agreed conditions and procedures for derogation under article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind the need for States parties to provide the fullest possible information during states of emergency so that the justification for the appropriateness of measures taken in those circumstances could be stressed.
The resolution also stressed the importance of fully taking into account a gender perspective in the implementation of the international covenants on human rights at the national level; urged States parties to fulfil in good time reporting obligations under the international covenants on human rights as may be requested and to make use of gender-desegregated data in their reports; stressed the need for improved coordination between relevant United Nations mechanisms and bodies in supporting States parties, upon their request, in implementing the international covenants on human rights and the optional protocols and encouraged the continued effort in this direction; and stressed the need for further efforts towards developing indicators and benchmarks to measure progress in the realization of the rights set forth in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as well as the desirability of considering the issue of justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights in order to strengthen the enjoyment of these rights.
In a resolution on impunity (E/CN.4/2000/L.85/Rev.1), adopted without a vote, the Commission on Human Rights emphasized the importance of combatting impunity for the prevention of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, and urged States to give necessary attention to the question of impunity for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including those perpetrated against women and children, and to take appropriate measures to address this important issue; emphasized the importance of taking all necessary and possible steps to hold accountable perpetrators of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, and urged States to take action in accordance with due process of law; called upon States to support the work of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda; requested the Secretary-General to seek the views of Governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations on the issue of the possible appointment of an Independent Expert charged with examining all aspects of the issue of impunity of perpetrators of human rights violations, with a view to a decision on this matter at the fifty-seventh session of the Commission; requested the Secretary-General again to invite States to provide information on any legislative, administrative or other steps they had taken to combat impunity for human rights violations in their territory and to provide information on remedies available to the victims of such violations.
PHILIPPE PETIT (France) said his country was particularly concerned about combatting impunity and had favoured the adoption of a resolution on the subject since the outset. The Subcommission played a decisive role in framing the thinking on impunity, and civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. This draft resolution had to set clear the prospects for the future and the delegation of France regretted that it had not mentioned the authors of violations of economic, social and cultural rights. These elements should be taken into account in the future. Even though the two sets of rights were complimentary, there could be no merger as they could not be treated in the same legal manner. Furthermore there should be more than one expert dedicated to the two set of rights.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) commended Canada, the sponsor of L.85, for trying to find common ground on the issue of impunity and welcomed the efforts undertaken by the Commission to tackle the issue.
In a resolution entitled fundamental standards of humanity (E/CN.4/2000/L.86), adopted without a vote, the Commission on Human Rights recognized the desirability of seeking ways of ensuring the effective promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of all individuals in all situations in a manner consistent with international law; also recognized the vital importance of the existence in each country of appropriate national legislation for dealing with such situations in a manner consistent with the rule of law; further recognized the desirability of a process of identifying and respecting fundamental standards of humanity in all situations in a manner consistent with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations; welcomed the report of the Secretary-General on fundamental standards of humanity (E/CN.4/2000/94), and requested the Secretary-General, in consultation with the International Committee of the Red Cross, to submit a further report to the Commission at its fifty-seventh session covering relevant developments in relation to issues identified in these areas; invited States, international organizations and non-governmental organizations to engage in discussions in relevant forums on the strengthening of protection of the individual in all situations, with a view to promoting the ongoing process with respect to fundamental standards of humanity.
In a resolution on the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (E.CN.4/2000/L.87), accepted by consensus, 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 and fundamental freedoms through international cooperation, among other things; considered that international cooperation in that field, in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, should make an effective and practical contribution to the urgent task of preventing violations of human rights and of fundamental freedoms for all; and reaffirmed that the promotion, protection and full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms should be guided by the principles of universally, non-selectivity, objectivity and transparency, in a manner consistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
In a resolution on information and education (E/CN.4/2000/L.95), adopted by consensus, the Commission took note with appreciation of the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the Plan of Action for the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education, 1995-2004 (E/CN.4/2000/93); welcomed the steps taken by Governments and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to implement the Plan of Action as indicated in the report of the Secretary-General; urged Governments and inter-governmental organizations to contribute to the mid-term global evaluation of progress made towards the achievements of the objectives of the Decade to be taken by the Office of the High Commissioner in 2000, by providing appropriate information on steps taken in that regard; urged all Governments to contribute further to the implementation of the Plan of Action, in particular by establishing, in accordance with national conditions, broadly representative national committees for human rights education responsible for the development of comprehensive, effective and sustainable national plans of action for human rights education and information, complementary to other national plans of action already defined; encouraged the Office of the High Commissioner to continue to support national capacities for human rights education and information through its technical cooperation programme in the field of human rights, including the organization of training courses and the development of targeted training materials for professional audiences, as well as the dissemination of human rights information material as a component of technical cooperation; and encouraged Governments to support further, through voluntary contributions, the education and public information efforts undertaken by the Office of the High Commissioner in the framework of the Decade.
In a resolution on reservations to human rights treaties (E/CN.4/2000/L.75), approved without vote, the Commission taking note of resolution 1999/27 of 26 August 1999 of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, recommended a draft decision to the Economic and Social Council to approve the appointment by the Subcommission of Francoise Hampson as a Special Rapporteur who will have the task of preparing a comprehensive study on reservations to human rights treaties, taking into account previous and ongoing work done by various international bodies, and based on her working paper as well as on comments made and discussions that took place to the Subcommission at its fifty-second session, a progress report at its fifty-third session and a final report at its fifty-fourth session.
SUN ANG (China) said that the establishment of a new mechanism to protect human rights defenders would constitute a duplication of existing mechanisms. Furthermore, China believed that rather than establishing a new mechanism, the Commission should consider the obstacles facing the implementation of the Human Rights Defenders Declaration. China had therefore chosen to abstain on L.37 (adopted in the morning meeting).
SHARAT SABHARWAL (India), said in explaining the delegation’s vote on L.37 on human rights defenders, that India was fully committed to protect human rights defenders but was concerned by the lack of definition of the term 'human rights defenders'. India hoped that the Declaration would protect genuine human rights defenders, particularly the articles 19 and 20.
LEGWAILA LEGWAILA (Botswana) said that his delegation had voted against paragraphs 4 and 5 of L.81. Botswana did not carry out the death sentence while a case was pending. Further, a death penalty could be appealed. Clemency by the President could also be appealed for.
SUSANTO SUTOYO (Indonesia), speaking on behalf of 51 States, dissociated them from the draft resolution on the death penalty. No country could interfere in the political, economic and social affair of another State as stated in article 2, paragraph 7 in the United Nations Charter. The question on whether or not to abolish the death penalty should be carefully considered domestically and not internationally. The 51 countries requested that their statement was included as an official statement of the session.
RAOUF CHITTY (Tunisia) said his delegation had abstained on L.81 (the question of death penalty) which was introduced by Portugal. Indeed, in Tunisia there was a de facto moratorium on capital punishment except for heinous crimes. The last execution in the country dated back to 1992.
In a resolution on the adverse effects of illicit traffic and dumping of toxic and dangerous products on human rights (E/CN.4/2000/L.97), accepted by a roll-call vote of 37 in favour to 16 against with no abstention, the Commission expressed deep concern that the report of the Special Rapporteur (E/CN.4/2000/50 and Add.1) was not ready in time for consideration by the Commission; appreciated the efforts made by the Special Rapporteur in carrying out her mandate in the face of very limited financial resources, and expressed its appreciation to the Governments of Germany and the Netherlands for the cooperation extended to the Special Rapporteur during her visit to those countries; categorically condemned the dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes in developing countries, which adversely affected the human rights to life and health of individuals in those countries; reaffirmed that illicit dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes constituted a serious threat to the human rights to life, health and a sound environment for every individual; and once again urged all Governments to take legislative and other appropriate measures with a view to preventing illegal international trafficking in toxic and hazardous products and wastes.
The Commission also invited the United Nations Environment Programme, the secretariat for the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, the Commission on Sustainable Development, the International Register of Potential Toxic Chemicals, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Labour Organization, the World Health Organization and regional organizations to continue to intensify their coordination and international cooperation and technical assistance on environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes, including the question of their transboundary movement and expressed its appreciation to the relevant United Nations agencies, in particular the United Nations Environment Programme and the secretariat for the Basel Convention, for the support extended to the Special Rapporteur, and urged them and the international community to continue to give her the necessary support to enable her to discharge her mandate.
The following countries voted as follow:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala,India,, Indonesia, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tunisia Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Abstentions: None.
KOICHI HARAGUCHI (Japan) said Japan recognized that the illicit movement and dumping of toxic wastes was indeed a serious matter and wished to express sympathy for the countries that were the sites of such dumping. However, Japan doubted that the Commission was an appropriate forum for discussing the matter, as it lacked the expertise on what was a very technical subject; it would be better dealt with in more qualified fora. Therefore Japan would vote against the draft resolution.
RICHARD BATCHELOR (The United States) said that the delegation was concerned about the illicit dumping of toxic waste and dangerous products. The US believed, however, that the Special Rapporteur's mandate essentially replicated work of other United Nations and international treaty bodies. The most important of these was the Basel Convention, whose mandate covered all aspects of the international trade in toxic waste, including illicit trade. As such it was the appropriate forum to lead discussion of all matters that involved transboundary movement of hazardous waste. For this reason, the United States was unable to support draft resolution L.97.
In a resolution on the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (E/CN.4/2000/L.79), adopted by a roll-call vote of 35 in favour to 17 against, with 1 abstaining, the Commission reiterated its support of the statement of the High Commissioner to the Third Committee at the fifty-second session of the General Assembly, in which she expressed her willingness to ensure a good geographical balance and a sense of bringing together North and South in a joint commitment to human rights, in the process of filling key senior positions in the Office; and considered that it was necessary, in the process of restructuring the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, to take urgent, concrete and immediate action to change the currently prevailing geographical distribution of staff of the Office in favour of a more equitable distribution of posts, in accordance with Article 101 of the Charter, particularly by recruiting personnel from developing countries, including to key posts and in that regard invited the High Commissioner for Human Rights to consider the establishment of a task force within her Office with the mandate to work in cooperation with relevant components of the United Nations Secretariat in the recruitment and training of qualified personnel from developing countries for the staff of the Office.
The Commission also requested the Secretary-General to take the necessary measures to ensure that particular attention was paid to recruiting personnel from developing countries for the existing vacancies and for additional posts in the Office of the High Commissioner to ensure an equitable geographical distribution, giving particular priority in that regard to recruitment for high-level and professional posts and to the recruitment of women; emphasized the importance of openly advertising all posts, including ad hoc appointments for the field operations, including the dissemination of detailed job descriptions among all States prior to the filling of these posts; requested the High Commissioner to ensure that Junior Professional Officers were not given sensitive political assignments where their impartiality may be questioned; reaffirmed the importance of ensuring universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in the consideration of human rights issues, and requested the High Commissioner to continue ensuring that the fulfilment of her mandate and that of the Office was guided by these principles and stressed that the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner needed to maintain their neutrality and fully respect the independence of the work of all mechanisms of the Commission and the treaty bodies, while providing support to their functioning.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tunisia, Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Abstentions: Russian Federation.
ROSS HYNES (Canada) said his delegation agreed that the human-rights programme was important, but it did not agree that it was a programme that should be singled out for the kind of treatment specified in draft resolution L.79. Canada did not accept the alleged factual premises on which the resolution was based -- according to Canada's figures, there was no significant over representation of any one regional group at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. A more fundamental problem was that Canada did not think this matter was within the authority of the Commission; hiring of staff and regional allocation of positions was the job of the Secretary-General. Thus Canada would vote against the draft resolution.
HAROLD KOH (The United States) associated itself with the statement made by Canada. It was crucial that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights be staffed in strict accordance with Article 101 of the UN Charter. This article said that the paramount consideration in the employment of the staff and in the determination of the conditions of service should be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity. In addition, it added that due regard should be paid to the importance of recruiting the staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible. After paying lip service to Article 101 in this draft resolution, its sponsors then proceeded to turn it on its head, emphasizing the paramount importance of equitable geographic distribution in staffing. While the US was certain that the Office of the High Commissioner would welcome qualified, experienced applicants from any part of the world, the High Commissioner should oppose pressure to hire personnel irrespective of their qualifications merely because they came from a particular region.
ALVARO MENDONCA E MOURA (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union and on behalf of the Central and Eastern European countries associated with the Union, said the EU had serious reservations about draft resolution L.79. The Secretary-General was the chief administrative office of the United Nations and was responsible for such matters as staff and geographical distribution of staff. Further, the General Assembly had the exclusive responsibility for carrying out thorough analysis and approval of posts and financial resources. The EU noted with concern, however, that 24 Member States were still unrepresented and 10 were under-represented in the Secretariat as of 30 June 1998 and noted with concern the significant reduction in the number of posts subject to geographical distribution and financed over the regular budget of the United Nations, notably at the P2 and P3 levels. The EU strongly objected to the proposal contained in the draft resolution inviting the establishment of a task force within the High Commissioner's Office to work in recruitment and training of staff, as such a request was in contradiction of the UN Charter. The EU thus would vote against the draft resolution.
Action on the draft resolution on human rights and thematic procedures (E/CN.4/2000/L.82) was deferred to a later hour.
JUAN FERNANDEZ (Cuba) said that his delegation was aware there had been a number of consultations on L.82 (human rights and thematic procedures). Cuba had taken part in these consultations and had expressed its views on the topic. The proposed text was wide ranging and incorporated many concerns that had been raised. The changes that had been introduced concerned the last paragraph and related to children. The paragraph placed emphasis on children while referring in passing to members of other vulnerable groups. Cuba felt that another paragraph was necessary to explicitly refer to these vulnerable groups, which included migrants, minorities and indigenous people. Cuba therefore suggested that further consultations be carried out before the draft resolution was voted on.
In a resolution on regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asian and Pacific region, adopted without a vote, the Commission welcomed all the conclusions of the interactive discussions held during the four regional inter-sessional workshops held in Bangkok, Manila, Tokyo and Saana respectively on national plans of action, independent national institutions, human rights education, and the effective realization of economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development for strengthening national capacities and for the promotion and protection of human rights; reaffirmed that developing and strengthening national capacities for the promotion of human rights in accordance with national conditions provided the strongest foundation for effective and enduring regional cooperation in the field of human rights in the Asia and Pacific region, and noted the discussions at the relevant workshop of the region on national human rights plans of action and capacity-building; recognized the importance of an inclusive, step-by-step, practical and building-block approach towards enhancing regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in accordance with the pace and priorities to be set by the Governments of the Asia and Pacific region by consensus.
It noted that views were exchanged at the eighth workshop on the forthcoming World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance; commended the Government of China, as the host of the eighth workshop, on the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asia and Pacific regions; and welcomed the establishment of independent national institutions in countries of the Asia and Pacific region and their important contribution to the process of regional cooperation.
In a resolution on the effective implementation of international instruments on human rights, including reporting obligations under international instruments on human rights (E/CN.4/2000/L.90), adopted without a vote, the Commission encouraged each treaty body to continue to give careful consideration to the relevant conclusions and recommendations contained in the reports of the meetings of the chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies and, in this context, encouraged enhanced cooperation and coordination between the human rights treaty bodies; noted with appreciation the continuing attention given by the human rights treaty bodies, the chairpersons of those bodies, Governments, United Nations bodies and specialized agencies, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, non-governmental organizations and interested persons to the question of enhancing the long-term effectiveness of the United Nations human rights treaty system, including the final report of the Independent Expert and other contributions; and emphasized the need to ensure financing and adequate staff and information resources for the operations of the human rights treaty bodies.
The Commission also called upon the Secretary-General to seek in the next biennium the resources within the United Nations regular budget necessary to give the human rights treaty bodies adequate administrative support and better access to technical expertise and relevant information and welcomed the plans of action prepared by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to enhance the resources available to all the human rights treaty bodies and thereby strengthen the implementation of these human rights treaties; urged States parties to contribute, individually and collectively, such as through meetings of States parties, to identifying practical proposals and ideas for improving the functioning of the treaty bodies; also urged States parties to make every effort to meet their reporting obligations; and encouraged the specialized agencies and other United Nations bodies, the Commission on Human Rights, including its special procedures, the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies to continue to explore specific measures to intensify that cooperation among themselves and to improve communication and information flow to improve further the quality of their work, including by avoiding unnecessary duplication.
In a resolution on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (E/CN.4/2000/L.91), the Commission reaffirmed the importance of the development of effective, independent, and pluralistic national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights in conformity with the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, annexed to General Assembly resolution 48/134 of 20 December 1993; encouraged Member States to establish or, where they already existed, to strengthen such institutions, as outlined in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action; and recognized the important and constructive role that individuals, groups and organs of society could play, in cooperation with national institutions, for the better promotion and protection of human rights and in this context welcomed the convening by the Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions, in cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and of a workshop on cooperation between non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions in Sri Lanka in July. The Commission welcomed the decisions announced recently by a growing number of States to establish, or to consider establishing, national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, including the trend towards the establishment of such institutions in developed countries.
The Commission also called upon States to ensure that all human rights were appropriately reflected in the mandates of national human rights institutions when they were established; and affirmed the important role of national human rights institutions in combatting racial and related forms of discrimination and in the protection and promotion of the human rights of women and the rights of the child, and in that context: encouraged the appropriate participation of national institutions in preparations for the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance at the national, regional and global levels; and stressed the desirability of appropriate participation by national institutions, in cooperation with other mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights, in the five-year review of the implementation of the Plan of Action adopted at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995.
* *** *
56th session
26 April 2000
Afternoon
The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon adopted a number of resolutions on, among others, capital punishment, impunity, and dumping of toxic and dangerous wastes.
The resolution on the question of the death penalty, adopted by a roll-call vote of 27 in favour, 13 against and 12 abstentions, 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, aimed at the abolition of the death penalty. It called upon all States that still maintained the death penalty to progressively restrict the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed, and to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to completely abolish the death penalty.
In the resolution on impunity, adopted without a vote, the Commission emphasized the importance of combatting impunity for the prevention of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, and urged States to give necessary attention to the question of impunity for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including those perpetrated against women and children, and to take appropriate measures to address this important issue.
Concerning a resolution on the dumping of toxic and dangerous wastes, which was adopted by a roll-call vote of 37 in favour and 16 against with no abstentions, the Commission categorically condemned the dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes in developing countries, which adversely affected the human rights to life and health of individuals in those countries. It also urged all Government to take legislative and other appropriate measures with a view to preventing illegal international trafficking in toxic and hazardous products and wastes.
The Commission also adopted resolutions on the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights; promoting a culture of peace; the status of the international covenants on human rights; fundamental standards of humanity; enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights; reservations on human rights treaties; information and education; the composition of the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
(More)Rights; regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asia and Pacific region; the effective implementation of international instruments on human rights, including reporting obligations under international instruments on human rights; and on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights.
The Commission continued to take action on its remaining draft resolutions in an extended evening meeting from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. The Commission will next meet in public at 10 a.m. on Friday, 28 April, to conclude its fifty-sixth session.
Action on draft resolutions
In a resolution on the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights (E/CN.4/2000/L.80), accepted by a roll-call vote of 50 in favour to none against and 2 abstentions, the Commission recognized that a transparent, responsible, accountable and participatory Government, responsive to the needs 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; requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to invite all States to give practical examples of activities that had been effective in promoting good governance outcomes at the national level, including activities in the context of development cooperation between States, for inclusion in a compilation of indicative ideas and practices that could be consulted by interested States when required; and decided to continue consideration of the question of the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights at its fifty-seventh session under the same agenda item.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan Swaziland, Tunisia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: None.
Abstentions: China and Cuba.
ALVARO MENDONCA E MOURA (Portugal), on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said the EU welcomed draft resolution L.80 on the role of good governance in the promotion of human rights and congratulated its main cosponsors. The EU was convinced that only good governance could fully ensure the promotion of human rights. Good governance also promoted human development. It was essential for States to use their resources with a view to promoting respect for human rights. The EU was glad to support the draft resolution.
ALFREDO LABBE (Chile) thanked the delegation of Cuba for expressing in a clear and serious manner its views on the draft resolution before the Commission and for withdrawing its amendments as this facilitated the work of the Commission. The delegation did not share all the views of the delegation of Cuba, however, it had taken note of the specific discrepancies mentioned. On such a complex issue it was clear that positions would vary.
MUNAWAR SAEED BHATTI (Pakistan) said that for his country, good governance meant an accountable and transparent Government which tried to create an inclusive society. Pakistan had undertaken a campaign aimed at promoting transparent Government institutions that responded to the needs and aspirations of the citizens. At the international level, however, there was no definition of good governance. The concept was open to interpretation and could become an instrument of conditionality. Pakistan would vote in favour of the draft resolution, with a clear understanding of the exclusive prerogative of each State to determine the concept of good governance.
IFTEKHAR CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) thanked the cosponsors of the draft resolution for having stewarded the work to date, and the Cuban delegation for its constructive and cooperative spirit. Some of the points made by the delegation of Cuba merited consideration. Good governance was not sharply defined, however, to define was also to limit. Good governance resulted only from national and international cooperative endeavours, including a transparent, responsible, accountable and participatory government which was at the heart of the contemporary definition. Bangladesh was willing to do anything to enhance the quality of citizens’ lives to obtain larger civic freedom and would vote in favour of the draft resolution.
SHARAT SABHARWAL (India) said that while the term "good governance" had been in use in different fora for sometime now, no consensus had emerged on a precise definition. India was of the view that a transparent, responsible, accountable and participatory government was the foundation on which good governance rested. India also believed that good governance was contextual in nature and therefore the responsibility for determining good governance practices, according to the particular conditions prevailing in different countries, rested with the States concerned. Externally imposed practices were more often than not counterproductive. India was also firmly of the view that prescriptive good governance practices should not become conditionalities to international development cooperation. Draft resolution L.80 addressed the need to ensure that prescriptive approaches to good governance did not impede international development cooperation. In view of these considerations, India was willing to accept the use of the term good governance in the context of this draft resolution and would vote for it.
XU JIANG (China) believed that the international community had failed to reach a common understanding of what good governance meant. Any such notion was determined by cultural, economic and social backgrounds and there was no unified standard to judge the institutions of good governance. It was not in the interest of cooperation in the human rights area to act on this draft resolution. The Chinese delegation had suggested that the terms 'accountable and transparent institutions' replaced the term 'good governance'. It was regrettable that this suggestion had not been taken into consideration and China would hence be forced to abstain if there was a vote on the draft resolution.
In a resolution on the question of the death penalty (E/CN.4/2000/L.81), 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, aimed at the abolition of the death penalty; urged all States that still maintained the death penalty, among other things, to comply fully with their obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child and not to impose the death penalty for any but the most serious crimes and only pursuant to a final judgement rendered by an independent and impartial competent court and to not impose it for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age, to exclude pregnant women from capital punishment and to ensure the right to a fair trial and the rights to seek pardon or commutation of sentence; and 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 religious practice or expression of conscience.
The Commission urged States parties not to enter any new reservations under article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which may be contrary to the object and purpose of the Covenant and to withdraw any such existing reservations, given that article 6 of the Covenant enshrined the minimum rules for the protection of the right to life and the generally accepted standards in this area; 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 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 was pending. The resolution called upon all States that still maintained the death penalty to progressively restrict the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed, to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to completely abolish the death penalty, and to make available to the public information with regard to the imposition of the death penalty. The resolution 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 of the requesting State that capital punishment would not be carried out.
The above resolution was accepted by a roll-call vote of 27 in favour to 13 against and 12 abstentions after a separate vote to retain operative paragraphs 3f, 4b and 5 was carried on by a roll-call vote of 26 in favour to 15 against and 11 abstentions.
The result of the vote on operative paragraphs 3f, 4b and 5 was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Venezuela.
Against: Bangladesh, Botswana, China, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Japan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Sudan, Swaziland, and.
the United States.
Abstentions: Bhutan, Burundi, Guatemala, Madagascar, Morocco, Niger, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tunisia and Zambia.
The result of the vote as a whole was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, Niger, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Venezuela.
Against: Bangladesh, Botswana, China, Indonesia, Japan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Sudan, Swaziland, and the United States.
Abstentions: Bhutan, Burundi, Cuba, Guatemala, India, Madagascar, Morocco, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tunisia and Zambia.
SHARAT SABHARWAL (India) said that the international community had not reached consensus on the question of capital punishment. It also must be recognized that promoting the abolitionist cause could be achieved only progressively. It was also agreed that the death penalty should be applied only in the case of the most serious crimes and in compliance with international law. India applied the death sentence only in cases that shocked the conscious of society. The application of the death penalty was an exception rather than the rule. Further, the death penalty was not applied to certain categories of offenders such as pregnant women and juveniles. India would abstain on draft resolution L.81 (the question of death penalty)
VALDIMIR PARSHIKOV (the Russian Federation) said that his country had always strictly obeyed international human rights standards with regards to the death penalty. The Russian Federation was in favour of this draft resolution and would like to be included amongst its cosponsors.
HAROLD KOH (the United States) recalled that international law did not prohibit the use of the death penalty. Each State should be allowed to decide whether its domestic law could impose the death penalty, in accordance with international law and in observance of due process. The United States would therefore vote against L.81 (the question of death penalty).
In a resolution entitled towards a culture of peace (E/CN.4/2000/L.83), adopted without vote, the Commission on Human Rights welcomed with satisfaction the adoption by the General Assembly, by its resolution 53/243 of 13 September 1999, of the Declaration and Plan of Action on a Culture of Peace; also welcomed the proclamation by the General Assembly of the year 2000 as the International Year for the Culture of Peace; as well as all other activities that Governments, non-governmental organizations, civil society and the United Nations system were currently undertaking in order to commemorate this special occasion; strongly reiterated its invitation to States to promote a culture of peace based on the purposes and principles established in the Charter of the United Nations and in the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace, as an integral approach to preventing violence in its diverse manifestations; requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in coordination with the Bureau of the Commission at its fifty-sixth session, to organize, provide the necessary resources, including financial resources, and coordinate, during the course of the International Year for a Culture of Peace, a panel/forum on a culture of peace, with participation open to Governments, non-governmental organizations and other interested organizations, focusing on the contribution of the promotion, protection and realization of all human rights to the further development of a culture of peace; requested the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to take into account and reflect in its deliberations, as appropriate, the provisions of the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace, as well as the contribution of the promotion, protection and realization of all human rights for the further development of a culture of peace; decided to continue considering the question of a culture of peace at its fifty-seventh session.
In a resolution on the status of international covenants on human rights (E/CN.4/2000/L.84), adopted without a vote, the Commission reaffirmed the importance of the international covenants on human rights as major parts of international efforts to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms; appealed strongly to all States that had not yet done so to become parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as to accede to the Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and to make the declaration provided for in article 41 of that Covenant; invited the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to intensify systematic efforts to encourage States to become parties to the international covenants on human rights and, through the programme of technical cooperation and advisory services in the field of human rights, to assist such States, at their request, in ratifying or acceding to the Covenants and to the Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; stressed the importance of avoiding the erosion of human rights by derogation, and underlined the necessity of strict observance of the agreed conditions and procedures for derogation under article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, bearing in mind the need for States parties to provide the fullest possible information during states of emergency so that the justification for the appropriateness of measures taken in those circumstances could be stressed.
The resolution also stressed the importance of fully taking into account a gender perspective in the implementation of the international covenants on human rights at the national level; urged States parties to fulfil in good time reporting obligations under the international covenants on human rights as may be requested and to make use of gender-desegregated data in their reports; stressed the need for improved coordination between relevant United Nations mechanisms and bodies in supporting States parties, upon their request, in implementing the international covenants on human rights and the optional protocols and encouraged the continued effort in this direction; and stressed the need for further efforts towards developing indicators and benchmarks to measure progress in the realization of the rights set forth in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as well as the desirability of considering the issue of justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights in order to strengthen the enjoyment of these rights.
In a resolution on impunity (E/CN.4/2000/L.85/Rev.1), adopted without a vote, the Commission on Human Rights emphasized the importance of combatting impunity for the prevention of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, and urged States to give necessary attention to the question of impunity for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including those perpetrated against women and children, and to take appropriate measures to address this important issue; emphasized the importance of taking all necessary and possible steps to hold accountable perpetrators of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, and urged States to take action in accordance with due process of law; called upon States to support the work of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda; requested the Secretary-General to seek the views of Governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations on the issue of the possible appointment of an Independent Expert charged with examining all aspects of the issue of impunity of perpetrators of human rights violations, with a view to a decision on this matter at the fifty-seventh session of the Commission; requested the Secretary-General again to invite States to provide information on any legislative, administrative or other steps they had taken to combat impunity for human rights violations in their territory and to provide information on remedies available to the victims of such violations.
PHILIPPE PETIT (France) said his country was particularly concerned about combatting impunity and had favoured the adoption of a resolution on the subject since the outset. The Subcommission played a decisive role in framing the thinking on impunity, and civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. This draft resolution had to set clear the prospects for the future and the delegation of France regretted that it had not mentioned the authors of violations of economic, social and cultural rights. These elements should be taken into account in the future. Even though the two sets of rights were complimentary, there could be no merger as they could not be treated in the same legal manner. Furthermore there should be more than one expert dedicated to the two set of rights.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) commended Canada, the sponsor of L.85, for trying to find common ground on the issue of impunity and welcomed the efforts undertaken by the Commission to tackle the issue.
In a resolution entitled fundamental standards of humanity (E/CN.4/2000/L.86), adopted without a vote, the Commission on Human Rights recognized the desirability of seeking ways of ensuring the effective promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of all individuals in all situations in a manner consistent with international law; also recognized the vital importance of the existence in each country of appropriate national legislation for dealing with such situations in a manner consistent with the rule of law; further recognized the desirability of a process of identifying and respecting fundamental standards of humanity in all situations in a manner consistent with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations; welcomed the report of the Secretary-General on fundamental standards of humanity (E/CN.4/2000/94), and requested the Secretary-General, in consultation with the International Committee of the Red Cross, to submit a further report to the Commission at its fifty-seventh session covering relevant developments in relation to issues identified in these areas; invited States, international organizations and non-governmental organizations to engage in discussions in relevant forums on the strengthening of protection of the individual in all situations, with a view to promoting the ongoing process with respect to fundamental standards of humanity.
In a resolution on the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (E.CN.4/2000/L.87), accepted by consensus, 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 and fundamental freedoms through international cooperation, among other things; considered that international cooperation in that field, in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, should make an effective and practical contribution to the urgent task of preventing violations of human rights and of fundamental freedoms for all; and reaffirmed that the promotion, protection and full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms should be guided by the principles of universally, non-selectivity, objectivity and transparency, in a manner consistent with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
In a resolution on information and education (E/CN.4/2000/L.95), adopted by consensus, the Commission took note with appreciation of the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the Plan of Action for the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education, 1995-2004 (E/CN.4/2000/93); welcomed the steps taken by Governments and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to implement the Plan of Action as indicated in the report of the Secretary-General; urged Governments and inter-governmental organizations to contribute to the mid-term global evaluation of progress made towards the achievements of the objectives of the Decade to be taken by the Office of the High Commissioner in 2000, by providing appropriate information on steps taken in that regard; urged all Governments to contribute further to the implementation of the Plan of Action, in particular by establishing, in accordance with national conditions, broadly representative national committees for human rights education responsible for the development of comprehensive, effective and sustainable national plans of action for human rights education and information, complementary to other national plans of action already defined; encouraged the Office of the High Commissioner to continue to support national capacities for human rights education and information through its technical cooperation programme in the field of human rights, including the organization of training courses and the development of targeted training materials for professional audiences, as well as the dissemination of human rights information material as a component of technical cooperation; and encouraged Governments to support further, through voluntary contributions, the education and public information efforts undertaken by the Office of the High Commissioner in the framework of the Decade.
In a resolution on reservations to human rights treaties (E/CN.4/2000/L.75), approved without vote, the Commission taking note of resolution 1999/27 of 26 August 1999 of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, recommended a draft decision to the Economic and Social Council to approve the appointment by the Subcommission of Francoise Hampson as a Special Rapporteur who will have the task of preparing a comprehensive study on reservations to human rights treaties, taking into account previous and ongoing work done by various international bodies, and based on her working paper as well as on comments made and discussions that took place to the Subcommission at its fifty-second session, a progress report at its fifty-third session and a final report at its fifty-fourth session.
SUN ANG (China) said that the establishment of a new mechanism to protect human rights defenders would constitute a duplication of existing mechanisms. Furthermore, China believed that rather than establishing a new mechanism, the Commission should consider the obstacles facing the implementation of the Human Rights Defenders Declaration. China had therefore chosen to abstain on L.37 (adopted in the morning meeting).
SHARAT SABHARWAL (India), said in explaining the delegation’s vote on L.37 on human rights defenders, that India was fully committed to protect human rights defenders but was concerned by the lack of definition of the term 'human rights defenders'. India hoped that the Declaration would protect genuine human rights defenders, particularly the articles 19 and 20.
LEGWAILA LEGWAILA (Botswana) said that his delegation had voted against paragraphs 4 and 5 of L.81. Botswana did not carry out the death sentence while a case was pending. Further, a death penalty could be appealed. Clemency by the President could also be appealed for.
SUSANTO SUTOYO (Indonesia), speaking on behalf of 51 States, dissociated them from the draft resolution on the death penalty. No country could interfere in the political, economic and social affair of another State as stated in article 2, paragraph 7 in the United Nations Charter. The question on whether or not to abolish the death penalty should be carefully considered domestically and not internationally. The 51 countries requested that their statement was included as an official statement of the session.
RAOUF CHITTY (Tunisia) said his delegation had abstained on L.81 (the question of death penalty) which was introduced by Portugal. Indeed, in Tunisia there was a de facto moratorium on capital punishment except for heinous crimes. The last execution in the country dated back to 1992.
In a resolution on the adverse effects of illicit traffic and dumping of toxic and dangerous products on human rights (E/CN.4/2000/L.97), accepted by a roll-call vote of 37 in favour to 16 against with no abstention, the Commission expressed deep concern that the report of the Special Rapporteur (E/CN.4/2000/50 and Add.1) was not ready in time for consideration by the Commission; appreciated the efforts made by the Special Rapporteur in carrying out her mandate in the face of very limited financial resources, and expressed its appreciation to the Governments of Germany and the Netherlands for the cooperation extended to the Special Rapporteur during her visit to those countries; categorically condemned the dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes in developing countries, which adversely affected the human rights to life and health of individuals in those countries; reaffirmed that illicit dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes constituted a serious threat to the human rights to life, health and a sound environment for every individual; and once again urged all Governments to take legislative and other appropriate measures with a view to preventing illegal international trafficking in toxic and hazardous products and wastes.
The Commission also invited the United Nations Environment Programme, the secretariat for the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, the Commission on Sustainable Development, the International Register of Potential Toxic Chemicals, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Labour Organization, the World Health Organization and regional organizations to continue to intensify their coordination and international cooperation and technical assistance on environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes, including the question of their transboundary movement and expressed its appreciation to the relevant United Nations agencies, in particular the United Nations Environment Programme and the secretariat for the Basel Convention, for the support extended to the Special Rapporteur, and urged them and the international community to continue to give her the necessary support to enable her to discharge her mandate.
The following countries voted as follow:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala,India,, Indonesia, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tunisia Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Abstentions: None.
KOICHI HARAGUCHI (Japan) said Japan recognized that the illicit movement and dumping of toxic wastes was indeed a serious matter and wished to express sympathy for the countries that were the sites of such dumping. However, Japan doubted that the Commission was an appropriate forum for discussing the matter, as it lacked the expertise on what was a very technical subject; it would be better dealt with in more qualified fora. Therefore Japan would vote against the draft resolution.
RICHARD BATCHELOR (The United States) said that the delegation was concerned about the illicit dumping of toxic waste and dangerous products. The US believed, however, that the Special Rapporteur's mandate essentially replicated work of other United Nations and international treaty bodies. The most important of these was the Basel Convention, whose mandate covered all aspects of the international trade in toxic waste, including illicit trade. As such it was the appropriate forum to lead discussion of all matters that involved transboundary movement of hazardous waste. For this reason, the United States was unable to support draft resolution L.97.
In a resolution on the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (E/CN.4/2000/L.79), adopted by a roll-call vote of 35 in favour to 17 against, with 1 abstaining, the Commission reiterated its support of the statement of the High Commissioner to the Third Committee at the fifty-second session of the General Assembly, in which she expressed her willingness to ensure a good geographical balance and a sense of bringing together North and South in a joint commitment to human rights, in the process of filling key senior positions in the Office; and considered that it was necessary, in the process of restructuring the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, to take urgent, concrete and immediate action to change the currently prevailing geographical distribution of staff of the Office in favour of a more equitable distribution of posts, in accordance with Article 101 of the Charter, particularly by recruiting personnel from developing countries, including to key posts and in that regard invited the High Commissioner for Human Rights to consider the establishment of a task force within her Office with the mandate to work in cooperation with relevant components of the United Nations Secretariat in the recruitment and training of qualified personnel from developing countries for the staff of the Office.
The Commission also requested the Secretary-General to take the necessary measures to ensure that particular attention was paid to recruiting personnel from developing countries for the existing vacancies and for additional posts in the Office of the High Commissioner to ensure an equitable geographical distribution, giving particular priority in that regard to recruitment for high-level and professional posts and to the recruitment of women; emphasized the importance of openly advertising all posts, including ad hoc appointments for the field operations, including the dissemination of detailed job descriptions among all States prior to the filling of these posts; requested the High Commissioner to ensure that Junior Professional Officers were not given sensitive political assignments where their impartiality may be questioned; reaffirmed the importance of ensuring universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in the consideration of human rights issues, and requested the High Commissioner to continue ensuring that the fulfilment of her mandate and that of the Office was guided by these principles and stressed that the staff of the Office of the High Commissioner needed to maintain their neutrality and fully respect the independence of the work of all mechanisms of the Commission and the treaty bodies, while providing support to their functioning.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Tunisia, Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Abstentions: Russian Federation.
ROSS HYNES (Canada) said his delegation agreed that the human-rights programme was important, but it did not agree that it was a programme that should be singled out for the kind of treatment specified in draft resolution L.79. Canada did not accept the alleged factual premises on which the resolution was based -- according to Canada's figures, there was no significant over representation of any one regional group at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. A more fundamental problem was that Canada did not think this matter was within the authority of the Commission; hiring of staff and regional allocation of positions was the job of the Secretary-General. Thus Canada would vote against the draft resolution.
HAROLD KOH (The United States) associated itself with the statement made by Canada. It was crucial that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights be staffed in strict accordance with Article 101 of the UN Charter. This article said that the paramount consideration in the employment of the staff and in the determination of the conditions of service should be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity. In addition, it added that due regard should be paid to the importance of recruiting the staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible. After paying lip service to Article 101 in this draft resolution, its sponsors then proceeded to turn it on its head, emphasizing the paramount importance of equitable geographic distribution in staffing. While the US was certain that the Office of the High Commissioner would welcome qualified, experienced applicants from any part of the world, the High Commissioner should oppose pressure to hire personnel irrespective of their qualifications merely because they came from a particular region.
ALVARO MENDONCA E MOURA (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union and on behalf of the Central and Eastern European countries associated with the Union, said the EU had serious reservations about draft resolution L.79. The Secretary-General was the chief administrative office of the United Nations and was responsible for such matters as staff and geographical distribution of staff. Further, the General Assembly had the exclusive responsibility for carrying out thorough analysis and approval of posts and financial resources. The EU noted with concern, however, that 24 Member States were still unrepresented and 10 were under-represented in the Secretariat as of 30 June 1998 and noted with concern the significant reduction in the number of posts subject to geographical distribution and financed over the regular budget of the United Nations, notably at the P2 and P3 levels. The EU strongly objected to the proposal contained in the draft resolution inviting the establishment of a task force within the High Commissioner's Office to work in recruitment and training of staff, as such a request was in contradiction of the UN Charter. The EU thus would vote against the draft resolution.
Action on the draft resolution on human rights and thematic procedures (E/CN.4/2000/L.82) was deferred to a later hour.
JUAN FERNANDEZ (Cuba) said that his delegation was aware there had been a number of consultations on L.82 (human rights and thematic procedures). Cuba had taken part in these consultations and had expressed its views on the topic. The proposed text was wide ranging and incorporated many concerns that had been raised. The changes that had been introduced concerned the last paragraph and related to children. The paragraph placed emphasis on children while referring in passing to members of other vulnerable groups. Cuba felt that another paragraph was necessary to explicitly refer to these vulnerable groups, which included migrants, minorities and indigenous people. Cuba therefore suggested that further consultations be carried out before the draft resolution was voted on.
In a resolution on regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asian and Pacific region, adopted without a vote, the Commission welcomed all the conclusions of the interactive discussions held during the four regional inter-sessional workshops held in Bangkok, Manila, Tokyo and Saana respectively on national plans of action, independent national institutions, human rights education, and the effective realization of economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development for strengthening national capacities and for the promotion and protection of human rights; reaffirmed that developing and strengthening national capacities for the promotion of human rights in accordance with national conditions provided the strongest foundation for effective and enduring regional cooperation in the field of human rights in the Asia and Pacific region, and noted the discussions at the relevant workshop of the region on national human rights plans of action and capacity-building; recognized the importance of an inclusive, step-by-step, practical and building-block approach towards enhancing regional cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights in accordance with the pace and priorities to be set by the Governments of the Asia and Pacific region by consensus.
It noted that views were exchanged at the eighth workshop on the forthcoming World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance; commended the Government of China, as the host of the eighth workshop, on the promotion and protection of human rights in the Asia and Pacific regions; and welcomed the establishment of independent national institutions in countries of the Asia and Pacific region and their important contribution to the process of regional cooperation.
In a resolution on the effective implementation of international instruments on human rights, including reporting obligations under international instruments on human rights (E/CN.4/2000/L.90), adopted without a vote, the Commission encouraged each treaty body to continue to give careful consideration to the relevant conclusions and recommendations contained in the reports of the meetings of the chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies and, in this context, encouraged enhanced cooperation and coordination between the human rights treaty bodies; noted with appreciation the continuing attention given by the human rights treaty bodies, the chairpersons of those bodies, Governments, United Nations bodies and specialized agencies, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, non-governmental organizations and interested persons to the question of enhancing the long-term effectiveness of the United Nations human rights treaty system, including the final report of the Independent Expert and other contributions; and emphasized the need to ensure financing and adequate staff and information resources for the operations of the human rights treaty bodies.
The Commission also called upon the Secretary-General to seek in the next biennium the resources within the United Nations regular budget necessary to give the human rights treaty bodies adequate administrative support and better access to technical expertise and relevant information and welcomed the plans of action prepared by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to enhance the resources available to all the human rights treaty bodies and thereby strengthen the implementation of these human rights treaties; urged States parties to contribute, individually and collectively, such as through meetings of States parties, to identifying practical proposals and ideas for improving the functioning of the treaty bodies; also urged States parties to make every effort to meet their reporting obligations; and encouraged the specialized agencies and other United Nations bodies, the Commission on Human Rights, including its special procedures, the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies to continue to explore specific measures to intensify that cooperation among themselves and to improve communication and information flow to improve further the quality of their work, including by avoiding unnecessary duplication.
In a resolution on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (E/CN.4/2000/L.91), the Commission reaffirmed the importance of the development of effective, independent, and pluralistic national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights in conformity with the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, annexed to General Assembly resolution 48/134 of 20 December 1993; encouraged Member States to establish or, where they already existed, to strengthen such institutions, as outlined in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action; and recognized the important and constructive role that individuals, groups and organs of society could play, in cooperation with national institutions, for the better promotion and protection of human rights and in this context welcomed the convening by the Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions, in cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and of a workshop on cooperation between non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions in Sri Lanka in July. The Commission welcomed the decisions announced recently by a growing number of States to establish, or to consider establishing, national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, including the trend towards the establishment of such institutions in developed countries.
The Commission also called upon States to ensure that all human rights were appropriately reflected in the mandates of national human rights institutions when they were established; and affirmed the important role of national human rights institutions in combatting racial and related forms of discrimination and in the protection and promotion of the human rights of women and the rights of the child, and in that context: encouraged the appropriate participation of national institutions in preparations for the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance at the national, regional and global levels; and stressed the desirability of appropriate participation by national institutions, in cooperation with other mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights, in the five-year review of the implementation of the Plan of Action adopted at the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995.
* *** *