Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Commission on Human Rights
Default title
27 April 2000
Share
Commission on Human Rights
56th session
27 April 2000
Afternoon
Concludes Action on Draft Resolutions
The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon concluded action on draft resolutions for the year by adopting without a vote measures on the rights of the child and on human rights and thematic procedures. It also held a lengthy debate on a draft resolution on establishment of a permanent forum on indigenous issues before adopting it by a roll-call vote of 43 in favour and none against, with 9 abstentions.
In the resolution on the permanent forum, the Commission decided to establish as a subsidiary organ of the Economic and Social Council a permanent forum on indigenous issues consisting of 16 members, eight members to be appointed by the President of the Council, on the basis of broad consultations with indigenous organizations taking into account the diversity and geographical distribution of the indigenous people of the world as well as the principles of transparency, representability and equal opportunity for all indigenous people. All members would serve in their personal capacity as independent experts on indigenous issues for a period of three years with the possibility of re-election or reappointment for one further period. The resolution also calls for the forum to hold an annual session of 10 working days at the United Nations Office at Geneva or at United Nations Headquarters or at such other place as the permanent forum might decide in accordance with existing financial rules and regulations of the United Nations. And it stipulates that five years after its establishment, an evaluation of the functioning of the Permanent Forum, including the method for selection of its members, should be carried out by the Council in the light of the experience gained. As with many Commission decisions, the Council also must approve the establishment of the permanent forum.
In its resolution on the rights of the child, adopted without a vote, the Commission called upon States parties to implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child fully. It also urged States that had not done so to sign and ratify or accede to the Convention as a matter of priority having in mind the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the instrument.
Among other things, the resolution also called upon all States and relevant bodies of the United Nations system to pay particular attention to the development of sustainable health systems and social services to ensure the effective prevention of diseases, malnutrition, disabilities and infant and child mortality; to adopt all necessary measures to ensure enjoyment of all rights by children affected by disease and malnutrition; and to give importance to the treatment and rehabilitation of children with and affected by HIV/AIDS. It called upon States to make primary education compulsory and free.
Concerning the girl child, the Commission also called upon all States to take necessary measures to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by girls of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and to eliminate all forms of discrimination against them.
In a resolution on human rights and thematic procedures, adopted by consensus, the Commission encouraged all Governments to cooperate with the Commission through the pertinent thematic procedures by responding without undue delay to requests for information made to them through the thematic procedures, so that the procedures might carry out their mandates effectively. States were urged to consider inviting thematic special rapporteurs, representatives, experts and working groups to visit their countries. They were also invited to study carefully the recommendations addressed to them under thematic procedures and to keep the relevant mechanisms informed without undue delay on the progress made towards their implementation.
The Commission will meet at 3 p.m. on Friday, 28 April, to conclude its fifty-sixth session.
Action on draft resolutions
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2000/L.94) on the rights of the child, adopted without a vote, the Commission urged States that had not done so to sign and ratify or accede to the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a matter of priority having in mind the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention; called upon States parties to implement the Convention fully; urged them to withdraw reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention; called upon them urgently to accept the amendment to paragraph 2, article 43 of the Convention and to comply in a timely manner with their reporting obligations under the Convention; decided to request the Secretary-General to ensure appropriate staff and facilities from the United Nations regular budget for the effective and expeditious performance of the functions of the Committee on the Rights of the Child; and called upon States to strengthen national systems for collection of comprehensive, disaggregated, gender-specific data for all areas covered by the Convention.
In addition, the Commission called upon all States to intensify efforts to ensure the registration of all children immediately after birth; to undertake to respect the right of the child to an identity and nationality; to ensure, as far as possible, the right of the child to know and be cared for by his parents; and to ensure that a child was not separated from them against their will except when such separation was necessary for the best interests of the child; called upon all States and relevant bodies of the United Nations system to pay particular attention to the development of sustainable health systems and social services to ensure the effective prevention of diseases, malnutrition, disabilities and infant and child mortality; to adopt all necessary measures to ensure enjoyment of all rights by children affected by disease and malnutrition; and to give importance to the treatment and rehabilitation of children with and affected by HIV/AIDS; called upon States to make primary education compulsory and ensure that all children have access to free and relevant primary education; for those States that did not have free, compulsory primary education to work out detailed plans of action to provide it; called upon States to take all appropriate measures to prevent racist, discriminatory and xenophobic attitudes and behaviour, through education; to remove educational disparities and make education accessible to children living in poverty, rural areas, to refugee children, to migrant and street children, to indigenous and minority children, and to children in various special circumstances; called upon all to develop and implement gender-sensitive strategies to address the particular needs of the girl child in education; reaffirmed the obligation of States to protect children from torture and other cruel treatment or punishment; to take all appropriate measures to prevent all forms of violence against children; and to investigate and prosecute cases of torture or other violence against children and to sanction those responsible with appropriate penalties.
The Commission also called upon all States to take necessary measures to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by girls of all human rights and fundamental freedoms; to eliminate all forms of discrimination against girls and the root causes of son preference; to eradicate traditional or customary practices, particularly female genital mutilation, that were harmful to or discriminatory against women and girls; to enact and enforce strictly laws that ensured that marriage was entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses; to adopt all necessary measures to ensure the enjoyment of all rights by children with disabilities; to protect all the human rights of migrant children, in particular unaccompanied migrant children; to examine and devise comprehensive solutions to the problems causing children to work and/or to live on the street; to protect, rehabilitate and reintegrate such children; to ensure that they were diverted from involvement in harmful, exploitative and abusive activities; to take the situation of these children into account when preparing reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child; to take urgent measures to prevent the killing of such children and to combat torture and violence against them; called upon all States and other parties to armed conflict to bear in mind that refugee and internally displaced children were particularly exposed to risks in connection with armed conflicts; to increase protection of refugee and internally displaced children; called upon States to translate into concrete action their commitment to the effective elimination of child labour contrary to accepted international standards and, as a matter of priority, to eliminate the worst forms of child labour, such as forced labour, forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict, bonded labour, and other forms of slavery; called upon States to ratify relevant international conventions related to child labour; to promote education as a key strategy for preventing inappropriate child labour; to systematically assess and examine the magnitude, nature, and causes of child labour and to develop and implement strategies to eliminate it; to ensure compliance with the principle that depriving children of their liberty should be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time; and to take appropriate steps to ensure that no child in detention was deprived of health-care services, education, and sanitation services.
In addition, the resolution called upon States to take all appropriate measures to ensure the effective application of relevant standards concerning the prevention and combat of trafficking and sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography; to respect fully, along with other parties to armed conflict, provisions related to the protection of children affected by armed conflict; and urged States and other relevant actors to take all appropriate measures to promote, where necessary, the physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of child victims of violations of the standards of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
ALVARO MENDONCA E MOURA (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union and States associated with it, said that the draft resolution on the rights of the child represented a significant improvement. In this regard, the EU welcomed its new structure, which enabled the text to be more streamlined and shorter. Not only did the draft resolution take into account recent developments that had occurred concerning the rights of the child, but its content was now more accessible to the wider public. It was hoped that this would positively contribute to the improvement of the protection and promotion of the rights of the child.
PHILIPPE PETIT (France), also speaking on behalf of Belgium, said that operative paragraph 2 of the draft resolution called for the immediate signature and ratification of the two optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. All States should become party to this Convention and should carefully consider articles 34, 35 and 25 of the instrument. The two optional protocols continued the building of an international legal construction for the protection of children. It was necessary to maintain consistency and to avoid selective choices in this process. The delegation of France regretted that the principle of universality had not yet been implemented. This would be the best display of the international community's will to act together.
HAROLD KOH (the United States) said the delegation joined the consensus on L.63, which adopted the two draft optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These were the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflicts and the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. These were important measures for the care and protection of children. To be most effective, both should be promptly ratified and implemented by every nation. The United States had ratified the Protocols although it was not party to the Convention itself. The United States also joined consensus on L.94.
In a resolution on human rights and thematic procedures (E/CN.4/2000/L.82), adopted by consensus, the Commission encouraged all Governments to cooperate with the Commission through the pertinent thematic procedures by responding without undue delay to requests for information made to them through the thematic procedures, so that the procedures might carry out their mandates effectively; by considering inviting thematic special rapporteurs, representatives, experts and working groups to visit their countries; and by considering follow-up visits with a view to the effective implementation of recommendations by the thematic procedures concerned. It invited the Governments concerned to study carefully the recommendations addressed to them under thematic procedures and to keep the relevant mechanisms informed without undue delay on the progress made towards their implementation; invited non-governmental organizations to continue and to strengthen their cooperation with thematic procedures and to ensure that the material provided was as detailed and accurate as possible and fell under the mandate of those procedures; and encouraged the High Commissioner for Human Rights, including in the follow-up to the five-year review of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, to further strengthen cooperation among the thematic special rapporteurs, representatives, experts, members and chairpersons of working groups of the Commission and other relevant United Nations bodies.
HAROLD KOH (the United States) said the delegation wished to explain its position on resolution L.89. The United States commended the initiatives taken by the Asia-Pacific region to promote and protect human rights such as national human rights plans of action, national capacity building, human rights education and technical assistance. However, there was concern as to the conclusion of the Beijing workshop and the funding issue. The delegation of the Unites States looked forward to discuss this funding proposal and other issues raised during the Beijing workshop, including proposals on the participation of national human rights institutions in the preparation for the World Conference against Racism.
In a resolution on the establishment of a Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (E/CN.4/2000/L.68), adopted by a roll-call vote of 43 in favour to none against with 9 abstaining, the Commission decided to establish as a subsidiary organ of the Economic and Social Council a permanent forum on indigenous issues consisting of 16 members, 8 members to be appointed by the President of the Council, on the basis of broad consultations with indigenous organizations taking into account the diversity and geographical distribution of the indigenous people of the world as well as the principles of transparency, representativity and equal opportunity for all indigenous people, including internal processes, when appropriate, and local indigenous consultation processes; all members serving in their personal capacity as independent experts on indigenous issues for a period of three years with the possibility of re-election or reappointment for one further period; States, United Nations bodies and organs, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Council might participate as observers; organizations of indigenous people might equally participate as observers in accordance with the procedures which had been applied in the Working Group on Indigenous Populations.
It decided that the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues should serve as an advisory body to the Council with a mandate to discuss indigenous issues within the mandate of the Council relating to economic and social development, culture, the environment, education, health and human rights; in so doing the Forum would provide expert advice and recommendations on indigenous issues to the Council, as well as to programmes, funds and agencies of the United Nations, through the Council; raise awareness and promote the integration and coordination of activities relating to indigenous issues with the United Nations system; and provide and disseminate information on indigenous issues. The Commission further decided that the Permanent Forum should apply the rules of procedures established for subsidiary organs of the Council as applicable, unless otherwise decided by the Council; the principle of consensus should govern the work of the Forum; also decided that the Permanent Forum should hold an annual session of 10 working days at the United Nations Office at Geneva or at United Nations Headquarters or at such other place as the Permanent Forum might decide in accordance with existing financial rules and regulations of the United Nations; also decided that five years after its establishment, an evaluation of the functioning of the Permanent Forum, including the method for selection of its members, should be carried out by the Council in the light of the experience gained.
The above resolution was carried as a whole by a roll-call vote of 43 in favour to one against with 9 abstaining following a roll-call vote of 11 in favour to 21 against and 20 abstaining rejected an amendment to the text. In a second roll-call vote, a paragraph to amend the amendment was accepted by a vote of 20 in favour to 6 against with 26 abstentions. The accepted paragraph reads: "Stressing that the establishment of the permanent forum should lead to a careful consideration of the future of the working group on indigenous populations.", which was incorporated in the text of the resolution.
In a show-of-hands vote of 43 in favour to none against with 9 abstentions, it was decided to retain operative paragraph 1 of the text.
In another show-of-hands vote to retain operative paragraph 8, the Commission retained it by a vote of 35 in favour to none against, and 16 abstaining.
The result of the vote to carry on the whole text was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tunisia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: None.
Abstentions: Burundi, Congo, Cuba, Madagascar, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria and Sudan.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) said that despite several consultations, the sponsor of L.68 was unable to come up with a text which accommodated all views. Cuba asked for a separate vote on operative paragraphs 1 and 8. It proposed to add a further paragraph stressing that the establishment of a Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues should not necessary entail the abolition of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations. This proposal stemmed from Government sources from the World Conference in Vienna in 1993. Several delegations believed that the establishment of the Forum would be an excuse for disbanding the Working Group.
The Working Group enabled both Governments and indigenous people to establish a dialogue. It had played a positive role in enhancing the understanding of the various problems indigenous people faced. The financial cost of the Working Group did not exceed $ 22,000 whereas the Forum would cost $ 750,000 per year. The cost of the Working Group was thus peanuts compared to the Forum. The Cuban amendment was that the existence of the forum should not lead to the dismantlement of an organ that had been so useful for both governments and indigenous people.
C. E. MBONU (Nigeria) reiterated points made a few days ago on this issue. The delegation of Nigeria would like to support the amendments submitted by Cuba. Several answers had not been given. The existing mechanism included the Working Group on Indigenous Populations. Why was this Working Group being singled out and disintegrated. The delegation of Nigeria appealed to the Commission to not pre-judge the Council. The Working Group was a very important forum. It should be known that the delegation of Nigeria would support the amendments by Cuba.
TYGE LEHMANN (Denmark) said that the delegation was surprised by the Cuban amendment to L.68. Paragraph 8 should not prejudge the outcome of the review by the Council. The establishment of a Permanent Forum did not necessarily mean abolition of the Working Group. Paragraph 8 was neutral in this regard. Denmark also pointed out that while the membership of the Working Group did not include any indigenous representatives, the Forum would include an equal number of Government and indigenous representatives.
ANTONIO DO NASCIMENTO PEDRO (Brazil) said the delegation agreed with the text as it stood in the draft resolution and thanked the delegation of Denmark and the cosponsors for their great latitude. Having said this, the delegation of Cuba made a new preambular section possible and Brazil did not see any contradictory problems with the new preambular section. The paragraph had been a concern but not a main misgiving of the delegation of Brazil, which felt it was unnecessary to pre-judge the work of the forum.
JUAN GONZALEZ DE LINARES PALOU (Spain) said that the delegation attached great importance to the establishment of a Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues after so many years of consultations in the Working Group. Spain supported those delegations who requested that the establishment of the Forum should not prejudge the existence of the Working Group, whose future should be determined at a later stage. With regard to the proposed Cuban amendment, Spain suggested an amendment to the amendment. Spain suggested that the word "abolition" be replaced by "lead to a careful consideration of the future of".
CARLA RODRIGUEZ-MANCIA (Guatemala) thanked Denmark for the huge efforts made during this session as well as the delegations that had shown flexibility so that a consensus could be devised. There was regret that there were still consultations after the efforts made by so many delegations to achieve a consensus. Commitments had already been made and the Commission was back to square one. The delegation of Guatemala had no difficulty with the Cuban amendment because it had no pre-judgements as to the future of the Working Group. Nevertheless, Spain’s suggestion might be able to lead to a consensus vote.
ALVARO MENDONCA E MOURA (Portugal) supported the Spanish amendment to the Cuban amendment, believing it was a clever way of bridging a small gap. Portugal appealed to all delegations to adopt such an amended resolution by consensus.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) thanked all those who had spoken, especially Spain, Brazil and Portugal. In fact it was the delegation of Cuba that was surprised at Denmark’s and Guatemala's remarks. It was a matter of a small paragraph and the delegation of Cuba was merely attempting to work out a balanced text, in order to avoid the pre-judging of the Working Group. Cuba was not against the establishment of the Permanent Indigenous Forum, on the contrary, however, this was no reason to abolish the work of the Working Group. Cuba's issue could not be construed as pre-judging the decisions of the Council. The sub-amendment of Spain could lead to a consensus if the delegation of Cuba could submit a sub-amendment to the sub-amendment, which would state that there should be no duplication of the respective mandates of both organs.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) said that the sub-amendment put forward by Cuba to sub-amend the amendment by Spain was aimed at preserving a balance. The sub-amendment said that the creation of a permanent forum should lead to a careful consideration of the future of the Working Group in order to avoid unnecessary overlapping of the respective mandates of the two bodies.
JUAN DE LINARES PALOU (Spain) said the delegation regretted there had been no consensus. In view of the circumstances and recognizing the efforts made by all delegations in the consultations, the delegation of Spain reiterated that the amendment as proposed was sufficiently neutral in its view and did not pre-judge the work of the Council. It was hoped that there would be a careful consideration of all of its aspects and not only in terms of the mandate.
ROSS HYNES (Canada) said his country opposed the Cuban sub-amendment since it would prejudice a review which might take place. The language of the sub-amendment implied the continued existence of the Working Group after the review. On the other hand, the Spanish sub-amendment kept all options open.
C. E. MBONU (Nigeria) placed on record the delegation’s regret as to the lack of a consensus. Some delegations were not flexible enough and unfortunately this draft resolution would be voted on. Cuba’s amendment was in fact very neutral.
CARLA RODRIGUEZ MANCIA (Guatemala) said that it would vote against the Cuban sub-amendment, which would water down the Spanish sub-amendment. The Spanish sub-amendment did not prejudice the future of the Working Group.
NORMA NASCIMBENE DE DUMONT (Argentina) said the delegation felt discouraged as it had participated actively in the discussion. Argentina supported the Guatemalan delegation and would also vote against the Cuban sub-amendment.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) said that the Spanish sub-amendment to the Cuban amendment was not acceptable for Cuba as it would water down its proposal. In reality, the Spanish amendment would lead to making a decision on the future of the Working Group, which implied that it would cease to exist. Cuba wished to remain neutral and avoid prejudging a decision by the Council on the question. Its amendment stated that the creation of the Permanent Forum would not necessarily lead to the dismantling of the Working Group.
CARLA RODRIGUEZ MANCIA (Guatemala) said the delegation would vote in favour of the Spanish amendment as it did not in any way predict the future of the Working Group. The future could involve a revision of the mandate of the Working Group, not necessarily its dismantling. One should talk about the future, not about abolition.
CARLA RODRIGUEZ DE DUMONT (Guatemala) said Guatemala regretted the need for a vote. In Guatemala more than half the population consisted of indigenous peoples. The delegation was glad to see that no one had voted against the Forum and hoped that ECOSOC would make a final decision on the work as it was very important. The selection process had been raising concern; however, after five years, there would be an evaluation of the selection process. It was important to have confidence given that indigenous peoples now had a forum.
ROSS HYNES (Canada) said the adoption of L.68 constituted a historic moment. The Commission should also acknowledge the support of indigenous people around the world.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) said the delegation had abstained because the resolution left doubts as to the treatment of indigenous issues by the United Nations. Cuba would reserve its position until the evaluation of the forum had been undertaken. The resolution had not been discussed enough given the importance of the issues involved.
JOSE ROSENBERG (Ecuador) said Ecuador enthusiastically supported the creation of a Permanent Forum since this machinery could make significant contributions to the well-being and development of indigenous people around the world. The creation of the forum did not presuppose the elimination of Working Group.
* *** *
56th session
27 April 2000
Afternoon
Concludes Action on Draft Resolutions
The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon concluded action on draft resolutions for the year by adopting without a vote measures on the rights of the child and on human rights and thematic procedures. It also held a lengthy debate on a draft resolution on establishment of a permanent forum on indigenous issues before adopting it by a roll-call vote of 43 in favour and none against, with 9 abstentions.
In the resolution on the permanent forum, the Commission decided to establish as a subsidiary organ of the Economic and Social Council a permanent forum on indigenous issues consisting of 16 members, eight members to be appointed by the President of the Council, on the basis of broad consultations with indigenous organizations taking into account the diversity and geographical distribution of the indigenous people of the world as well as the principles of transparency, representability and equal opportunity for all indigenous people. All members would serve in their personal capacity as independent experts on indigenous issues for a period of three years with the possibility of re-election or reappointment for one further period. The resolution also calls for the forum to hold an annual session of 10 working days at the United Nations Office at Geneva or at United Nations Headquarters or at such other place as the permanent forum might decide in accordance with existing financial rules and regulations of the United Nations. And it stipulates that five years after its establishment, an evaluation of the functioning of the Permanent Forum, including the method for selection of its members, should be carried out by the Council in the light of the experience gained. As with many Commission decisions, the Council also must approve the establishment of the permanent forum.
In its resolution on the rights of the child, adopted without a vote, the Commission called upon States parties to implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child fully. It also urged States that had not done so to sign and ratify or accede to the Convention as a matter of priority having in mind the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the instrument.
Among other things, the resolution also called upon all States and relevant bodies of the United Nations system to pay particular attention to the development of sustainable health systems and social services to ensure the effective prevention of diseases, malnutrition, disabilities and infant and child mortality; to adopt all necessary measures to ensure enjoyment of all rights by children affected by disease and malnutrition; and to give importance to the treatment and rehabilitation of children with and affected by HIV/AIDS. It called upon States to make primary education compulsory and free.
Concerning the girl child, the Commission also called upon all States to take necessary measures to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by girls of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and to eliminate all forms of discrimination against them.
In a resolution on human rights and thematic procedures, adopted by consensus, the Commission encouraged all Governments to cooperate with the Commission through the pertinent thematic procedures by responding without undue delay to requests for information made to them through the thematic procedures, so that the procedures might carry out their mandates effectively. States were urged to consider inviting thematic special rapporteurs, representatives, experts and working groups to visit their countries. They were also invited to study carefully the recommendations addressed to them under thematic procedures and to keep the relevant mechanisms informed without undue delay on the progress made towards their implementation.
The Commission will meet at 3 p.m. on Friday, 28 April, to conclude its fifty-sixth session.
Action on draft resolutions
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2000/L.94) on the rights of the child, adopted without a vote, the Commission urged States that had not done so to sign and ratify or accede to the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a matter of priority having in mind the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the Convention; called upon States parties to implement the Convention fully; urged them to withdraw reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention; called upon them urgently to accept the amendment to paragraph 2, article 43 of the Convention and to comply in a timely manner with their reporting obligations under the Convention; decided to request the Secretary-General to ensure appropriate staff and facilities from the United Nations regular budget for the effective and expeditious performance of the functions of the Committee on the Rights of the Child; and called upon States to strengthen national systems for collection of comprehensive, disaggregated, gender-specific data for all areas covered by the Convention.
In addition, the Commission called upon all States to intensify efforts to ensure the registration of all children immediately after birth; to undertake to respect the right of the child to an identity and nationality; to ensure, as far as possible, the right of the child to know and be cared for by his parents; and to ensure that a child was not separated from them against their will except when such separation was necessary for the best interests of the child; called upon all States and relevant bodies of the United Nations system to pay particular attention to the development of sustainable health systems and social services to ensure the effective prevention of diseases, malnutrition, disabilities and infant and child mortality; to adopt all necessary measures to ensure enjoyment of all rights by children affected by disease and malnutrition; and to give importance to the treatment and rehabilitation of children with and affected by HIV/AIDS; called upon States to make primary education compulsory and ensure that all children have access to free and relevant primary education; for those States that did not have free, compulsory primary education to work out detailed plans of action to provide it; called upon States to take all appropriate measures to prevent racist, discriminatory and xenophobic attitudes and behaviour, through education; to remove educational disparities and make education accessible to children living in poverty, rural areas, to refugee children, to migrant and street children, to indigenous and minority children, and to children in various special circumstances; called upon all to develop and implement gender-sensitive strategies to address the particular needs of the girl child in education; reaffirmed the obligation of States to protect children from torture and other cruel treatment or punishment; to take all appropriate measures to prevent all forms of violence against children; and to investigate and prosecute cases of torture or other violence against children and to sanction those responsible with appropriate penalties.
The Commission also called upon all States to take necessary measures to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by girls of all human rights and fundamental freedoms; to eliminate all forms of discrimination against girls and the root causes of son preference; to eradicate traditional or customary practices, particularly female genital mutilation, that were harmful to or discriminatory against women and girls; to enact and enforce strictly laws that ensured that marriage was entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses; to adopt all necessary measures to ensure the enjoyment of all rights by children with disabilities; to protect all the human rights of migrant children, in particular unaccompanied migrant children; to examine and devise comprehensive solutions to the problems causing children to work and/or to live on the street; to protect, rehabilitate and reintegrate such children; to ensure that they were diverted from involvement in harmful, exploitative and abusive activities; to take the situation of these children into account when preparing reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child; to take urgent measures to prevent the killing of such children and to combat torture and violence against them; called upon all States and other parties to armed conflict to bear in mind that refugee and internally displaced children were particularly exposed to risks in connection with armed conflicts; to increase protection of refugee and internally displaced children; called upon States to translate into concrete action their commitment to the effective elimination of child labour contrary to accepted international standards and, as a matter of priority, to eliminate the worst forms of child labour, such as forced labour, forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict, bonded labour, and other forms of slavery; called upon States to ratify relevant international conventions related to child labour; to promote education as a key strategy for preventing inappropriate child labour; to systematically assess and examine the magnitude, nature, and causes of child labour and to develop and implement strategies to eliminate it; to ensure compliance with the principle that depriving children of their liberty should be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time; and to take appropriate steps to ensure that no child in detention was deprived of health-care services, education, and sanitation services.
In addition, the resolution called upon States to take all appropriate measures to ensure the effective application of relevant standards concerning the prevention and combat of trafficking and sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography; to respect fully, along with other parties to armed conflict, provisions related to the protection of children affected by armed conflict; and urged States and other relevant actors to take all appropriate measures to promote, where necessary, the physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of child victims of violations of the standards of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
ALVARO MENDONCA E MOURA (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union and States associated with it, said that the draft resolution on the rights of the child represented a significant improvement. In this regard, the EU welcomed its new structure, which enabled the text to be more streamlined and shorter. Not only did the draft resolution take into account recent developments that had occurred concerning the rights of the child, but its content was now more accessible to the wider public. It was hoped that this would positively contribute to the improvement of the protection and promotion of the rights of the child.
PHILIPPE PETIT (France), also speaking on behalf of Belgium, said that operative paragraph 2 of the draft resolution called for the immediate signature and ratification of the two optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. All States should become party to this Convention and should carefully consider articles 34, 35 and 25 of the instrument. The two optional protocols continued the building of an international legal construction for the protection of children. It was necessary to maintain consistency and to avoid selective choices in this process. The delegation of France regretted that the principle of universality had not yet been implemented. This would be the best display of the international community's will to act together.
HAROLD KOH (the United States) said the delegation joined the consensus on L.63, which adopted the two draft optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These were the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflicts and the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. These were important measures for the care and protection of children. To be most effective, both should be promptly ratified and implemented by every nation. The United States had ratified the Protocols although it was not party to the Convention itself. The United States also joined consensus on L.94.
In a resolution on human rights and thematic procedures (E/CN.4/2000/L.82), adopted by consensus, the Commission encouraged all Governments to cooperate with the Commission through the pertinent thematic procedures by responding without undue delay to requests for information made to them through the thematic procedures, so that the procedures might carry out their mandates effectively; by considering inviting thematic special rapporteurs, representatives, experts and working groups to visit their countries; and by considering follow-up visits with a view to the effective implementation of recommendations by the thematic procedures concerned. It invited the Governments concerned to study carefully the recommendations addressed to them under thematic procedures and to keep the relevant mechanisms informed without undue delay on the progress made towards their implementation; invited non-governmental organizations to continue and to strengthen their cooperation with thematic procedures and to ensure that the material provided was as detailed and accurate as possible and fell under the mandate of those procedures; and encouraged the High Commissioner for Human Rights, including in the follow-up to the five-year review of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, to further strengthen cooperation among the thematic special rapporteurs, representatives, experts, members and chairpersons of working groups of the Commission and other relevant United Nations bodies.
HAROLD KOH (the United States) said the delegation wished to explain its position on resolution L.89. The United States commended the initiatives taken by the Asia-Pacific region to promote and protect human rights such as national human rights plans of action, national capacity building, human rights education and technical assistance. However, there was concern as to the conclusion of the Beijing workshop and the funding issue. The delegation of the Unites States looked forward to discuss this funding proposal and other issues raised during the Beijing workshop, including proposals on the participation of national human rights institutions in the preparation for the World Conference against Racism.
In a resolution on the establishment of a Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (E/CN.4/2000/L.68), adopted by a roll-call vote of 43 in favour to none against with 9 abstaining, the Commission decided to establish as a subsidiary organ of the Economic and Social Council a permanent forum on indigenous issues consisting of 16 members, 8 members to be appointed by the President of the Council, on the basis of broad consultations with indigenous organizations taking into account the diversity and geographical distribution of the indigenous people of the world as well as the principles of transparency, representativity and equal opportunity for all indigenous people, including internal processes, when appropriate, and local indigenous consultation processes; all members serving in their personal capacity as independent experts on indigenous issues for a period of three years with the possibility of re-election or reappointment for one further period; States, United Nations bodies and organs, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Council might participate as observers; organizations of indigenous people might equally participate as observers in accordance with the procedures which had been applied in the Working Group on Indigenous Populations.
It decided that the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues should serve as an advisory body to the Council with a mandate to discuss indigenous issues within the mandate of the Council relating to economic and social development, culture, the environment, education, health and human rights; in so doing the Forum would provide expert advice and recommendations on indigenous issues to the Council, as well as to programmes, funds and agencies of the United Nations, through the Council; raise awareness and promote the integration and coordination of activities relating to indigenous issues with the United Nations system; and provide and disseminate information on indigenous issues. The Commission further decided that the Permanent Forum should apply the rules of procedures established for subsidiary organs of the Council as applicable, unless otherwise decided by the Council; the principle of consensus should govern the work of the Forum; also decided that the Permanent Forum should hold an annual session of 10 working days at the United Nations Office at Geneva or at United Nations Headquarters or at such other place as the Permanent Forum might decide in accordance with existing financial rules and regulations of the United Nations; also decided that five years after its establishment, an evaluation of the functioning of the Permanent Forum, including the method for selection of its members, should be carried out by the Council in the light of the experience gained.
The above resolution was carried as a whole by a roll-call vote of 43 in favour to one against with 9 abstaining following a roll-call vote of 11 in favour to 21 against and 20 abstaining rejected an amendment to the text. In a second roll-call vote, a paragraph to amend the amendment was accepted by a vote of 20 in favour to 6 against with 26 abstentions. The accepted paragraph reads: "Stressing that the establishment of the permanent forum should lead to a careful consideration of the future of the working group on indigenous populations.", which was incorporated in the text of the resolution.
In a show-of-hands vote of 43 in favour to none against with 9 abstentions, it was decided to retain operative paragraph 1 of the text.
In another show-of-hands vote to retain operative paragraph 8, the Commission retained it by a vote of 35 in favour to none against, and 16 abstaining.
The result of the vote to carry on the whole text was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tunisia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: None.
Abstentions: Burundi, Congo, Cuba, Madagascar, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria and Sudan.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) said that despite several consultations, the sponsor of L.68 was unable to come up with a text which accommodated all views. Cuba asked for a separate vote on operative paragraphs 1 and 8. It proposed to add a further paragraph stressing that the establishment of a Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues should not necessary entail the abolition of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations. This proposal stemmed from Government sources from the World Conference in Vienna in 1993. Several delegations believed that the establishment of the Forum would be an excuse for disbanding the Working Group.
The Working Group enabled both Governments and indigenous people to establish a dialogue. It had played a positive role in enhancing the understanding of the various problems indigenous people faced. The financial cost of the Working Group did not exceed $ 22,000 whereas the Forum would cost $ 750,000 per year. The cost of the Working Group was thus peanuts compared to the Forum. The Cuban amendment was that the existence of the forum should not lead to the dismantlement of an organ that had been so useful for both governments and indigenous people.
C. E. MBONU (Nigeria) reiterated points made a few days ago on this issue. The delegation of Nigeria would like to support the amendments submitted by Cuba. Several answers had not been given. The existing mechanism included the Working Group on Indigenous Populations. Why was this Working Group being singled out and disintegrated. The delegation of Nigeria appealed to the Commission to not pre-judge the Council. The Working Group was a very important forum. It should be known that the delegation of Nigeria would support the amendments by Cuba.
TYGE LEHMANN (Denmark) said that the delegation was surprised by the Cuban amendment to L.68. Paragraph 8 should not prejudge the outcome of the review by the Council. The establishment of a Permanent Forum did not necessarily mean abolition of the Working Group. Paragraph 8 was neutral in this regard. Denmark also pointed out that while the membership of the Working Group did not include any indigenous representatives, the Forum would include an equal number of Government and indigenous representatives.
ANTONIO DO NASCIMENTO PEDRO (Brazil) said the delegation agreed with the text as it stood in the draft resolution and thanked the delegation of Denmark and the cosponsors for their great latitude. Having said this, the delegation of Cuba made a new preambular section possible and Brazil did not see any contradictory problems with the new preambular section. The paragraph had been a concern but not a main misgiving of the delegation of Brazil, which felt it was unnecessary to pre-judge the work of the forum.
JUAN GONZALEZ DE LINARES PALOU (Spain) said that the delegation attached great importance to the establishment of a Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues after so many years of consultations in the Working Group. Spain supported those delegations who requested that the establishment of the Forum should not prejudge the existence of the Working Group, whose future should be determined at a later stage. With regard to the proposed Cuban amendment, Spain suggested an amendment to the amendment. Spain suggested that the word "abolition" be replaced by "lead to a careful consideration of the future of".
CARLA RODRIGUEZ-MANCIA (Guatemala) thanked Denmark for the huge efforts made during this session as well as the delegations that had shown flexibility so that a consensus could be devised. There was regret that there were still consultations after the efforts made by so many delegations to achieve a consensus. Commitments had already been made and the Commission was back to square one. The delegation of Guatemala had no difficulty with the Cuban amendment because it had no pre-judgements as to the future of the Working Group. Nevertheless, Spain’s suggestion might be able to lead to a consensus vote.
ALVARO MENDONCA E MOURA (Portugal) supported the Spanish amendment to the Cuban amendment, believing it was a clever way of bridging a small gap. Portugal appealed to all delegations to adopt such an amended resolution by consensus.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) thanked all those who had spoken, especially Spain, Brazil and Portugal. In fact it was the delegation of Cuba that was surprised at Denmark’s and Guatemala's remarks. It was a matter of a small paragraph and the delegation of Cuba was merely attempting to work out a balanced text, in order to avoid the pre-judging of the Working Group. Cuba was not against the establishment of the Permanent Indigenous Forum, on the contrary, however, this was no reason to abolish the work of the Working Group. Cuba's issue could not be construed as pre-judging the decisions of the Council. The sub-amendment of Spain could lead to a consensus if the delegation of Cuba could submit a sub-amendment to the sub-amendment, which would state that there should be no duplication of the respective mandates of both organs.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) said that the sub-amendment put forward by Cuba to sub-amend the amendment by Spain was aimed at preserving a balance. The sub-amendment said that the creation of a permanent forum should lead to a careful consideration of the future of the Working Group in order to avoid unnecessary overlapping of the respective mandates of the two bodies.
JUAN DE LINARES PALOU (Spain) said the delegation regretted there had been no consensus. In view of the circumstances and recognizing the efforts made by all delegations in the consultations, the delegation of Spain reiterated that the amendment as proposed was sufficiently neutral in its view and did not pre-judge the work of the Council. It was hoped that there would be a careful consideration of all of its aspects and not only in terms of the mandate.
ROSS HYNES (Canada) said his country opposed the Cuban sub-amendment since it would prejudice a review which might take place. The language of the sub-amendment implied the continued existence of the Working Group after the review. On the other hand, the Spanish sub-amendment kept all options open.
C. E. MBONU (Nigeria) placed on record the delegation’s regret as to the lack of a consensus. Some delegations were not flexible enough and unfortunately this draft resolution would be voted on. Cuba’s amendment was in fact very neutral.
CARLA RODRIGUEZ MANCIA (Guatemala) said that it would vote against the Cuban sub-amendment, which would water down the Spanish sub-amendment. The Spanish sub-amendment did not prejudice the future of the Working Group.
NORMA NASCIMBENE DE DUMONT (Argentina) said the delegation felt discouraged as it had participated actively in the discussion. Argentina supported the Guatemalan delegation and would also vote against the Cuban sub-amendment.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) said that the Spanish sub-amendment to the Cuban amendment was not acceptable for Cuba as it would water down its proposal. In reality, the Spanish amendment would lead to making a decision on the future of the Working Group, which implied that it would cease to exist. Cuba wished to remain neutral and avoid prejudging a decision by the Council on the question. Its amendment stated that the creation of the Permanent Forum would not necessarily lead to the dismantling of the Working Group.
CARLA RODRIGUEZ MANCIA (Guatemala) said the delegation would vote in favour of the Spanish amendment as it did not in any way predict the future of the Working Group. The future could involve a revision of the mandate of the Working Group, not necessarily its dismantling. One should talk about the future, not about abolition.
CARLA RODRIGUEZ DE DUMONT (Guatemala) said Guatemala regretted the need for a vote. In Guatemala more than half the population consisted of indigenous peoples. The delegation was glad to see that no one had voted against the Forum and hoped that ECOSOC would make a final decision on the work as it was very important. The selection process had been raising concern; however, after five years, there would be an evaluation of the selection process. It was important to have confidence given that indigenous peoples now had a forum.
ROSS HYNES (Canada) said the adoption of L.68 constituted a historic moment. The Commission should also acknowledge the support of indigenous people around the world.
MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) said the delegation had abstained because the resolution left doubts as to the treatment of indigenous issues by the United Nations. Cuba would reserve its position until the evaluation of the forum had been undertaken. The resolution had not been discussed enough given the importance of the issues involved.
JOSE ROSENBERG (Ecuador) said Ecuador enthusiastically supported the creation of a Permanent Forum since this machinery could make significant contributions to the well-being and development of indigenous people around the world. The creation of the forum did not presuppose the elimination of Working Group.
* *** *