Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Commission on Human Rights
Default title
25 April 2000
Share
Comission on Human Rights
56th session
25 April 2000
Morning
Chairman’s Statement Urges All States to Reaffirm Commitment,
Resources for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
The Commission on Human Rights approved by roll-call vote this morning a resolution calling for States to consolidate democracy through the promotion of pluralism, the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and by maximizing the participation of individuals in decision-making and the development of competent and public institutions.
Also adopted were consensus measures on the rights of non-citizens, the human rights of migrants, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, tolerance and pluralism as indispensable for the promotion and protection of human rights, and the human rights of persons with disabilities.
Shambhu Ram Simkhada, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, read out a Chairman’s statement on the question of resources for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. All should reaffirm their commitment to the essential work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and recognize the need for further and continued support of its programmes and activities. The Commission therefore reaffirmed its appeal that additional resources be allocated to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The Commission dwelled for more than two hours on the resolution on bolstering democracy, with much of the discussion focusing on amendments proposed by Cuba and Pakistan. The meeting was suspended for ten minutes to allow achievement of a compromise text on the Pakistani proposal, which ultimately involved a change to a preambular paragraph to include a reference to "religious beliefs". In a series of roll-call votes, the proposed Cuban amendments were rejected. The original text of the resolution finally was approved by a roll-call vote of 45 in favour and none opposed, with eight abstentions.
The resolution, among other things, calls on States to bolster democracy through development of an independent judiciary, effective and accountable legislature and public service and an electoral system that ensures periodic, free and fair elections; and for States to develop, nurture and maintain electoral systems that provide for the free and fair expression of the people's will, in particular by ensuring the right of everyone to take part in government, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Acting on measures under its agenda item on "specific groups and individuals", the Commission decided to approve the request of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to appoint one of its members to carry out a study on the topic of the rights of non-citizens.
Its consensus resolution on the rights of migrants called, among other things, for States to review and amend if necessary legislation that was discriminatory against migrants, and strongly condemned all forms of racial discrimination and xenophobia related to access to employment, vocational training, housing, schooling, health services, or social services.
The Commission’s consensus resolution on the International Convention on migrant workers' rights urged, among other things, ratification of the Convention so that it could speedily enter into force.
The measure on promotion of tolerance and pluralism condemned unequivocally all violent acts and activities that infringed upon human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy and reiterated the obligation of all States and the international community to protect effectively the human rights of all persons belonging to national or ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities.
The resolution on the human rights of persons with disabilities recognized that any violation of the fundamental principle of equality or any discrimination or other negative differential treatment of persons with disabilities was an infringement on their human rights, and expressed grave concern that situations of armed conflict had especially devastating consequences for persons with disabilities -- noting as well its support for international efforts to ban and remove anti-personnel landmines.
The Commission will reconvene at 4 p.m. following an information session on the preparatory process for the World Conference against Racism. It will take further action on draft resolutions from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. and has a scheduled evening meeting from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Chairman’s Statement
SHAMBHU RAM SIMKHADA, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, read out a Chairman’s statement on the question of resources for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. He said that all should reaffirm their commitment to the essential work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and recognize the need for further and continued support of its programmes and activities. This was a matter of particular relevance given the new mandates the Commission was considering and the numerous existing ones. For the first time, the Office of the High Commissioner had published an Annual Appeal which clearly demonstrated the extent of its commitment and at the same time highlighted the need for support.
The Commission therefore reaffirmed its appeal to the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly that additional resources be allocated to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, as already recommended in Commission resolutions 1998/83, 1999/54 and 2000/1, to ensure that all necessary financial, material and personnel resources be provided to the Office of the High Commissioner commensurate to its increasing tasks.
Action on draft resolutions
In a resolution on promoting and consolidating democracy (E/CN.4/2000/L.45/Rev.1), the Commission called upon States to consolidate democracy through the promotion of pluralism, the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, maximizing the participation of individuals in decision-making and the development of competent and public institutions, including an independent judiciary, effective and accountable legislature and public service and an electoral system that ensures periodic, free and fair elections; to promote, protect and respect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular freedom of thought, conscience, religion, belief, peaceful assembly and association, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of opinion, and free, independent and pluralistic media; the rights of persons belonging to national, ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, including the right to freely express, preserve and develop their identity without any discrimination and in full equality before the law; the rights of indigenous people; the rights of children, the elderly and persons with physical or mental disabilities; by actively promoting gender equality with the aim of achieving full equality between men and women; by considering becoming parties to international human rights instruments; and by fulfilling their obligations under international human rights instruments.
In addition, to strengthen the rule of law by ensuring equality before the law and equal protection under the law. Further, the Commission called States to develop, nurture and maintain an electoral system that provided for the free and fair expression of the people's will through genuine and periodic elections. And to create and improve the legal framework and necessary mechanisms for enabling the participation of all members of civil society - individuals, groups and associations - in the development of democracy, by respecting the diversity of society by promoting associations, dialogue structures, mass media and their interactions as a means of strengthening and developing democracy; fostering, through education and other means, awareness and respect for democratic values; encouraging the exercise of the right of form, join and participate in non-governmental organizations, associations or groups, including trade unions; and guaranteeing mechanisms for the involvement of civil society in the process of governance and developing cooperation between local authorities and non-governmental organizations, among other things.
To strengthen democracy through good governance by improving the transparency of public institutions and policy-making procedures and enhancing the accountability of public officials; taking legal, administrative and political measures against corruption and disclosing it and punishing all those involved in acts of the corruption of and by public officials; and bringing government closer to the people by appropriate levels of devolution. To strengthen democracy by promoting sustainable development, in particular by taking effective measures aimed at the progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights, such as the right to education and the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services individually and through international cooperation; to enhance social cohesion and solidarity by developing and strengthening institutional and educational capabilities, at local and national levels, to mediate conflicts, to resolve disputes peacefully, and to prevent and eliminate the use of violence in addressing societal tensions and disputes; and improving social protection.
The above resolution was approved by a roll-call vote of 45 in favour to none against and 8 abstaining following separate roll-call votes on a series of paragraphs intended to amend the draft resolution and introduced as L.58, which were all rejected.
A vote to replace the first preambular paragraph of L.45/Rev.1 by the first paragraph of L.58 was defeated by a roll-call vote of 10 in favour to 22 against and 20 abstentions. The paragraph would have read as follows: "Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and recalling that one of the purposes of the United Nations is to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion."
The fourth preamublar paragraph of L. 58 to replace the third preambular paragraph of L.45/Rev.1 was also rejected by a roll-call vote of 11 in favour to 23 against and 18 abstaining. The paragraph would have read as following: "Reaffirming that democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing, that democracy is based on the freely expressed will of the people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives, and that, in the context of the above, the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels should be universal and conducted without conditions attached."
A proposal to insert a new preambular paragraph after the third paragraph of the L.45/Rev.1 had also been defeated by a roll-call vote of 13 in favour to 22 against and 18 abstentions. The proposed paragraph would have read as follows: "Reaffirming that every State has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another State."
A paragraph to replace the fifth preambular paragraph with the following text was rejected by a roll-call vote of 17 in favour to 22 against and 14 abstentions. The proposed paragraph would have read as follows: "Recalling that in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, the World Conference on Human Rights recommended that priority be given to national and international action to promote democracy, development and all human rights, including the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development."
Further, the remaining paragraphs 2,6,9,14,15 and 17 introduced under L.58 were rejected by a roll-call vote of 8 in favour to 29 against and 16 abstaining.
The result of the vote on L.45/Rev.1 was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tunisia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: None.
Abstentions: Bhutan, China, Congo, Cuba, Pakistan, Qatar, Rwanda and Sudan.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said L.45 was a most interesting draft resolution; the virtue of last year's draft resolution was that it was fairly general in nature and spelt out certain principles; whereas this year's resolution spelled out in quite considerable detail the prescriptive nature of the democracy sought to be upheld within this Commission. Pakistan had no problems with almost all of this, although it believed some of the amendments moved by Cuba could make the measure more balanced. But there was a larger problem: there were many roads to democracy, while the draft described one particular road. It was not fair and balanced that the Commission should ignore other roads to democracy that had been charted and practised all over the world. He proposed adding an operative paragraph 2 that would acknowledge democratic methods as represented by Islamic practices for many hundreds of years.
HAROLD KOH (the United States) said that last year the Commission made history in adopting a resolution on democracy in consensus hence making clear that in the new millennium the promotion of democracy would be a challenge for everyone. Romania had continued this work in giving further details on the definition of democracy and the link between democracy and the rule of law, good government, and transparency. The history of the resolution was one which 61 nations co-sponsored. The delegation of Pakistan had suggested that the resolution did not recognize the many roads which led to democracy. However, the resolution did in fact recognize many of the regional efforts to democracy such as the OAS, la Froncophonie etc. The new text had been fully aired before the Commission in a transparent manner. The Pakistani amendment was redundant as the recognition had already been made concerning the world's different democracies. The amendment of Cuba would ignore the trend of the global spread of democracy. The delegation of the United States explained that the members' views on democracy were already known since last year’s discussion, and the Cuban suggestion did not advance democracy but was a regression of the steps taken last years. The importance of the right to freedom of expression and opinion was stressed and the delegation of the United States hoped that Member States would resoundingly reject any unnecessary amendments and move forward in the promotion of democracy.
MERCEDES DE ARMAS GARCIA (Cuba) said the delegation supported the amendment proposed by Pakistan.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said the draft resolution was obviously important, and precisely for that reason, all delegations had to examine the text most carefully to ensure that their own systems of Government and their own basic laws were not compromised by the series of prescriptions contained in the draft. The fundamentals of the Pakistani Constitution, which in its first chapter stated that all laws should be based on the Koran and the Sharia, constrained Pakistan to make sure that the standards of Pakistani democracy were clearly protected in the resolution. The proposed amendment was a small one and merely ensured that Pakistan and several other countries could vote for the amendment with confidence.
ROSS HYNES (Canada) said his country was not the main sponsor of the draft resolution, but was a co-sponsor and attached great importance to it. Canada had had no notice of the amendment brought up by Pakistan. It was strongly against the amendment as it reflected a significant departure of the initial text. The prescriptions in the resolution were very general and the implementation could be achieved in different regions and contexts, based on human rights law. For example the prescription that governments should take steps to overcome social injustice and inequality. The Pakistani amendment took the resolution in a different direction. As for the Cuban amendment, the delegation of Canada agreed with the United States that it amounted only to a gutting of the text.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said the statement of Canada was deeply hurtful; Pakistan respected Canada, but the statement reflected an ideological arrogance which was surprising and painful, particularly because it impinged on standards which were very fundamental for Pakistan. The representative of Canada had said an acceptance of Pakistan's amendment would be a significant departure from the contents of the draft resolution, but he challenged that assertion. The democratic standards as reflected in the Koran and the Sharia had preceded the development of other principles of democracy and human rights debated here for more than 1,400 years. As for charging that the references to Islamic principles would be specific to a certain school of democracy, well, the draft already contained a number of other specific references to other brands of democracy.
AUDREY GLOVER (the United Kingdom) said that draft resolution L.45 set out basic standards of democracy and ways and means to promote democracy, it was not prescriptive but called on governments to implement the basic standards. The draft resolution recognized regional differences and the many roads that could be taken to achieve democracy. The L.58 draft resolution sought to undermine the spread of democracy. It was unfortunate that the delegation of Pakistan had only brought forward their amendment today. If it had been brought forward earlier it could have been considered. It had been proposed without consultation and without notice. The delegation of Pakistan was urged to withdraw the proposal or the United Kingdom would be forced to vote against the draft.
HAROLD KOH (the United States) said that it was wrong to suggest that opposition to Pakistan's amendment suggested ideological arrogance. The point of the original draft resolution was to represent democracy as a universal concept. It noted support for democracy without distinction as to religion, and recognized the rich diversity of democracy. It did not make specific references to a particular religion because that would require making many specific references to many religions, in order to be fair. The point was that such references were not necessary.
SUN ANG (China) said the delegation supported the amendments in L.58. As for Pakistan's proposed amendment, unlike the US delegation, China felt that there was a great diversity of culture to democracy and hence that Pakistan's concern over representation of its own conditions in the draft resolution reflected the spirit of democracy. China supported Pakistan's amendment.
IFTEKHAR CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) said his country had an intensely democratic and pluralistic society. In this light, Bangladesh was an ardent and enthusiastic cosponsor of the resolution. However, it was undeniable that inspiration was drawn from the Koran and Islamic values in Bangladesh. The points made in the Pakistani amendment merited consideration and the vote of the delegation of Bangladesh would reflect this opinion.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said the Pakistani delegation had moved the amendment at a late stage; that did not reflect any lack of respect but only the great attention and reflection given by Pakistan to the matter. Pakistan suggested to the sponsors of the draft resolution to take the time to study the amendment and to give everyone time to discuss the language if necessary.
ION MAXIM (Romania) was surprised to see the amendment by the delegation of Pakistan. For weeks, members had been invited to find a text which was suitable to everyone. The delegation of Romania regretted the obvious measures being taken to extend the discussions and to go back on the decision taken on Thursday. It was therefore suggested that the Commission take action on the draft resolution.
SAVITRI KUNADI (India) said that as a democracy, India supported values of democratic governments. Democratic governments were the best guarantors of human rights and political stability, and allowed different elements of society to express themselves. The promotion and consolidation of democracy was an essential ingredient for the full realization of human rights. All peoples had the right to chose their political system but they should keep standards of human rights and the rule of law. Some of the amendments brought up by the delegation of Cuba did not have relevance nor add value and others were contradictory. The promotion of democracy was an indivisible element in human rights including the respect for the rule of law.
MERCEDES DE ARMAS GARCIA (Cuba) said votes had just been held on a number of paragraphs in which language taken from the UN Charter and the Vienna Declaration of Action was used; yet the amendments had been rejected; that bore thinking about. Political systems were subject to different factors; it was up to different peoples to determine the methods and appropriate institutions in connection with their Constitutions and particular situations. To attempt to impose a uniform system of democracy on the world was counterproductive. Cuba questioned whether such a measure even was necessary. Diversity enriched everyone. That was why Cuba would not vote in favour of resolution L.45/Rev.1.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said his delegation had examined the contents of L.45/Rev.1 most carefully and believed that there were many roads to democracy. No single model could be offered as an answer to all peoples of all nations. Some democracies functioned well, other bred corruption and encouraged racism and the forces of discrimination. The draft resolution was being overly prescriptive based upon a certain model of democracy. It reflected an ideological posture and a cultural arrogance. Pakistan had its own system of Islamic democracy including the principles of democracy and good governance which had been practised for over 400 years. The delegation of Pakistan could not endorse a draft resolution which by implication questioned the legitimacy of these principles. The delegation had witnessed with great consternation the vote where the majority had voted against a series of developments. The historic development had been the rejection of the language of the United Nations Charter, the Vienna Declaration, the Declaration of Friendly Relations between States, and the Right to Development. This was a vote against an amendment which would have upheld the right of States to not have external interference in their internal affairs and it rejected article 3 of the Charter. These were immutable and sacred principles governing the relations between States. The delegation regretted the vote and that the pursuit of power and influence had compromised human rights principles.
VICTOR RODRIGUEZ CEDENO (Venezuela) said his country had cosponsored last year's resolution on democracy. Venezuela agreed with much in the current draft resolution, but stressed that democracy had to be sown and cultivated in many different cultures and histories. Venezuela would continue to work on the definition of democracy along those lines in the future.
OMER SIDDIG (Sudan) said his delegation had examined the draft resolution and believed that there were differences between different cultures and civilizations, which had been recognized in the United Nations Charter. The delegation of Sudan was convinced that every country had the right to preserve its culture and its political and economic orientation. Countries had the right to implement the policies that served their peoples' aspirations. The sort of democracy that existed in some countries would not be valid if copied without regard for cultural differences. There was not one democratic model, the draft resolution only suggested one democracy which explained the delegation of Sudan's vote.
ALEJANDRO SALINAS (Chile) said his country had great respect for diversity of cultures and religions, and felt the draft resolution L.45/Rev.1 deserved support; its prescriptions could and should be applied universally. For the same reason, Chile had voted against the amendments proposed in L.58 because they were intended to distort the spirit and nature of the resolution. In doing so, Chile had not deviated from the spirit of the UN Charter or the Vienna Declaration. Rather, Chile felt that L.45 made a contribution to the intent of those documents and to the expansion of respect for human rights.
SUN ANG (China) said that democracy was an important component of political systems without which there would be no development or modernization. There had to be an exchange and mutual respect on how to achieve democracy as there was no one model of democracy and the State had the right to determine its own economic, political and cultural road to democracy. The cosponsors had drawn upon the elements raised by other States, but failed to take into account the view of the Chinese delegation. The delegation of China regretted the vote which had rejected the important principles of the Charter and the Vienna Declaration.
CLIFFORD MAMBA (Swaziland) said most elements of the draft resolution were provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; therefore the delegation would vote in favour of the draft resolution. However, Swaziland felt reservations about the operative paragraph referring to opposition political parties, which were not guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Swaziland felt that each country had its own way of achieving democracy, and that this paragraph was overly specific and prescriptive. Swaziland hoped that such characteristics would not be included in future Commission resolutions on democracy.
LEONARDO DESPOUY (Argentina) said the draft resolution was interesting and promoted the common value of democracy. A consensus should be encouraged. The delegation of Argentina would support the draft resolution but had voted in favour of some of the amendments proposed by Cuba and these should be incorporated in the future as they added value to the text. In the future, the delegation hoped for a consensus so as to enable the further elaboration of democracy and its implementation.
MERCEDES DE ARMAS GARCIA (Cuba) said the development of democracy could occur in numerous ways; that had been made clear by history and reality. Electoral processes were something for the internal jurisdiction of States; they were a fundamental expression of their internal sovereignty. To try to establish a single model to be followed by all States on the basis of a single resolution was inappropriate. Cuba also wondered if it was necessary, as the UN Charter and other international instruments established the basic principles for establishment and consolidation of democracy. Hence Cuba would not be able to vote in favour of the draft resolution.
In a measure (1) on the rights of non-citizens, adopted without a vote, the Commission decided to recommend a draft decision to the Economic and Social Council that the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights appoint one of its members to prepare a comprehensive study on the rights of non-citizens and to submit a preliminary report to the Subcommission at its fifty-third session.
In a resolution on human rights of migrants (E/CN.4/2000/L.56), adopted without a vote, the Commission acknowledged that the principles and standards embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applied to everyone, including migrants; requested States, in conformity with their respective constitutional systems, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international instruments to which they were party, which might include the international covenants on human rights: the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other applicable international human rights instruments, effectively to promote and protect the fundamental human rights of all migrants; encouraged the Special Rapporteur to continue examining ways and means of overcoming existing obstacles to the full and effective protection of the human rights of that vulnerable group, including obstacles and difficulties for the return of migrants who were non-documented or in an irregular situation.
It strongly condemned all forms of racial discrimination and xenophobic related to access to employment, vocational training, housing, schooling, health services and social services, as well as services intended for use by the public, and welcomed the active role played by governmental and non-governmental organizations in combatting racism and assisting individual victims of racist acts, including migrant victims; and reiterated the need for all States to protect fully the universally recognized human rights of migrants, especially women and children, regardless of their legal status, and to treat them humanely, particularly with regard to assistance and protection, applying, among other things, the measures provided under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations regarding the right to receive consular assistance by the country of origin.
In a resolution on the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (E/CN.4/2000/L.57), adopted by consensus, the Commission expressed its deep concern at the growing manifestations of racism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination and inhuman or degrading treatment against migrant workers in different parts of the world; urged countries of destination to review and adopt measures to prevent the excessive use of force and ensure that their police forces and competent migration authorities comply with the basic standards relating to the decent treatment of migrant workers and their families, inter alia, through the organization of training courses on human rights; called upon all Members States to consider the possibility of signing and ratifying or acceding to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families as a matter of priority, and expressed the hope that the international instrument would enter into force at an early date.
In a resolution on tolerance and pluralism as indivisible elements in the promotion and protection of human rights (E/CN.4/2000/L.64), adopted without a vote, the Commission condemned unequivocally all violent acts and activities that infringe upon human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy and thereby undermine the values of tolerance and purism; reiterated the obligation of all States and the international community to promote universal respect for and observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms; to protect effectively the human rights of all persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities without any discrimination and in full equality before the law; to oppose all forms of discrimination based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status in order to promote tolerance and pluralism at the national and international levels and take all appropriate means towards their prevention and elimination; and to take steps to prevents all manifestation of hatred, intolerance and acts of violence, in particular through education and dialogue, to foster a culture conductive to promoting and protecting human rights, fundamental freedoms and tolerance, inter alia through education leading to genuine pluralism, a positive acceptance of diversity of opinion and belief, and respect for the dignity of the human person.
In a resolution on human rights of persons with disabilities (E/CN.4/2000/L.67), adopted by consensus, the Commission recognized that any violation of the fundamental principle of equality or any discrimination or other negative differential treatment of persons with disabilities inconsistent with the United Nations Standard Rules on Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities was an infringement of the human rights of persons with disabilities; called upon the Secretary-General to maintain the integrity of programmes within the United Nations system relating to persons with disabilities, including the United Nations Voluntary Fund on Disability, in order to promote the rights and the equalization of opportunities and full inclusion with societies of persons with disabilities; called upon States to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur of the Commission for Social Development to meet his requests for information and to provide relevant data to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and encouraged non-governmental organizations active in the promotion and protection of the human rights of persons with disabilities to cooperate closely with each other and to provide relevant information to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The resolution also urged Governments to implement, with the cooperation and assistance of relevant organizations, the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, having particular regard for the needs of women, children and persons with developmental psychiatric disabilities in order to guarantee their human dignity and integrity; expressed grave concern that situations of armed conflict had especially devastating consequences for the human rights of persons with disabilities; welcomed increased international efforts in various forums with respect to anti-personnel mines, and in that regard took due note of the conclusion and entry into force of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines; called upon the United Nations Development Programme and all intergovernmental institutions for development cooperation to integrate disability measures into their mainstream activities; invited the International Labour Organization, in cooperation with Governments and intergovernmental bodies, to take the lead internationally in formulating policies and strategies that will lead to equal job opportunities; and recommended that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights take account of information on legislation affecting the human rights of persons with disabilities which has been collected by the Special Rapporteur on disability of the Commission for Social Development.
CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/CN/00/53 of 18 April 2000, the statement by the United Kingdom on page 9 should read as follows:
PATRICK TOBIN (the United Kingdom) said the establishment of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was an important part of the Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998. It was a direct expression of the importance which the British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland parties attached to the maintenance and development of human rights in Northern Ireland. The British Government was aware of the Commission’s concerns about its current level of funding and this was the subject of discussions between the Government and the Commission’s representatives. The Government was also aware that the Commission had endorsed the call for an independent judicial inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane, and had concluded that such an inquiry would eventually be required into the death of Rosemary Nelson. The British Government’s position on both these tragic murders was that no future course of action had been ruled out.
* *** *
56th session
25 April 2000
Morning
Chairman’s Statement Urges All States to Reaffirm Commitment,
Resources for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
The Commission on Human Rights approved by roll-call vote this morning a resolution calling for States to consolidate democracy through the promotion of pluralism, the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and by maximizing the participation of individuals in decision-making and the development of competent and public institutions.
Also adopted were consensus measures on the rights of non-citizens, the human rights of migrants, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, tolerance and pluralism as indispensable for the promotion and protection of human rights, and the human rights of persons with disabilities.
Shambhu Ram Simkhada, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, read out a Chairman’s statement on the question of resources for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. All should reaffirm their commitment to the essential work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and recognize the need for further and continued support of its programmes and activities. The Commission therefore reaffirmed its appeal that additional resources be allocated to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The Commission dwelled for more than two hours on the resolution on bolstering democracy, with much of the discussion focusing on amendments proposed by Cuba and Pakistan. The meeting was suspended for ten minutes to allow achievement of a compromise text on the Pakistani proposal, which ultimately involved a change to a preambular paragraph to include a reference to "religious beliefs". In a series of roll-call votes, the proposed Cuban amendments were rejected. The original text of the resolution finally was approved by a roll-call vote of 45 in favour and none opposed, with eight abstentions.
The resolution, among other things, calls on States to bolster democracy through development of an independent judiciary, effective and accountable legislature and public service and an electoral system that ensures periodic, free and fair elections; and for States to develop, nurture and maintain electoral systems that provide for the free and fair expression of the people's will, in particular by ensuring the right of everyone to take part in government, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Acting on measures under its agenda item on "specific groups and individuals", the Commission decided to approve the request of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to appoint one of its members to carry out a study on the topic of the rights of non-citizens.
Its consensus resolution on the rights of migrants called, among other things, for States to review and amend if necessary legislation that was discriminatory against migrants, and strongly condemned all forms of racial discrimination and xenophobia related to access to employment, vocational training, housing, schooling, health services, or social services.
The Commission’s consensus resolution on the International Convention on migrant workers' rights urged, among other things, ratification of the Convention so that it could speedily enter into force.
The measure on promotion of tolerance and pluralism condemned unequivocally all violent acts and activities that infringed upon human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy and reiterated the obligation of all States and the international community to protect effectively the human rights of all persons belonging to national or ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities.
The resolution on the human rights of persons with disabilities recognized that any violation of the fundamental principle of equality or any discrimination or other negative differential treatment of persons with disabilities was an infringement on their human rights, and expressed grave concern that situations of armed conflict had especially devastating consequences for persons with disabilities -- noting as well its support for international efforts to ban and remove anti-personnel landmines.
The Commission will reconvene at 4 p.m. following an information session on the preparatory process for the World Conference against Racism. It will take further action on draft resolutions from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. and has a scheduled evening meeting from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Chairman’s Statement
SHAMBHU RAM SIMKHADA, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, read out a Chairman’s statement on the question of resources for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. He said that all should reaffirm their commitment to the essential work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and recognize the need for further and continued support of its programmes and activities. This was a matter of particular relevance given the new mandates the Commission was considering and the numerous existing ones. For the first time, the Office of the High Commissioner had published an Annual Appeal which clearly demonstrated the extent of its commitment and at the same time highlighted the need for support.
The Commission therefore reaffirmed its appeal to the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly that additional resources be allocated to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, as already recommended in Commission resolutions 1998/83, 1999/54 and 2000/1, to ensure that all necessary financial, material and personnel resources be provided to the Office of the High Commissioner commensurate to its increasing tasks.
Action on draft resolutions
In a resolution on promoting and consolidating democracy (E/CN.4/2000/L.45/Rev.1), the Commission called upon States to consolidate democracy through the promotion of pluralism, the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, maximizing the participation of individuals in decision-making and the development of competent and public institutions, including an independent judiciary, effective and accountable legislature and public service and an electoral system that ensures periodic, free and fair elections; to promote, protect and respect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular freedom of thought, conscience, religion, belief, peaceful assembly and association, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of opinion, and free, independent and pluralistic media; the rights of persons belonging to national, ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, including the right to freely express, preserve and develop their identity without any discrimination and in full equality before the law; the rights of indigenous people; the rights of children, the elderly and persons with physical or mental disabilities; by actively promoting gender equality with the aim of achieving full equality between men and women; by considering becoming parties to international human rights instruments; and by fulfilling their obligations under international human rights instruments.
In addition, to strengthen the rule of law by ensuring equality before the law and equal protection under the law. Further, the Commission called States to develop, nurture and maintain an electoral system that provided for the free and fair expression of the people's will through genuine and periodic elections. And to create and improve the legal framework and necessary mechanisms for enabling the participation of all members of civil society - individuals, groups and associations - in the development of democracy, by respecting the diversity of society by promoting associations, dialogue structures, mass media and their interactions as a means of strengthening and developing democracy; fostering, through education and other means, awareness and respect for democratic values; encouraging the exercise of the right of form, join and participate in non-governmental organizations, associations or groups, including trade unions; and guaranteeing mechanisms for the involvement of civil society in the process of governance and developing cooperation between local authorities and non-governmental organizations, among other things.
To strengthen democracy through good governance by improving the transparency of public institutions and policy-making procedures and enhancing the accountability of public officials; taking legal, administrative and political measures against corruption and disclosing it and punishing all those involved in acts of the corruption of and by public officials; and bringing government closer to the people by appropriate levels of devolution. To strengthen democracy by promoting sustainable development, in particular by taking effective measures aimed at the progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights, such as the right to education and the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services individually and through international cooperation; to enhance social cohesion and solidarity by developing and strengthening institutional and educational capabilities, at local and national levels, to mediate conflicts, to resolve disputes peacefully, and to prevent and eliminate the use of violence in addressing societal tensions and disputes; and improving social protection.
The above resolution was approved by a roll-call vote of 45 in favour to none against and 8 abstaining following separate roll-call votes on a series of paragraphs intended to amend the draft resolution and introduced as L.58, which were all rejected.
A vote to replace the first preambular paragraph of L.45/Rev.1 by the first paragraph of L.58 was defeated by a roll-call vote of 10 in favour to 22 against and 20 abstentions. The paragraph would have read as follows: "Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and recalling that one of the purposes of the United Nations is to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion."
The fourth preamublar paragraph of L. 58 to replace the third preambular paragraph of L.45/Rev.1 was also rejected by a roll-call vote of 11 in favour to 23 against and 18 abstaining. The paragraph would have read as following: "Reaffirming that democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing, that democracy is based on the freely expressed will of the people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives, and that, in the context of the above, the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels should be universal and conducted without conditions attached."
A proposal to insert a new preambular paragraph after the third paragraph of the L.45/Rev.1 had also been defeated by a roll-call vote of 13 in favour to 22 against and 18 abstentions. The proposed paragraph would have read as follows: "Reaffirming that every State has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another State."
A paragraph to replace the fifth preambular paragraph with the following text was rejected by a roll-call vote of 17 in favour to 22 against and 14 abstentions. The proposed paragraph would have read as follows: "Recalling that in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, the World Conference on Human Rights recommended that priority be given to national and international action to promote democracy, development and all human rights, including the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development."
Further, the remaining paragraphs 2,6,9,14,15 and 17 introduced under L.58 were rejected by a roll-call vote of 8 in favour to 29 against and 16 abstaining.
The result of the vote on L.45/Rev.1 was as follows:
In favour: Argentina, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tunisia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Venezuela and Zambia.
Against: None.
Abstentions: Bhutan, China, Congo, Cuba, Pakistan, Qatar, Rwanda and Sudan.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said L.45 was a most interesting draft resolution; the virtue of last year's draft resolution was that it was fairly general in nature and spelt out certain principles; whereas this year's resolution spelled out in quite considerable detail the prescriptive nature of the democracy sought to be upheld within this Commission. Pakistan had no problems with almost all of this, although it believed some of the amendments moved by Cuba could make the measure more balanced. But there was a larger problem: there were many roads to democracy, while the draft described one particular road. It was not fair and balanced that the Commission should ignore other roads to democracy that had been charted and practised all over the world. He proposed adding an operative paragraph 2 that would acknowledge democratic methods as represented by Islamic practices for many hundreds of years.
HAROLD KOH (the United States) said that last year the Commission made history in adopting a resolution on democracy in consensus hence making clear that in the new millennium the promotion of democracy would be a challenge for everyone. Romania had continued this work in giving further details on the definition of democracy and the link between democracy and the rule of law, good government, and transparency. The history of the resolution was one which 61 nations co-sponsored. The delegation of Pakistan had suggested that the resolution did not recognize the many roads which led to democracy. However, the resolution did in fact recognize many of the regional efforts to democracy such as the OAS, la Froncophonie etc. The new text had been fully aired before the Commission in a transparent manner. The Pakistani amendment was redundant as the recognition had already been made concerning the world's different democracies. The amendment of Cuba would ignore the trend of the global spread of democracy. The delegation of the United States explained that the members' views on democracy were already known since last year’s discussion, and the Cuban suggestion did not advance democracy but was a regression of the steps taken last years. The importance of the right to freedom of expression and opinion was stressed and the delegation of the United States hoped that Member States would resoundingly reject any unnecessary amendments and move forward in the promotion of democracy.
MERCEDES DE ARMAS GARCIA (Cuba) said the delegation supported the amendment proposed by Pakistan.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said the draft resolution was obviously important, and precisely for that reason, all delegations had to examine the text most carefully to ensure that their own systems of Government and their own basic laws were not compromised by the series of prescriptions contained in the draft. The fundamentals of the Pakistani Constitution, which in its first chapter stated that all laws should be based on the Koran and the Sharia, constrained Pakistan to make sure that the standards of Pakistani democracy were clearly protected in the resolution. The proposed amendment was a small one and merely ensured that Pakistan and several other countries could vote for the amendment with confidence.
ROSS HYNES (Canada) said his country was not the main sponsor of the draft resolution, but was a co-sponsor and attached great importance to it. Canada had had no notice of the amendment brought up by Pakistan. It was strongly against the amendment as it reflected a significant departure of the initial text. The prescriptions in the resolution were very general and the implementation could be achieved in different regions and contexts, based on human rights law. For example the prescription that governments should take steps to overcome social injustice and inequality. The Pakistani amendment took the resolution in a different direction. As for the Cuban amendment, the delegation of Canada agreed with the United States that it amounted only to a gutting of the text.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said the statement of Canada was deeply hurtful; Pakistan respected Canada, but the statement reflected an ideological arrogance which was surprising and painful, particularly because it impinged on standards which were very fundamental for Pakistan. The representative of Canada had said an acceptance of Pakistan's amendment would be a significant departure from the contents of the draft resolution, but he challenged that assertion. The democratic standards as reflected in the Koran and the Sharia had preceded the development of other principles of democracy and human rights debated here for more than 1,400 years. As for charging that the references to Islamic principles would be specific to a certain school of democracy, well, the draft already contained a number of other specific references to other brands of democracy.
AUDREY GLOVER (the United Kingdom) said that draft resolution L.45 set out basic standards of democracy and ways and means to promote democracy, it was not prescriptive but called on governments to implement the basic standards. The draft resolution recognized regional differences and the many roads that could be taken to achieve democracy. The L.58 draft resolution sought to undermine the spread of democracy. It was unfortunate that the delegation of Pakistan had only brought forward their amendment today. If it had been brought forward earlier it could have been considered. It had been proposed without consultation and without notice. The delegation of Pakistan was urged to withdraw the proposal or the United Kingdom would be forced to vote against the draft.
HAROLD KOH (the United States) said that it was wrong to suggest that opposition to Pakistan's amendment suggested ideological arrogance. The point of the original draft resolution was to represent democracy as a universal concept. It noted support for democracy without distinction as to religion, and recognized the rich diversity of democracy. It did not make specific references to a particular religion because that would require making many specific references to many religions, in order to be fair. The point was that such references were not necessary.
SUN ANG (China) said the delegation supported the amendments in L.58. As for Pakistan's proposed amendment, unlike the US delegation, China felt that there was a great diversity of culture to democracy and hence that Pakistan's concern over representation of its own conditions in the draft resolution reflected the spirit of democracy. China supported Pakistan's amendment.
IFTEKHAR CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) said his country had an intensely democratic and pluralistic society. In this light, Bangladesh was an ardent and enthusiastic cosponsor of the resolution. However, it was undeniable that inspiration was drawn from the Koran and Islamic values in Bangladesh. The points made in the Pakistani amendment merited consideration and the vote of the delegation of Bangladesh would reflect this opinion.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said the Pakistani delegation had moved the amendment at a late stage; that did not reflect any lack of respect but only the great attention and reflection given by Pakistan to the matter. Pakistan suggested to the sponsors of the draft resolution to take the time to study the amendment and to give everyone time to discuss the language if necessary.
ION MAXIM (Romania) was surprised to see the amendment by the delegation of Pakistan. For weeks, members had been invited to find a text which was suitable to everyone. The delegation of Romania regretted the obvious measures being taken to extend the discussions and to go back on the decision taken on Thursday. It was therefore suggested that the Commission take action on the draft resolution.
SAVITRI KUNADI (India) said that as a democracy, India supported values of democratic governments. Democratic governments were the best guarantors of human rights and political stability, and allowed different elements of society to express themselves. The promotion and consolidation of democracy was an essential ingredient for the full realization of human rights. All peoples had the right to chose their political system but they should keep standards of human rights and the rule of law. Some of the amendments brought up by the delegation of Cuba did not have relevance nor add value and others were contradictory. The promotion of democracy was an indivisible element in human rights including the respect for the rule of law.
MERCEDES DE ARMAS GARCIA (Cuba) said votes had just been held on a number of paragraphs in which language taken from the UN Charter and the Vienna Declaration of Action was used; yet the amendments had been rejected; that bore thinking about. Political systems were subject to different factors; it was up to different peoples to determine the methods and appropriate institutions in connection with their Constitutions and particular situations. To attempt to impose a uniform system of democracy on the world was counterproductive. Cuba questioned whether such a measure even was necessary. Diversity enriched everyone. That was why Cuba would not vote in favour of resolution L.45/Rev.1.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said his delegation had examined the contents of L.45/Rev.1 most carefully and believed that there were many roads to democracy. No single model could be offered as an answer to all peoples of all nations. Some democracies functioned well, other bred corruption and encouraged racism and the forces of discrimination. The draft resolution was being overly prescriptive based upon a certain model of democracy. It reflected an ideological posture and a cultural arrogance. Pakistan had its own system of Islamic democracy including the principles of democracy and good governance which had been practised for over 400 years. The delegation of Pakistan could not endorse a draft resolution which by implication questioned the legitimacy of these principles. The delegation had witnessed with great consternation the vote where the majority had voted against a series of developments. The historic development had been the rejection of the language of the United Nations Charter, the Vienna Declaration, the Declaration of Friendly Relations between States, and the Right to Development. This was a vote against an amendment which would have upheld the right of States to not have external interference in their internal affairs and it rejected article 3 of the Charter. These were immutable and sacred principles governing the relations between States. The delegation regretted the vote and that the pursuit of power and influence had compromised human rights principles.
VICTOR RODRIGUEZ CEDENO (Venezuela) said his country had cosponsored last year's resolution on democracy. Venezuela agreed with much in the current draft resolution, but stressed that democracy had to be sown and cultivated in many different cultures and histories. Venezuela would continue to work on the definition of democracy along those lines in the future.
OMER SIDDIG (Sudan) said his delegation had examined the draft resolution and believed that there were differences between different cultures and civilizations, which had been recognized in the United Nations Charter. The delegation of Sudan was convinced that every country had the right to preserve its culture and its political and economic orientation. Countries had the right to implement the policies that served their peoples' aspirations. The sort of democracy that existed in some countries would not be valid if copied without regard for cultural differences. There was not one democratic model, the draft resolution only suggested one democracy which explained the delegation of Sudan's vote.
ALEJANDRO SALINAS (Chile) said his country had great respect for diversity of cultures and religions, and felt the draft resolution L.45/Rev.1 deserved support; its prescriptions could and should be applied universally. For the same reason, Chile had voted against the amendments proposed in L.58 because they were intended to distort the spirit and nature of the resolution. In doing so, Chile had not deviated from the spirit of the UN Charter or the Vienna Declaration. Rather, Chile felt that L.45 made a contribution to the intent of those documents and to the expansion of respect for human rights.
SUN ANG (China) said that democracy was an important component of political systems without which there would be no development or modernization. There had to be an exchange and mutual respect on how to achieve democracy as there was no one model of democracy and the State had the right to determine its own economic, political and cultural road to democracy. The cosponsors had drawn upon the elements raised by other States, but failed to take into account the view of the Chinese delegation. The delegation of China regretted the vote which had rejected the important principles of the Charter and the Vienna Declaration.
CLIFFORD MAMBA (Swaziland) said most elements of the draft resolution were provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; therefore the delegation would vote in favour of the draft resolution. However, Swaziland felt reservations about the operative paragraph referring to opposition political parties, which were not guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Swaziland felt that each country had its own way of achieving democracy, and that this paragraph was overly specific and prescriptive. Swaziland hoped that such characteristics would not be included in future Commission resolutions on democracy.
LEONARDO DESPOUY (Argentina) said the draft resolution was interesting and promoted the common value of democracy. A consensus should be encouraged. The delegation of Argentina would support the draft resolution but had voted in favour of some of the amendments proposed by Cuba and these should be incorporated in the future as they added value to the text. In the future, the delegation hoped for a consensus so as to enable the further elaboration of democracy and its implementation.
MERCEDES DE ARMAS GARCIA (Cuba) said the development of democracy could occur in numerous ways; that had been made clear by history and reality. Electoral processes were something for the internal jurisdiction of States; they were a fundamental expression of their internal sovereignty. To try to establish a single model to be followed by all States on the basis of a single resolution was inappropriate. Cuba also wondered if it was necessary, as the UN Charter and other international instruments established the basic principles for establishment and consolidation of democracy. Hence Cuba would not be able to vote in favour of the draft resolution.
In a measure (1) on the rights of non-citizens, adopted without a vote, the Commission decided to recommend a draft decision to the Economic and Social Council that the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights appoint one of its members to prepare a comprehensive study on the rights of non-citizens and to submit a preliminary report to the Subcommission at its fifty-third session.
In a resolution on human rights of migrants (E/CN.4/2000/L.56), adopted without a vote, the Commission acknowledged that the principles and standards embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applied to everyone, including migrants; requested States, in conformity with their respective constitutional systems, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international instruments to which they were party, which might include the international covenants on human rights: the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other applicable international human rights instruments, effectively to promote and protect the fundamental human rights of all migrants; encouraged the Special Rapporteur to continue examining ways and means of overcoming existing obstacles to the full and effective protection of the human rights of that vulnerable group, including obstacles and difficulties for the return of migrants who were non-documented or in an irregular situation.
It strongly condemned all forms of racial discrimination and xenophobic related to access to employment, vocational training, housing, schooling, health services and social services, as well as services intended for use by the public, and welcomed the active role played by governmental and non-governmental organizations in combatting racism and assisting individual victims of racist acts, including migrant victims; and reiterated the need for all States to protect fully the universally recognized human rights of migrants, especially women and children, regardless of their legal status, and to treat them humanely, particularly with regard to assistance and protection, applying, among other things, the measures provided under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations regarding the right to receive consular assistance by the country of origin.
In a resolution on the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (E/CN.4/2000/L.57), adopted by consensus, the Commission expressed its deep concern at the growing manifestations of racism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination and inhuman or degrading treatment against migrant workers in different parts of the world; urged countries of destination to review and adopt measures to prevent the excessive use of force and ensure that their police forces and competent migration authorities comply with the basic standards relating to the decent treatment of migrant workers and their families, inter alia, through the organization of training courses on human rights; called upon all Members States to consider the possibility of signing and ratifying or acceding to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families as a matter of priority, and expressed the hope that the international instrument would enter into force at an early date.
In a resolution on tolerance and pluralism as indivisible elements in the promotion and protection of human rights (E/CN.4/2000/L.64), adopted without a vote, the Commission condemned unequivocally all violent acts and activities that infringe upon human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy and thereby undermine the values of tolerance and purism; reiterated the obligation of all States and the international community to promote universal respect for and observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms; to protect effectively the human rights of all persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities without any discrimination and in full equality before the law; to oppose all forms of discrimination based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status in order to promote tolerance and pluralism at the national and international levels and take all appropriate means towards their prevention and elimination; and to take steps to prevents all manifestation of hatred, intolerance and acts of violence, in particular through education and dialogue, to foster a culture conductive to promoting and protecting human rights, fundamental freedoms and tolerance, inter alia through education leading to genuine pluralism, a positive acceptance of diversity of opinion and belief, and respect for the dignity of the human person.
In a resolution on human rights of persons with disabilities (E/CN.4/2000/L.67), adopted by consensus, the Commission recognized that any violation of the fundamental principle of equality or any discrimination or other negative differential treatment of persons with disabilities inconsistent with the United Nations Standard Rules on Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities was an infringement of the human rights of persons with disabilities; called upon the Secretary-General to maintain the integrity of programmes within the United Nations system relating to persons with disabilities, including the United Nations Voluntary Fund on Disability, in order to promote the rights and the equalization of opportunities and full inclusion with societies of persons with disabilities; called upon States to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur of the Commission for Social Development to meet his requests for information and to provide relevant data to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and encouraged non-governmental organizations active in the promotion and protection of the human rights of persons with disabilities to cooperate closely with each other and to provide relevant information to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The resolution also urged Governments to implement, with the cooperation and assistance of relevant organizations, the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, having particular regard for the needs of women, children and persons with developmental psychiatric disabilities in order to guarantee their human dignity and integrity; expressed grave concern that situations of armed conflict had especially devastating consequences for the human rights of persons with disabilities; welcomed increased international efforts in various forums with respect to anti-personnel mines, and in that regard took due note of the conclusion and entry into force of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines; called upon the United Nations Development Programme and all intergovernmental institutions for development cooperation to integrate disability measures into their mainstream activities; invited the International Labour Organization, in cooperation with Governments and intergovernmental bodies, to take the lead internationally in formulating policies and strategies that will lead to equal job opportunities; and recommended that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights take account of information on legislation affecting the human rights of persons with disabilities which has been collected by the Special Rapporteur on disability of the Commission for Social Development.
CORRIGENDUM
In press release HR/CN/00/53 of 18 April 2000, the statement by the United Kingdom on page 9 should read as follows:
PATRICK TOBIN (the United Kingdom) said the establishment of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was an important part of the Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998. It was a direct expression of the importance which the British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland parties attached to the maintenance and development of human rights in Northern Ireland. The British Government was aware of the Commission’s concerns about its current level of funding and this was the subject of discussions between the Government and the Commission’s representatives. The Government was also aware that the Commission had endorsed the call for an independent judicial inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane, and had concluded that such an inquiry would eventually be required into the death of Rosemary Nelson. The British Government’s position on both these tragic murders was that no future course of action had been ruled out.
* *** *