Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases
ECOSOC ADOPTS DECISIONS RECOMMENDED BY COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
23 July 2003
Share
23.07.03
afternoon
Also Adopts Resolution on Long-term Support for Haiti
The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) this afternoon took action on decisions recommended to it in the report of the Commission on Human Rights on its fifty-ninth session. Out of the 32 decisions adopted by ECOSOC, ten were put to a vote, many of which extended or renewed the mandates of Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts or Working Groups.
Within the context of recommendations of the Commission on Human Rights, ECOSOC adopted, in a vote of 31 in favor and 17 against, with 5 abstentions, a decision on the effects of structural adjustment policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, by which it approved the Commission’s renewal of the mandate of the Independent Expert on the effects of structural adjustment policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights for three years.
Concerning the follow-up to the World Conference against Racism, ECOSOC adopted, by a vote of 37 in favor, one against, with 16 abstentions, an orally amended decision on the World Conference and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, requesting the Intergovernmental Working Group to make recommendations with a view to the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and to prepare complementary international standards to strengthen and update international instruments against racism.
ECOSOC also adopted, in a vote of 51 in favor and two against, with one abstention, a decision on the question of the realization in all countries of the economic, social and cultural rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in which it endorsed the establishment of an open-ended Working Group of the Commission to consider options regarding the elaboration of an optional protocol to the International Covenant.
On indigenous issues, ECOSOC in a decision on the Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, adopted by a vote of 52 in favor, one against, with one abstaining, authorized the Working Group to meet for five working days prior to the Sub-Commission. Also on indigenous issues, ECOSOC adopted, by a vote of 36 in favor and 12 against, with 6 abstentions, a decision on indigenous peoples’ permanent sovereignty over natural resources, by which it endorsed the decision to appoint Erica-Irene Daes as Special Rapporteur to undertake a study on indigenous peoples’ permanent sovereignty over natural resources. By a vote of 50 in favor, with one against, and 3 abstentions, ECOSOC adopted a decision on the International Decade, by which it requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize, before the end of the International Decade, a seminar on treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous peoples.
In a decision on the right to development, adopted in a vote of 51 in favor and
three against, ECOSOC renewed the mandate of the Working Group on the right to development for one year. In another vote of 52 in favor and one against, with one abstention, ECOSOC adopted a decision on the right to food, where it extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for another three years.
In a decision on the Social Forum, adopted in a vote of 34 in favor, two against, with 18 abstentions, ECOSOC authorized the Sub-Commission to convene in Geneva an annual intersessional forum on economic, social and cultural rights, to be known as the “Social Forum,” for two days on dates that would permit the possible participation of ten members of the Sub-Commission, to be appointed by the regional groups of the Sub-Commission.
ECOSOC adopted, by a vote of 43 in favor and 3 against, with 8 abstentions, a decision on the organization of work of the sixtieth session of the Commission on Human Rights, by which it authorized eight fully serviced additional meetings, including summary records.
ECOSOC also adopted decisions, without votes, related to issues on housing; arbitrary detention; torture; involuntary disappearances; independence of the judiciary; elimination of violence against women; religious intolerance; human rights defenders; human rights in countering terrorism; Democratic Republic of the Congo; Burundi; Afghanistan; Somalia; Sierra Leone; Liberia; Iraq; discrimination in the criminal justice system; indigenous issues; and small arms.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a resolution on the long-term programme of support for Haiti by which it requested that the Secretary-General, in coordination with the United Nations resident coordinator in Haiti, report on progress achieved in implementing the long-term programme of support for Haiti, and that a report be prepared for the Council on the basic development in Haiti. It also decided to include this issue as an item in the agenda of its substantive 2004 session.
Addressing ECOSOC this afternoon were representatives of Italy (speaking on behalf of the European Union), Cuba, United States, Chile, Egypt, Georgia, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Libya, South Africa, Brazil, United Kingdom, China, and Uganda.
ECOSOC will reconvene on Thursday, 24 July, at 10 a.m. to continue to take action on outstanding draft proposals.
Action on Decisions
Within the context of the report of the Human Rights Commission, the Economic and Social Council adopted, without a vote, a decision on the “Situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,” by which the Council endorsed the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for a further year, as well as a decision on the “Situation of human rights in Burundi,” by which the Council endorsed the decision to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Burundi by one year.
The Council adopted, by a vote of 31 in favor, 17 against, with 5 abstentions, a decision on the “Effects of structural adjustment policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights", by which the Council approved the Commission’s renewal of the mandate of the Independent Expert on the effects of structural adjustment policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, for three years.
The results were as follows:
In favour (31): Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
Against (17): Andorra, Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstentions (5): Argentina, Georgia, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine,
The Council adopted, by a vote of 52 in favor, one against, with one abstention, a decision on “The right to food,” by which the Council endorsed the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for a further three years.
The results were as follows:
In favour (52): Andorra, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sweden, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.
Against (1): United States.
Abstention (1): Australia.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision on “Adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living,” by which the Council endorsed the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing for a period of three years.
The Council adopted, as orally amended and by a vote of 37 in favor, one against, with 16 abstentions, a decision on the “World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action,” by which the Council endorsed the Commission’s decision to request the Intergovernmental Working Group to make recommendations with a view to the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and to prepare complementary international standards to strengthen and update international instruments against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in all their aspects.
The results were as follows:
In favour (37): Argentina, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
Against (1): United States.
Abstentions (16): Andorra, Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom,
The Council endorsed the Commission's decision that the Working Group of experts on people of African descent convene its future sessions for initial periods of three years and that it convene its second session for 10 working days.
The Council adopted, by a vote of 51 for, two against, with one abstention, a decision on the “Question of the realization in all countries of the economic, social and cultural rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and study of special problems which the developing countries face in their efforts to achieve these human rights,” by which the Council endorsed the decision to establish an open-ended Working Group of the Commission with a view to considering options regarding the elaboration of an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The results were as follows:
In favour (51): Andorra, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Sweden, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.
Against (2): Saudi Arabia, and United States.
Abstention (1): Australia.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision on the “Question of arbitrary detention,” by which the Council endorsed the extension of the mandate of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for three years; a decision on “Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” by which the Council endorsed the request for an independent evaluation of the functioning of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture; a decision on the “Question of enforced or involuntary disappearances,” by which the Council authorized the Open-ended intersessional Working Group with the mandate to elaborate a draft legally binding normative instrument for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance to meet for a period of 10 working days before the sixtieth session of the Commission; a decision on the “Independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors and assessors and the independence of lawyers,” by which the Council endorsed the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers for a further period of three years; a decision on “Elimination of violence against women,” by which the Council endorsed the decision to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women for a period of three years; and a decision on “Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance” and the “Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994,” by which it authorized the Working Group established in accordance with Commission resolution 1995/32 of 3 March 1995 to meet for a period of 10 working days prior to the sixtieth session of the Commission.
The Council adopted, by a vote of 52 in favor, one against, with one abstention, a decision on the “Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People,” by which it authorized the Working Group on Indigenous Populations to meet for five working days prior to the fifty-fifth session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
The results were as follows:
In favour (52): Andorra, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sweden, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.
Against (1): United States.
Abstention (1): Australia.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision on “Human rights defenders,” by which it approved the extension of the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders for a further three years; a decision on the “Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism;” a decision on the “Situation of human rights in Afghanistan,” by which it approved the decision to request the Secretary-General to appoint an Independent Expert for a period of one year to develop a programme of advisory services to ensure the full respect and protection of human rights and the promotion of the rule of law and to seek and receive information about and report on the human rights situation in Afghanistan in an effort to prevent human rights violations; a decision on “Assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights,” by which it endorsed the extension of the mandate of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia for a further year; a decision on the “Situation of human rights in Sierra Leone,” by which it requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the General Assembly at its fifty-eighth session and to the Commission at its sixtieth session on the situation of human rights in Sierra Leone; and a decision on “Technical cooperation and advisory services in Liberia,” by which it endorsed the decision to appoint an Independent Expert for an initial period of three years to facilitate cooperation between the Government of Liberia and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in the area of the promotion and protection of human rights by providing technical assistance and advisory services.
The Council adopted, by a vote of 51 in favor, three against, with no abstentions, a decision on “The right to development,” by which it endorsed the decision to renew the mandate of the Working Group on the right to development for one year and to convene its fifth session before the sixtieth session of the Commission for a period of ten working days.
The results were as follows:
In favour (51): Andorra, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sweden, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.
Against (3): Australia, Japan, and United States.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision on the “Situation of human rights in Iraq,” by which it endorsed the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further year.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision on the “Decision relating to Liberia under the procedure established in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 1503,” by which it endorsed the recommendation that the report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Liberia be made public.
The Council also adopted, by a vote of 34 in favor, two against, with 18 abstentions, a decision on “The Social Forum,” by which it authorized the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to convene in Geneva an annual intersessional forum on economic, social and cultural rights, to be known as the “Social Forum,” for two days on dates that would permit the possible participation of ten members of the Sub-Commission, to be appointed by the regional groups of the Sub-Commission.
The results were as follows:
In favour (34): Argentina, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
Against (2): Australia, and United States.
Abstentions (18): Andorra, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Ukraine, and United Kingdom.
The Council also adopted, without a vote, a decision on “Discrimination in the criminal justice system,” by which it endorsed the decision to approve the appointment of Leila Zerrougui as Special Rapporteur to conduct a detailed study of discrimination in the criminal justice system; and a decision on “Housing and property restitution in the context of refugees and other displaced persons,” by which the Council endorsed the appointment of Paulo Sergio Pinheiro as Special Rapporteur with the task of preparing a comprehensive study on housing and property restitution in the context of the return of refugees and internally displaced persons.
The Council adopted, by a vote of 36 in favor, 12 against, with 6 abstentions, a decision on “Indigenous peoples’ permanent sovereignty over natural resources,” by which it endorsed the decision to appoint Erica-Irene Daes as Special Rapporteur to undertake a study on indigenous peoples’ permanent sovereignty over natural resources.
The results were as follows:
In favour (36): Argentina, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Burundi, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, India, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
Against (12): Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.
Abstentions (6): Andorra, Brazil, Ireland, Italy, Japan, and Romania.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision on “The prevention of human rights violations caused by the availability and misuse of small arms and light weapons,” by which it endorsed the appointment of Barbara Frey as Special Rapporteur with the task of preparing a comprehensive study on the prevention of human rights violations committed with small arms and light weapons.
The Council adopted, by a vote of 43 in favor, 3 against, with 8 abstentions, a decision on the “Organization of work of the sixtieth session of the Commission on Human Rights,” by which it authorized eight fully serviced additional meetings, including summary records, in accordance with rules 29 and 31 of the rules of procedure of the functional commissions of the Council, for the Commission’s sixtieth session.
The results were as follows:
In favour (43): Andorra, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Libya, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sweden, Ukraine, and Zimbabwe.
Against (3): Australia, United Kingdom, and United States.
Abstentions (8): China, Iran, Kenya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, and Uganda.
The Council also adopted, without a vote, a decision on the “Dates of the sixtieth session of the Commission on Human Rights,” by which it endorsed the Commission’s decision that the first meeting of the Commission would be held on the third Monday in January with the sole purpose of electing its officers, and that the sixtieth session of the Commission would be held from 15 March to 23 April 2004.
Finally the Council adopted, by a vote of 50 in favor, one against, with three abstentions, a decision on the “International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People,” by which it endorsed the Commission’s recommendation that it request the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize, before the end of the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, a seminar on treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous peoples.
The results were as follows:
In favour (50): Andorra, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Sweden, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.
Against (1): United States.
Abstentions (3): Australia, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.
The Council also adopted, without a vote, a resolution on the Long-term programme of support for Haiti (E/2003/L.35), by which it requested that the Secretary-General, in coordination with the United Nations resident coordinator in Haiti, report on progress achieved in implementing the long-term programme of support for Haiti, and that the report be prepared for the Council on the basic development in Haiti. It also decided to include this issue as an item in the agenda of its substantive 2004 session.
Comments on the Decision on the Effects of Structural Adjustment Policies and Foreign Debt on the Full Enjoyment of all Human Rights
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of Italy, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU), said that structural adjustment policies and foreign debt were not human rights issues as such. The EU had always made this clear and had reiterated its position during the fifty-ninth session of the Commission on Human Rights. These issues went beyond the competence and expertise of the Commission and were dealt with in other fora. The EU remained opposed to the mandate of the Independent Expert on structural adjustment. The EU would continue to be engaged in discussions with interested parties on these issues in the appropriate fora. For these reasons, the EU had called for a vote on this resolution and would vote against it.
Also speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of Cuba said that he was sorry to hear the opinion expressed by the representative of Italy. The need to lighten the burden of foreign indebtedness in order to fulfill the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights had been established in internationally agreed declarations. The recommendations made by the Expert were germane to work on human rights and the Cuban delegation encouraged all delegations to vote in favor of the resolution.
Comments on the Decision on the International Decade of the World's Indigenous People
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of the United States said that during the consideration of this item during the Commission, the United States had dissociated itself from the adoption of this resolution due to the failure of the Special Rapporteur to provide information on the seminar proposed therein. He, therefore, called for a recorded vote and encouraged others to vote against the draft decision.
A representative of Cuba said that Cuba was concerned by the weak arguments presented by the United States, especially as the Special Rapporteur had clearly explained to the Commission the focus of the proposed seminar. This had been included in an official document and provided sufficient information.
Comments on the Decision on the Right to Food
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of the United States said that he supported the progressive realization of adequate food as a component of human rights. However, the United States could not support the work of the Special Rapporteur because of his many irresponsible and unfounded statements. The Special Rapporteur had not demonstrated the qualities of impartiality and fairness required of him in his role as Special Rapporteur.
Also speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of Cuba said that this was one of the most broadly supported decisions taken by the Commission as there were few human rights more vital than the right to food. The countries of the South – and many of those in the North – understood the basic importance of the right to food. The progressive implementation of the right to food should not be impeded, as it had been enshrined both in the General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission. Cuba called for broad support for the resolution and said that the Special Rapporteur had shown how much could be contributed to the productive implementation of ideas and understanding the realities of the countries of the South. He clearly demonstrated the barriers existent in the world today.
Comments on the Decision on the Comprehensive Implementation of and Follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action
Suggesting an amendment to the decision, a representative of South Africa said that this decision, as represented in the report of the Commission, did not reflect the full content of the original discussion within the Commission and therefore, South Africa felt that operative paragraph 41 of the Commission’s original resolution should be inserted into this decision before its adoption. While the decision as it stood spoke only on the closure of the third decade, the Commission had also discussed the implementation of the Durban Declaration in the coming decade.
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of the United States said that the United States had not participated in the outcome of the World Conference and many of its concerns persisted. However, let there be no doubt about the United States’ commitment to the fight against racism. The Durban Declaration did not contribute to the fight against racism and the United States had called for a vote on this decision and would vote against it.
Voicing support for the suggestion made by the representative of South Africa were representatives of Cuba, Chile, Egypt – who called upon his African brothers and sisters to also support the proposal, Georgia, Zimbabwe and Pakistan.
Comment on the Decision on the Question of the Realization in all Countries of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The United States called for a vote on this decision, after a series of questions were posed on its financial implications.
In an explanation of the vote after the vote, a representative of Saudi Arabia said Saudi Arabia had voted against the decision because the Optional Protocol and the Portuguese proposal would necessitate a new investigative mechanism, which would pose a heavy burden on Saudi Arabia and developing countries. Such a mechanism already existed. Saudi Arabia agreed with the concept, but did not desire any more complications on the social level.
Comments on the Decision on the Working Group on Indigenous Populations
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of the United States said that the United States remained committed to working within the United Nations system to protect and promote the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples. However, the United States believed that the Working Group should be concluded, given that with the appointment of the Special Rapporteur and the conclusion of the second session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Working Group had fulfilled its mandate. The United States had supported the establishment of the Permanent Forum on the understanding that the Working Group would be brought to an end as a result.
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of Cuba said that the importance of the Working Group was reflected by many different factors and a draft resolution had been adopted in the Commission, which reflected the importance of this mechanism, as well as the two other mechanisms on indigenous issues. Cuba would vote in favor of the decision.
Also speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of the Russian Federation said that he understood the concern of those countries raising the question of the expediency of continuing the Working Group, but felt that questions of financial consequences and substantive issues should be divided on this issue. The Working Group was very important and had become an exemplary school for indigenous people and an arena in which they could have a dialogue with Governments. Thus, its work had not been concluded.
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of China said that the continuation of the Working Group was the common desire of the members of the Human Rights Commission, and was shared by those organizations concerned with indigenous issues. Therefore, the Chinese delegation would vote in favor of the draft decision.
Comment on the Decision on the Right to Development
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of United States said that the Commission on Human Rights resolution 2003/83 presented the argument that a lack of development justified the denial of internationally recognized human rights, which stood the whole issue of development on its head. The key factor in development was the extent to which methods of good governance were applied: whether or not Governments allowed their peoples’ human rights. The United States could not support this decision on progress toward the right to development as there was no internationally accepted definition of the right to development. For these reasons, the United States had called for a vote and would vote against the decision.
Comments on the Decision on the Situation of Human Rights in Iraq
Making a statement of position, a representative of Malaysia said that she was gravely concerned about the current situation in Iraq and was greatly saddened by the loss of lives and destruction there. In response to the needs of the Iraqi people, the Malaysian Government had established a humanitarian assistance fund to channel assistance to the people of Iraq. The United Nations must play a leading role in the future of Iraq, which should proceed on the basis of sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence. The Commission’s resolution did not reflect the current situation in Iraq, which arose out of the invasion by the United States and its allies, who as occupying powers were responsible for ensuring the rule of law. If it were not voted upon by roll call, Malaysia wished to be excluded as a party to the decision.
A representative of Cuba said that he endorsed completely the statement of the representative of Malaysia and added that there were serious violations taking place in Iraq. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur seemed very limited, but should cover all the violations of human rights being committed at the present time. For the next commission, it would be important to have an accurate report on the current situation in Iraq.
Representatives of Libya and South Africa both expressed the desire to be associated with the statements of the representatives of Malaysia and Cuba.
Comments on the Decision on the Organization of Work of the Sixtieth Session of the Commission on Human Rights
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of the United States said that the Human Rights Commission had been allocated sufficient time in which to complete its work, and that in conjunction with the second paragraph of the text of the draft decision, the United States felt that the Commission should make every effort to organize its work within the normally allotted time. If the Commission used its time thoroughly and began its meetings on schedule, additional meetings would be unnecessary. Therefore, the United States would vote against this decision.
A representative of Brazil said she would vote in favor of the decision because Brazil itself had had a problem of time constraints in the last session of the Commission. There had been a draft resolution that had not been examined due to the lack of time.
A representative of the United Kingdom said that the text of the draft decision included a request to the Chairperson of the sixtieth session to organize the Commission’s work within its already allotted time, which the United Kingdom fully supported. However, this draft decision also requested the allotment of eight additional meetings. The Commission had made welcome progress in its most recent session in managing its time, but had still fallen short on some fronts, particularly in starting late. Until the Commission could demonstrate a more effective use of time, it would be premature to authorize additional meetings at considerable cost to the United Nations’ regular budget. Moreover, the statement submitted by the Secretary-General made it clear that no provisions had been provided during the biennium 2004-2005 for additional servicing, and it would therefore be inappropriate to endorse this decision.
A representative of Cuba said that it was incorrect to say that some resources had not been approved for the requested additional meetings, because the budget for the biennial period 2004-2005 had not yet been adopted. The two delegations that had spoken against the draft decision were among those who had tried systematically to slow the presentations of drafts and resolutions, yet were responsible for the submission of 70 per cent of the resolutions going before the Commission. Were they asking for the Commission to be changed into a body to attack the countries of the South or to muzzle the countries of the South and non-governmental organizations? In no way could Cuba agree with such a stance. Therefore, the Cuban delegation firmly objected to the requests made and would vote in favor of the decision, as this resolution had been adopted by consensus during the Commission’s session.
Also speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of China said that there was no need for any additional meetings of the Human Rights Commission. The Chinese delegation would abstain during the vote on this decision.
Speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, a representative of Uganda said that he believed that there were other ways of saving time, including by cutting explanations of vote, especially as most explanations were not genuine. The Commission was there to promote human rights and most decisions could be arrived at by consensus. Not calling for unnecessary votes could, therefore, also save time.
afternoon
Also Adopts Resolution on Long-term Support for Haiti
The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) this afternoon took action on decisions recommended to it in the report of the Commission on Human Rights on its fifty-ninth session. Out of the 32 decisions adopted by ECOSOC, ten were put to a vote, many of which extended or renewed the mandates of Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts or Working Groups.
Within the context of recommendations of the Commission on Human Rights, ECOSOC adopted, in a vote of 31 in favor and 17 against, with 5 abstentions, a decision on the effects of structural adjustment policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, by which it approved the Commission’s renewal of the mandate of the Independent Expert on the effects of structural adjustment policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights for three years.
Concerning the follow-up to the World Conference against Racism, ECOSOC adopted, by a vote of 37 in favor, one against, with 16 abstentions, an orally amended decision on the World Conference and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, requesting the Intergovernmental Working Group to make recommendations with a view to the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and to prepare complementary international standards to strengthen and update international instruments against racism.
ECOSOC also adopted, in a vote of 51 in favor and two against, with one abstention, a decision on the question of the realization in all countries of the economic, social and cultural rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in which it endorsed the establishment of an open-ended Working Group of the Commission to consider options regarding the elaboration of an optional protocol to the International Covenant.
On indigenous issues, ECOSOC in a decision on the Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, adopted by a vote of 52 in favor, one against, with one abstaining, authorized the Working Group to meet for five working days prior to the Sub-Commission. Also on indigenous issues, ECOSOC adopted, by a vote of 36 in favor and 12 against, with 6 abstentions, a decision on indigenous peoples’ permanent sovereignty over natural resources, by which it endorsed the decision to appoint Erica-Irene Daes as Special Rapporteur to undertake a study on indigenous peoples’ permanent sovereignty over natural resources. By a vote of 50 in favor, with one against, and 3 abstentions, ECOSOC adopted a decision on the International Decade, by which it requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize, before the end of the International Decade, a seminar on treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous peoples.
In a decision on the right to development, adopted in a vote of 51 in favor and
three against, ECOSOC renewed the mandate of the Working Group on the right to development for one year. In another vote of 52 in favor and one against, with one abstention, ECOSOC adopted a decision on the right to food, where it extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for another three years.
In a decision on the Social Forum, adopted in a vote of 34 in favor, two against, with 18 abstentions, ECOSOC authorized the Sub-Commission to convene in Geneva an annual intersessional forum on economic, social and cultural rights, to be known as the “Social Forum,” for two days on dates that would permit the possible participation of ten members of the Sub-Commission, to be appointed by the regional groups of the Sub-Commission.
ECOSOC adopted, by a vote of 43 in favor and 3 against, with 8 abstentions, a decision on the organization of work of the sixtieth session of the Commission on Human Rights, by which it authorized eight fully serviced additional meetings, including summary records.
ECOSOC also adopted decisions, without votes, related to issues on housing; arbitrary detention; torture; involuntary disappearances; independence of the judiciary; elimination of violence against women; religious intolerance; human rights defenders; human rights in countering terrorism; Democratic Republic of the Congo; Burundi; Afghanistan; Somalia; Sierra Leone; Liberia; Iraq; discrimination in the criminal justice system; indigenous issues; and small arms.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a resolution on the long-term programme of support for Haiti by which it requested that the Secretary-General, in coordination with the United Nations resident coordinator in Haiti, report on progress achieved in implementing the long-term programme of support for Haiti, and that a report be prepared for the Council on the basic development in Haiti. It also decided to include this issue as an item in the agenda of its substantive 2004 session.
Addressing ECOSOC this afternoon were representatives of Italy (speaking on behalf of the European Union), Cuba, United States, Chile, Egypt, Georgia, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Libya, South Africa, Brazil, United Kingdom, China, and Uganda.
ECOSOC will reconvene on Thursday, 24 July, at 10 a.m. to continue to take action on outstanding draft proposals.
Action on Decisions
Within the context of the report of the Human Rights Commission, the Economic and Social Council adopted, without a vote, a decision on the “Situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,” by which the Council endorsed the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for a further year, as well as a decision on the “Situation of human rights in Burundi,” by which the Council endorsed the decision to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Burundi by one year.
The Council adopted, by a vote of 31 in favor, 17 against, with 5 abstentions, a decision on the “Effects of structural adjustment policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights", by which the Council approved the Commission’s renewal of the mandate of the Independent Expert on the effects of structural adjustment policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, for three years.
The results were as follows:
In favour (31): Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
Against (17): Andorra, Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstentions (5): Argentina, Georgia, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine,
The Council adopted, by a vote of 52 in favor, one against, with one abstention, a decision on “The right to food,” by which the Council endorsed the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for a further three years.
The results were as follows:
In favour (52): Andorra, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sweden, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.
Against (1): United States.
Abstention (1): Australia.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision on “Adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living,” by which the Council endorsed the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing for a period of three years.
The Council adopted, as orally amended and by a vote of 37 in favor, one against, with 16 abstentions, a decision on the “World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action,” by which the Council endorsed the Commission’s decision to request the Intergovernmental Working Group to make recommendations with a view to the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and to prepare complementary international standards to strengthen and update international instruments against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in all their aspects.
The results were as follows:
In favour (37): Argentina, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
Against (1): United States.
Abstentions (16): Andorra, Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom,
The Council endorsed the Commission's decision that the Working Group of experts on people of African descent convene its future sessions for initial periods of three years and that it convene its second session for 10 working days.
The Council adopted, by a vote of 51 for, two against, with one abstention, a decision on the “Question of the realization in all countries of the economic, social and cultural rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and study of special problems which the developing countries face in their efforts to achieve these human rights,” by which the Council endorsed the decision to establish an open-ended Working Group of the Commission with a view to considering options regarding the elaboration of an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The results were as follows:
In favour (51): Andorra, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Sweden, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.
Against (2): Saudi Arabia, and United States.
Abstention (1): Australia.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision on the “Question of arbitrary detention,” by which the Council endorsed the extension of the mandate of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for three years; a decision on “Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” by which the Council endorsed the request for an independent evaluation of the functioning of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture; a decision on the “Question of enforced or involuntary disappearances,” by which the Council authorized the Open-ended intersessional Working Group with the mandate to elaborate a draft legally binding normative instrument for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance to meet for a period of 10 working days before the sixtieth session of the Commission; a decision on the “Independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors and assessors and the independence of lawyers,” by which the Council endorsed the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers for a further period of three years; a decision on “Elimination of violence against women,” by which the Council endorsed the decision to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women for a period of three years; and a decision on “Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance” and the “Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994,” by which it authorized the Working Group established in accordance with Commission resolution 1995/32 of 3 March 1995 to meet for a period of 10 working days prior to the sixtieth session of the Commission.
The Council adopted, by a vote of 52 in favor, one against, with one abstention, a decision on the “Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People,” by which it authorized the Working Group on Indigenous Populations to meet for five working days prior to the fifty-fifth session of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.
The results were as follows:
In favour (52): Andorra, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sweden, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.
Against (1): United States.
Abstention (1): Australia.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision on “Human rights defenders,” by which it approved the extension of the mandate of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders for a further three years; a decision on the “Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism;” a decision on the “Situation of human rights in Afghanistan,” by which it approved the decision to request the Secretary-General to appoint an Independent Expert for a period of one year to develop a programme of advisory services to ensure the full respect and protection of human rights and the promotion of the rule of law and to seek and receive information about and report on the human rights situation in Afghanistan in an effort to prevent human rights violations; a decision on “Assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights,” by which it endorsed the extension of the mandate of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia for a further year; a decision on the “Situation of human rights in Sierra Leone,” by which it requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the General Assembly at its fifty-eighth session and to the Commission at its sixtieth session on the situation of human rights in Sierra Leone; and a decision on “Technical cooperation and advisory services in Liberia,” by which it endorsed the decision to appoint an Independent Expert for an initial period of three years to facilitate cooperation between the Government of Liberia and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in the area of the promotion and protection of human rights by providing technical assistance and advisory services.
The Council adopted, by a vote of 51 in favor, three against, with no abstentions, a decision on “The right to development,” by which it endorsed the decision to renew the mandate of the Working Group on the right to development for one year and to convene its fifth session before the sixtieth session of the Commission for a period of ten working days.
The results were as follows:
In favour (51): Andorra, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sweden, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.
Against (3): Australia, Japan, and United States.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision on the “Situation of human rights in Iraq,” by which it endorsed the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further year.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision on the “Decision relating to Liberia under the procedure established in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 1503,” by which it endorsed the recommendation that the report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Liberia be made public.
The Council also adopted, by a vote of 34 in favor, two against, with 18 abstentions, a decision on “The Social Forum,” by which it authorized the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to convene in Geneva an annual intersessional forum on economic, social and cultural rights, to be known as the “Social Forum,” for two days on dates that would permit the possible participation of ten members of the Sub-Commission, to be appointed by the regional groups of the Sub-Commission.
The results were as follows:
In favour (34): Argentina, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
Against (2): Australia, and United States.
Abstentions (18): Andorra, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Ukraine, and United Kingdom.
The Council also adopted, without a vote, a decision on “Discrimination in the criminal justice system,” by which it endorsed the decision to approve the appointment of Leila Zerrougui as Special Rapporteur to conduct a detailed study of discrimination in the criminal justice system; and a decision on “Housing and property restitution in the context of refugees and other displaced persons,” by which the Council endorsed the appointment of Paulo Sergio Pinheiro as Special Rapporteur with the task of preparing a comprehensive study on housing and property restitution in the context of the return of refugees and internally displaced persons.
The Council adopted, by a vote of 36 in favor, 12 against, with 6 abstentions, a decision on “Indigenous peoples’ permanent sovereignty over natural resources,” by which it endorsed the decision to appoint Erica-Irene Daes as Special Rapporteur to undertake a study on indigenous peoples’ permanent sovereignty over natural resources.
The results were as follows:
In favour (36): Argentina, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Burundi, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, India, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
Against (12): Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.
Abstentions (6): Andorra, Brazil, Ireland, Italy, Japan, and Romania.
The Council adopted, without a vote, a decision on “The prevention of human rights violations caused by the availability and misuse of small arms and light weapons,” by which it endorsed the appointment of Barbara Frey as Special Rapporteur with the task of preparing a comprehensive study on the prevention of human rights violations committed with small arms and light weapons.
The Council adopted, by a vote of 43 in favor, 3 against, with 8 abstentions, a decision on the “Organization of work of the sixtieth session of the Commission on Human Rights,” by which it authorized eight fully serviced additional meetings, including summary records, in accordance with rules 29 and 31 of the rules of procedure of the functional commissions of the Council, for the Commission’s sixtieth session.
The results were as follows:
In favour (43): Andorra, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Libya, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sweden, Ukraine, and Zimbabwe.
Against (3): Australia, United Kingdom, and United States.
Abstentions (8): China, Iran, Kenya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, and Uganda.
The Council also adopted, without a vote, a decision on the “Dates of the sixtieth session of the Commission on Human Rights,” by which it endorsed the Commission’s decision that the first meeting of the Commission would be held on the third Monday in January with the sole purpose of electing its officers, and that the sixtieth session of the Commission would be held from 15 March to 23 April 2004.
Finally the Council adopted, by a vote of 50 in favor, one against, with three abstentions, a decision on the “International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People,” by which it endorsed the Commission’s recommendation that it request the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize, before the end of the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, a seminar on treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous peoples.
The results were as follows:
In favour (50): Andorra, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burundi, Chile, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Sweden, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.
Against (1): United States.
Abstentions (3): Australia, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.
The Council also adopted, without a vote, a resolution on the Long-term programme of support for Haiti (E/2003/L.35), by which it requested that the Secretary-General, in coordination with the United Nations resident coordinator in Haiti, report on progress achieved in implementing the long-term programme of support for Haiti, and that the report be prepared for the Council on the basic development in Haiti. It also decided to include this issue as an item in the agenda of its substantive 2004 session.
Comments on the Decision on the Effects of Structural Adjustment Policies and Foreign Debt on the Full Enjoyment of all Human Rights
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of Italy, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU), said that structural adjustment policies and foreign debt were not human rights issues as such. The EU had always made this clear and had reiterated its position during the fifty-ninth session of the Commission on Human Rights. These issues went beyond the competence and expertise of the Commission and were dealt with in other fora. The EU remained opposed to the mandate of the Independent Expert on structural adjustment. The EU would continue to be engaged in discussions with interested parties on these issues in the appropriate fora. For these reasons, the EU had called for a vote on this resolution and would vote against it.
Also speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of Cuba said that he was sorry to hear the opinion expressed by the representative of Italy. The need to lighten the burden of foreign indebtedness in order to fulfill the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights had been established in internationally agreed declarations. The recommendations made by the Expert were germane to work on human rights and the Cuban delegation encouraged all delegations to vote in favor of the resolution.
Comments on the Decision on the International Decade of the World's Indigenous People
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of the United States said that during the consideration of this item during the Commission, the United States had dissociated itself from the adoption of this resolution due to the failure of the Special Rapporteur to provide information on the seminar proposed therein. He, therefore, called for a recorded vote and encouraged others to vote against the draft decision.
A representative of Cuba said that Cuba was concerned by the weak arguments presented by the United States, especially as the Special Rapporteur had clearly explained to the Commission the focus of the proposed seminar. This had been included in an official document and provided sufficient information.
Comments on the Decision on the Right to Food
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of the United States said that he supported the progressive realization of adequate food as a component of human rights. However, the United States could not support the work of the Special Rapporteur because of his many irresponsible and unfounded statements. The Special Rapporteur had not demonstrated the qualities of impartiality and fairness required of him in his role as Special Rapporteur.
Also speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of Cuba said that this was one of the most broadly supported decisions taken by the Commission as there were few human rights more vital than the right to food. The countries of the South – and many of those in the North – understood the basic importance of the right to food. The progressive implementation of the right to food should not be impeded, as it had been enshrined both in the General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission. Cuba called for broad support for the resolution and said that the Special Rapporteur had shown how much could be contributed to the productive implementation of ideas and understanding the realities of the countries of the South. He clearly demonstrated the barriers existent in the world today.
Comments on the Decision on the Comprehensive Implementation of and Follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action
Suggesting an amendment to the decision, a representative of South Africa said that this decision, as represented in the report of the Commission, did not reflect the full content of the original discussion within the Commission and therefore, South Africa felt that operative paragraph 41 of the Commission’s original resolution should be inserted into this decision before its adoption. While the decision as it stood spoke only on the closure of the third decade, the Commission had also discussed the implementation of the Durban Declaration in the coming decade.
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of the United States said that the United States had not participated in the outcome of the World Conference and many of its concerns persisted. However, let there be no doubt about the United States’ commitment to the fight against racism. The Durban Declaration did not contribute to the fight against racism and the United States had called for a vote on this decision and would vote against it.
Voicing support for the suggestion made by the representative of South Africa were representatives of Cuba, Chile, Egypt – who called upon his African brothers and sisters to also support the proposal, Georgia, Zimbabwe and Pakistan.
Comment on the Decision on the Question of the Realization in all Countries of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The United States called for a vote on this decision, after a series of questions were posed on its financial implications.
In an explanation of the vote after the vote, a representative of Saudi Arabia said Saudi Arabia had voted against the decision because the Optional Protocol and the Portuguese proposal would necessitate a new investigative mechanism, which would pose a heavy burden on Saudi Arabia and developing countries. Such a mechanism already existed. Saudi Arabia agreed with the concept, but did not desire any more complications on the social level.
Comments on the Decision on the Working Group on Indigenous Populations
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of the United States said that the United States remained committed to working within the United Nations system to protect and promote the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples. However, the United States believed that the Working Group should be concluded, given that with the appointment of the Special Rapporteur and the conclusion of the second session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the Working Group had fulfilled its mandate. The United States had supported the establishment of the Permanent Forum on the understanding that the Working Group would be brought to an end as a result.
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of Cuba said that the importance of the Working Group was reflected by many different factors and a draft resolution had been adopted in the Commission, which reflected the importance of this mechanism, as well as the two other mechanisms on indigenous issues. Cuba would vote in favor of the decision.
Also speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of the Russian Federation said that he understood the concern of those countries raising the question of the expediency of continuing the Working Group, but felt that questions of financial consequences and substantive issues should be divided on this issue. The Working Group was very important and had become an exemplary school for indigenous people and an arena in which they could have a dialogue with Governments. Thus, its work had not been concluded.
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of China said that the continuation of the Working Group was the common desire of the members of the Human Rights Commission, and was shared by those organizations concerned with indigenous issues. Therefore, the Chinese delegation would vote in favor of the draft decision.
Comment on the Decision on the Right to Development
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of United States said that the Commission on Human Rights resolution 2003/83 presented the argument that a lack of development justified the denial of internationally recognized human rights, which stood the whole issue of development on its head. The key factor in development was the extent to which methods of good governance were applied: whether or not Governments allowed their peoples’ human rights. The United States could not support this decision on progress toward the right to development as there was no internationally accepted definition of the right to development. For these reasons, the United States had called for a vote and would vote against the decision.
Comments on the Decision on the Situation of Human Rights in Iraq
Making a statement of position, a representative of Malaysia said that she was gravely concerned about the current situation in Iraq and was greatly saddened by the loss of lives and destruction there. In response to the needs of the Iraqi people, the Malaysian Government had established a humanitarian assistance fund to channel assistance to the people of Iraq. The United Nations must play a leading role in the future of Iraq, which should proceed on the basis of sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence. The Commission’s resolution did not reflect the current situation in Iraq, which arose out of the invasion by the United States and its allies, who as occupying powers were responsible for ensuring the rule of law. If it were not voted upon by roll call, Malaysia wished to be excluded as a party to the decision.
A representative of Cuba said that he endorsed completely the statement of the representative of Malaysia and added that there were serious violations taking place in Iraq. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur seemed very limited, but should cover all the violations of human rights being committed at the present time. For the next commission, it would be important to have an accurate report on the current situation in Iraq.
Representatives of Libya and South Africa both expressed the desire to be associated with the statements of the representatives of Malaysia and Cuba.
Comments on the Decision on the Organization of Work of the Sixtieth Session of the Commission on Human Rights
Speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of the United States said that the Human Rights Commission had been allocated sufficient time in which to complete its work, and that in conjunction with the second paragraph of the text of the draft decision, the United States felt that the Commission should make every effort to organize its work within the normally allotted time. If the Commission used its time thoroughly and began its meetings on schedule, additional meetings would be unnecessary. Therefore, the United States would vote against this decision.
A representative of Brazil said she would vote in favor of the decision because Brazil itself had had a problem of time constraints in the last session of the Commission. There had been a draft resolution that had not been examined due to the lack of time.
A representative of the United Kingdom said that the text of the draft decision included a request to the Chairperson of the sixtieth session to organize the Commission’s work within its already allotted time, which the United Kingdom fully supported. However, this draft decision also requested the allotment of eight additional meetings. The Commission had made welcome progress in its most recent session in managing its time, but had still fallen short on some fronts, particularly in starting late. Until the Commission could demonstrate a more effective use of time, it would be premature to authorize additional meetings at considerable cost to the United Nations’ regular budget. Moreover, the statement submitted by the Secretary-General made it clear that no provisions had been provided during the biennium 2004-2005 for additional servicing, and it would therefore be inappropriate to endorse this decision.
A representative of Cuba said that it was incorrect to say that some resources had not been approved for the requested additional meetings, because the budget for the biennial period 2004-2005 had not yet been adopted. The two delegations that had spoken against the draft decision were among those who had tried systematically to slow the presentations of drafts and resolutions, yet were responsible for the submission of 70 per cent of the resolutions going before the Commission. Were they asking for the Commission to be changed into a body to attack the countries of the South or to muzzle the countries of the South and non-governmental organizations? In no way could Cuba agree with such a stance. Therefore, the Cuban delegation firmly objected to the requests made and would vote in favor of the decision, as this resolution had been adopted by consensus during the Commission’s session.
Also speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, a representative of China said that there was no need for any additional meetings of the Human Rights Commission. The Chinese delegation would abstain during the vote on this decision.
Speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, a representative of Uganda said that he believed that there were other ways of saving time, including by cutting explanations of vote, especially as most explanations were not genuine. The Commission was there to promote human rights and most decisions could be arrived at by consensus. Not calling for unnecessary votes could, therefore, also save time.
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: