RESOLUTIONS ON SITUATIONS IN IRAQ, SUDAN AND CUBA ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Commission on Human Rights
58th session
19 April 2002
Afternoon







Resolution on Republic of Chechnya
of the Russian Federation defeated;

Resolution on Cooperation with Representatives
of United Nations Human Rights Bodies Adopted



The Commission on Human Rights adopted resolutions this afternoon on situations of human rights in Iraq, Sudan and Cuba, and on cooperation with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies.

In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Iraq, adopted by a roll-call vote of 28 in favour and 4 opposed, with 21 abstentions, the Commission among other things, strongly condemned the systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, called upon the Government to cooperate with United Nations human rights mechanisms, and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iraq for a further year. Statements by the concerned country and other speakers on the situation in Iraq were delivered in the morning meeting.

In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Sudan, adopted by a roll-call vote of 25 in favour and 24 opposed, with 4 abstentions, the Commission, among other things, expressed its deep concern at the impact of the ongoing armed conflict on civilians, including, in southern Sudan, the use of children as soldiers and combatants; the negative role of undisciplined militias armed by the Sudanese army and the Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement, which were responsible for killings, torture, rape, and abductions; and it called on the Government to ensure full respect for freedom of religion, opinion, expression , association and assembly. The Commission also decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation in Sudan for a further year.

The representative of Sudan said his country had made tremendous progress in the economic, political and social fields, as well as in human rights. Despite all efforts, it was regrettable that the same condemnation was carried out against Sudan. Such action would only strengthen those who were opposed to the peace process.

In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Cuba, adopted by a roll-call vote of 23 in favour and 21 opposed, with 9 abstentions, the Commission invited the Government of Cuba to make efforts to achieve progress in respect of human, civil and political rights, and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to send a personal representative with a view to cooperation between her Office and the Government of Cuba in implementation of the present resolution and urged the Government to take all necessary measures so that such a visit could take place as soon as possible.

The representative of China had proposed a motion of no-action on the resolution, which was defeated in a vote of 24 opposed and 23 in favour, with 6 abstentions. The Chinese proposal was intensively discussed with several speakers expressing their opinions on the matter in a series of point of orders.

The representative of Cuba said some had hoped that there would be no resolution on Cuba this year since the United States was not a member of the Commission. This was naive. The United States needed this resolution in order to justify its genocidal policy of economic blockade against Cuba, and had secretively and conspiratorially drafted other countries, who had surrendered to the superpower, to introduce the resolution.

A resolution on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation was defeated with 16 opposed and 15 in favour, with 22 abstentions. If adopted, the Commission, amongst other things, would have called upon the Russian Federation to implement the Commission's recommendation to establish a broad-based, independent commission of inquiry to investigate alleged violations in Chechnya, and to extend access of relevant organizations, in particular the International Committee of the Red Cross, to all detention centres.

The representative of the Russian Federation said the resolution introduced by the European Union was politically motivated and morally untenable. It distorted the true state of affairs and drew a false picture of the policies of the federal authorities in the Chechen Republic, and suggested dialogue with terrorists and with those who supported and harboured them.

The Commission also adopted without a vote a resolution on cooperation with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies in which it urged Governments to refrain from all acts of intimidation or reprisal against those who sought to cooperate or had cooperated with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies, or who had provided testimony or information to them. It requested all representatives of United Nations human rights bodies and treaty monitoring bodies to take urgent steps to help prevent the occurrence of such intimidation and reprisals and to include in their reports references to allegations of intimidation, reprisal, or hampering of access to United Nations human rights procedures.

Also speaking this afternoon were the representatives of Viet Nam, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Nigeria (on behalf of the African Group), China, Algeria, Syria, Libya, Spain (on behalf of the European Union), Uganda, India, Uruguay, Peru, Canada, Venezuela, Indonesia, Brazil, Guatemala, and Ecuador.

The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. Monday 22 April to continue taking action on draft resolutions.

Action on Resolutions

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002.L.26) on the situation of human rights in Iraq, the Commission welcomed the visit of the Special Rapporteur to the country and encouraged the Government of Iraq to cooperate further with the Special Rapporteur; noted with dismay that there had been no improvement in the situation of human rights in the country; strongly condemned the systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror; the suppression of the freedoms of thought, expression, information, association, assembly and movement; the repression faced by any kind of opposition; the widespread use of the death penalty in disregard of international standards; and it strongly condemned summary and arbitrary executions, the use of rape as a political tool, enforced or involuntary disappearances, routinely practised arbitrary arrests and detention, consistent failure to respect due process of law, and widespread, systematic torture.

The Commission also called upon the Government to abide by international human rights treaties and respect the rights of all individuals; to put an end to all summary and arbitrary executions and to ensure that capital punishment was not imposed for crimes other than the most serious; to bring the actions of its military and security forces into conformity with the standards of international law; to cooperate with United Nations human rights mechanisms, in particular by allowing further visits by the Special Rapporteur and by allowing the stationing of human rights monitors throughout Iraq pursuant to the relevant resolutions of the Commission and General Assembly; to establish independence of the judiciary and to abrogate all laws granting impunity for human rights violations; to abrogate all decrees prescribing cruel and inhuman punishment, including mutilation; to abrogate all laws and procedures that penalized free expression; to ensure the free exercise of the political opposition; to respect the rights of all ethnic and religious groups and to cease immediately continued repressive policies against them; to cooperate with the Tripartite Commission and its Technical Subcommittee to establish the whereabouts and resolve the fates of the remaining several hundred missing persons, including prisoners of war, Kuwaiti nationals and third country nationals, victims of the illegal Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, and to pay compensation to the families of those who died or disappeared in the custody of the Iraqi authorities; to release immediately all Kuwaitis and nationals of other States who might still be held in detention; to continue efforts to ensure fully the timely and equitable distribution, without discrimination, to the Iraqi population, including in remote areas, of all humanitarian supplies purchased under the oil-for-food programme; to cooperate in identifying minefields existing throughout Iraq; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iraq for a further year.

A separate vote to retain operative paragraphs 2, 3a, 3b, 3e and 3f was approved by a roll-call vote of 28 in favour to 9 against, with 15 abstentions.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Uruguay.

Against : Algeria, China, Cuba, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Russian Federation, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo and Viet Nam.

Abstentions: Bahrain, Burundi, Cameroon, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Thailand, Uganda, Venezuela and Zambia.


L. 26 as a whole was adopted by a roll-call vote of 28 in favour to 4 against, with 21 abstentions. The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Uruguay.

Against : Algeria, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Sudan and Syrian Arab Republic.

Abstentions: Bahrain, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.


NGUYEN QUY BINH (Viet Nam), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that it was in favour of a peaceful settlement without causing additional suffering to the Iraqi population. The sanctions against Iraq should stop since they inflicted suffering on the people of Iraq. The resolution did not refer to impact that the sanctions had had on the Iraqi people, especially on women and children. Viet Nam believed that the Commission should not disregard the humanitarian dimension of the situation.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002.L.27) on the situation of human rights in Sudan, the Commission welcomed the declaration of a cease-fire agreement in the Nuba Mountains signed in January 2002 by the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Nuba and the establishment of a Joint Military Commission and an International Monitoring Unit to implement and monitor the cease-fire; the agreement between the Government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement to protect civilians and civilian facilities from military attacks, signed in March 2002; the commitment of the Government to establish an advisory council for Christians; the Decree of the President re-establishing and further empowering the Committee for the Eradication of the Abduction of Women and Children and the commitment of the Government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M) to support an international commission to review the phenomenon of abduction and propose recommendations; the cooperation extended by the Government and the SPLA/M to United Nations humanitarian agencies to mitigate the effects of the war on civilians; the visit, upon the invitation of the Government, of the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons; the demobilization and repatriation of more than 3,500 child soldiers; the commitment of the Government to facilitate the establishment of an independent national commission on human rights, and it urged the Government to fulfil its commitment.

The Commission also expressed its deep concern at the extension of the state of emergency in the country until the end of 2002; at the impact of the ongoing armed conflict on civilians, including, in southern Sudan, the use of children as soldiers and combatants; forced conscription, forced displacement, arbitrary detention, torture, and summary and arbitrary executions; the ongoing plight of internally displaced persons; the abduction of women and children by the Murahaleen groups and other Government militias and their subjection to forced labour or similar conditions; the negative role of undisciplined militias armed by the Sudanese army and the SPLA/M, which were responsible for killings, torture, rape, abduction and the destruction of shelters and livelihoods; widespread and indiscriminate aerial bombardments and attacks by the Government, particularly bombings of schools and hospitals, churches, food distribution areas and marketplaces, and expressed deep concern at the recent attack by the Government against a United Nations food distribution centre in southern Sudan on 20 February 2002; at the use of civilian premises for military purposes; at continuing violations of human rights in areas under the control of the Government, including restrictions on freedom of religion, association, assembly and expression; at restrictions of political freedom; at arbitrary arrests and detention without trial, in particular of political opponents, human rights defenders and journalists; at the extensive use of the most cruel forms of corporal punishment; at discrimination against women and girls in law and in practice; and at use of the death penalty in disregard of international standards.

The Commission urged all parties to the continuing conflict to respect and protect human rights; to implement the Khartoum agreement to protect civilians and civilian facilities; to stop the use of tribal militias which committed human rights abuses; to grant unhindered access to all international agencies and humanitarian organizations; not to use or recruit children under the age of 18 as soldiers; to allow an independent investigation of the condemned murder of four Sudanese nationals abducted on 18 February 1999 while travelling with a team from the International Committee of the Red Cross on a humanitarian mission and subsequently killed while in the custody of the SPLA/M, and urged the SPLA/M to return their bodies to their families; called upon the Government of the Sudan to comply fully with its international human rights obligations; to end and prevent all acts of torture, including amputation; to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by women and girls of their human rights; to return to Constitutional normalcy as quickly and possible and to undertake a genuine process of democratization; to ensure full respect for freedom of religion; to ensure full respect for the freedoms of opinion, expression, association and assembly; to reinforce actions undertaken to stop abductions of women and children in southern Sudan; to call for an end to impunity for human rights violations; to end the situation of insecurity, harassment, intimidation and prosecution suffered by human rights organizations; called upon the international community to consider how to expand the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to include a monitoring role aimed at improving respect for human rights in the country; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation in the Sudan for a further year.

The above resolution was accepted by roll-call vote of 25 in favour to 24 against and with 4 abstentions.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, Uganda, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay,

Against : Algeria, Bahrain, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Cuba, ,Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Viet Nam, Zambia.

Abstentions: Armenia, South Africa, Thailand, Venezuela,

.
MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that the Government of Sudan had made efforts to enable its people to enjoy human rights. Sudan's constructive engagement with the international community had resulted in several agreements, including a cease-fire agreement, an agreement on the abduction of women and children, and an agreement on the protection of civilians. Sudan had also cooperated with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. It had adopted a new Constitution in 1998 that enshrined a bill of human rights. Sudan had also established a Constitutional Court, national mechanisms for the protection of human rights, a committee for eradicating abduction of women and children, and it had implemented a technical cooperation programme. The OIC regretted that the Chairman's statement was rejected by the European Union. This draft resolution reflected a negation by the European Union of Sudan's commitment to promote and protect human rights. Pakistan would therefore vote against the draft resolution.

PIUS IKPEFUAN AYEWOH (Nigeria), on behalf of the African Group, said that the draft contained outdated facts that were not substantiated by the Special Rapporteur nor by any other independent source. The draft did not reflect the situation in Sudan, or at least not the situation in the last few years. This was particularly true concerning missing people. Sudan had reiterated on numerous occasions its intention to continue cooperation with the United Nations, particularly in human rights. The African Group welcomed this trend and therefore looked negatively on the European Union's draft resolution. The African Group would vote against the draft.

SHA ZUKANG (China) said that after a long period of war, the Government of Sudan had adopted a series of measures. It had also collaborated with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. China congratulated the Sudanese Government for the positive measures it had taken and the efforts it had made in achieving peace. Despite the positive signs in the country, the Commission was tabling the same resolution year after year. China would vote against the draft resolution.

MOHAMED-SALAH DEMBRI (Algeria) said that draft resolution L.27 referred to allegations that had not been verified. It also questioned the efforts undertaken by the Government of Sudan to promote human rights. Further, it contained false statements. The resolution did not contain desirable elements of credibility and therefore Algeria would vote against it.

TOUFIK SALLOUM (Syria) said he would not repeat what had been said by the representatives of Pakistan or Nigeria, but he wanted to stress that he fully agreed with what had been said by them. The Sudanese Government, despite its many difficulties, had attempted to preserve and promote a better understanding of human rights. The Security Council had even lifted its embargo on Sudan. The draft resolution did not recognize the efforts made by the Sudanese Government. He underscored that it was laughable to see Israel co-sponsor this statement since Israel was itself violating human rights. Israel was now sponsoring a resolution criticizing human rights violations in other places. It was stressed that one must not cast stones if one's own position was not strong

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that the Organization of the Islamic Conference had already expressed its position on the text. The text did not reflect the objective reality of the situation. Cuba would vote against the draft resolution.

NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI (Libya) said that Libya agreed with the statement by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and by Nigeria on behalf of the African Group. Libya would have preferred to see a Chairman's statement rather than a resolution on Sudan. Nonetheless, certain quarters believed it was possible to use this forum to denounce policies in certain countries and to pass judgement on them. Sudan had undertaken efforts to uphold human rights and these efforts should be recognized. The draft resolution should have recognized these efforts. Often criticism had counterproductive effects. Libya hoped that the draft would be replaced by a statement by the Chair and would like it to be taken up under agenda item 19, which related to special cooperation. Libya would vote against L.29

JOAQUIN PEREZ-VILLANUEVA Y TOVAR (Spain) on behalf of the European Union, said that with the utmost respect for Sudan and the deepest respect for those who disagreed, they were very well aware that the European Union had suggested a postponement of the vote with a view to reach a consensus. Some of the elements mentioned had even been discussed late yesterday afternoon in the hope that the Commission could adopt the draft without a vote.

OMER M. A. SIDDIG (Sudan) said that he wished that the text on his country was not voted on. Sudan could be considered as a model because of the fact that in recent years, it had made tremendous progress in the economic, political and social fields. A number of legislative measures had also been taken in prohibiting abduction and other similar acts. Sudan had also maintained good relationships with the United States and the European Union. In addition, the Government had taken innovative measures in the protection and promotion of human rights. Despite all those efforts made by the Government, it was regrettable that the same condemnation was carried out against his country. Such action would only strengthen those who were opposed to the peace process. Sudan urged delegations to vote against the text of the resolution.

HAROLD ACEMAH (Uganda) said that Uganda and Sudan enjoyed cordial bilateral relations. Uganda was committed to strengthening the friendly relations between the two countries. However, Uganda was concerned about the grave human rights situation in southern Sudan and urged the Government of Sudan to take appropriate measures to ensure the full respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people in Southern Sudan in all respects. Uganda indicated that it would vote in favour of the draft resolution contained in L.27.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2002.L.28) on cooperation with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies, adopted without a vote, the Commission urged Governments to refrain from all acts of intimidation or reprisal against those who sought to cooperate or had cooperated with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies, or who had provided testimony or information to them; those who availed or had availed themselves of procedures established under United Nations auspices for the protection of human rights and all those who had provided legal assistance for this purpose; those who submitted communications under procedures established by human rights instruments; those who were relatives of victims of human rights violations; requested all representatives of United Nations human rights bodies and treaty monitoring bodies to take urgent steps to help prevent the occurrence of such intimidation and reprisals and to include in their reports references to allegations of intimidation, reprisal, or hampering of access to United Nations human rights procedures.


A draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation (E/CN.4/2002/L.29) was defeated by a roll-call vote of 15 in favour to 16 against, with 22 abstentions.

If adopted, the resolution would have expressed deep concern about the security situation in Chechnya; called upon the Russian Federation to implement the Commission's recommendation to establish a broad-based, independent commission of inquiry to investigate alleged violations in Chechnya, and to extend access of relevant organizations, in particular the International Committee of the Red Cross, to all detention centres; called upon all parties to the conflict to halt the ongoing fighting and the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force; expressed concern about the deteriorating situation of internally displaced persons in Chechnya and neighbouring republics of the Russian Federation; expressed concern at the slow pace of investigations of alleged serious human rights violations by Russian forces; and it would have called upon the Government to take all necessary measures to stop and prevent violations of human rights in Chechnya, and to ensure that such violations, in particular forced disappearances, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution, torture, ill-treatment and arbitrary detention, were systematically and credibly investigated.

LEONID SKOTNIKOV (the Russian Federation), speaking as a concerned country, said the draft resolution introduced by the European Union was politically motivated and morally untenable. It distorted the true state of affairs and drew a false picture of the policies of the federal authorities in the Chechen Republic. In the draft, the Russian Federation was urged to enter into dialogue with terrorists and with those who supported and harboured them. One could not escape an impression that the European Union had not drawn any conclusions from the events of 11 September, that the European Union was simply throwing out the resolution of the United Nations Security Council. Why would the European Union suggest to the anti-terrorist coalition to seek a political settlement with Al Qaeda and the Taliban? This would be in line with the "logic" that the European Union tried to impose on the Russian Federation.
It was stressed that in Chechnya the problems of separatism and terrorism were so closely linked that they were inseparable. Was not the Russian Federation entitled to the same treatment when fighting terror as they themselves demonstrated when lending assistance to the international anti-terrorist coalition? He regretted to have had to mention the sad fact that the co-sponsors of the draft were joined by the United States. Were there human rights violations in the Chechen Republic? Were there problems and difficulties? The Russian Federation was not interested in concealing the difficulties or covering up for those who had committed crimes. They were absolutely transparent and these problems were in the focus of the public opinion. The Russians valued cooperation and supported the numerous international and regional human rights non-governmental organizations. The Russian Federation did not reject criticism.

The Russian Federation urged all those who were against terrorism in all its forms, those who were against armed separatism, those who did not accept politicization and double standards of the Commission, to vote against this resolution.

TOUFIK SALLOUM (Syria) said that his country was surprised by the position of some of the countries who sponsored L.29. These countries were politicizing the work of the Commission, while turning a blind eye to the violations of human rights by Israel. Some even voted against the resolutions on Israel, but said that they were defending human rights. Syria would vote against the draft resolution since its objective was political and aimed at the interference in the internal affairs of States. At the same time, Syria urged Russia to act in conformity with human rights standards when dealing with Chechnya.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said that the draft resolution had nothing to do with the situation in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation. Cuba would vote against the text.

SHA ZUKANG (China) said Chechnya was an integral part of the Russian Federation where there was a threat of terrorism. Terrorism was the common enemy of mankind, there could be no double standard in combatting terrorism. China supported the measures taken by the Russian Federation, attempting to improve the human rights situation in Chechnya. The Commission must recognize these efforts. China was against the practice of exerting pressure on the Russian Federation with contradictory draft resolutions, in a manner that threatened the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.

NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI (Libya) said that it had hoped that a statement would have been reached by consensus, taking into account the commitment of Russia to promote human rights. Libya appreciated the efforts made by Russia in the field of human rights. However, further efforts were needed to improve the situation in Chechnya. In particular, it was necessary to ensure that humanitarian assistance reached victims, that the cultural identity of Chechnya was preserved, and that Chechans could return to their homes. Libya also encouraged dialogue between Russian and Chechan representatives in order to reach a political solution. Libya would abstain on L. 29. Its vote was based the principle of the sovereignty of States as enshrined in the UN Charter.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that any country had the right to take measures in order to guarantee its sovereignty and territorial integrity while at the same time it was fighting terrorism. In many cases, those financing terrorist activities were known. Pakistan would vote against L.29.


In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Cuba (E/CN.4/2002.L.30), the Commission invited the Government of Cuba, whose efforts to give effect to the social rights of the population despite an adverse international environment were to be recognized, to make efforts to achieve similar progress in respect of human, civil and political rights, in accordance with the provision of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principles and standards of the rule of law; encouraged the Government to accede to the International Covenants on Civil and Political and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to send a personal representative with a view to cooperation between her Office and the Government of Cuba in implementation of the present resolution; and urged the Government to take all necessary measures so that such a visit could take place as soon as possible.

A no-action motion on L.30 was defeated by a roll-call vote of 23 in favour to 24 against, with 6 abstentions. The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Bahrain, Burundi, China, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Against: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Uruguay.

Abstentions: Armenia, Brazil, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Uganda.


L.30 was adopted by a roll-call vote of 23 in favour to 21 against, with 9 abstaining. The result of the vote on L.30 was as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Guatemala, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Uruguay.

Against: Algeria, Bahrain, Burundi, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Indonesia, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Abstentions: Armenia, Brazil, Ecuador, Kenya, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Thailand and Uganda.


JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said some had hoped that there would be no resolution on Cuba this year since the United States was not a member of the Commission. This was naive. The United States needed this resolution in order to justify its genocidal policy of economic blockade against Cuba, and had secretively and conspiratorially drafted other countries, who had surrendered to the superpower, to introduce the resolution. The Latin American countries, which were involved in this matter, would not do anything like this unless they were under the brutal pressure of the US Government. This reflected their full surrender and complete subordination to Washington's dictates. It was the hall of a bigger project of domination and control ending in the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, that, in case of becoming real, would turn the Latin American territory into an enormous free zone at the service of the American transnational corporations where concepts like sovereignty, independence and dignity would vanish forever.

The libel presented by the co-sponsors of L.30 had nothing to do with human rights in Cuba, but it had a lot to do with the renewed hostility of the US global policy in the region. It would be enough just to remember that if Cuba had achieved the highest indicators of all the American hemisphere, in public health, education, culture, and sports, and the full realization of economic and social rights, it was because there was the revolution which gave the people their civil and political rights that had been disregarded and humiliated by a bloody dictatorship in power thanks to the support of the United States. None of the sponsors of L.30 had ethical credentials nor moral authority to judge or evaluate human rights in Cuba.

SHA ZUKANG (China) said draft resolution L.30 had nothing to do with the purpose of the Commission to promote human rights, rather it used human rights as an excuse to interfere in other countries. The Cuban people had followed their own path according to the will of the people. Cuba was also in full dialogue with the international community on human rights. Cuba was a small country and had been subjected to the pressure of the United States and its economic blockade, that had impeded the lives of the people of Cuba. The Government had still managed to guarantee the well-being of its people, particularly in terms of health. The Chinese delegation would move towards an action of no-motion and urged all countries to support such a motion.

GUILLERMO VALLES GALMES (Uruguay) said that his delegation was opposed to the no-action motion because of the fact that it would ignore the essence of respect for human rights.

GRIGORY LUKIYANTSEV (the Russian Federation) said that the Commission should reduce the number of resolutions devoted only to one country. One of the first countries that should be eliminated from the list of the Commission's resolutions was Cuba. Russia would therefore vote in favour of the proposal by China

JOAQUIN PEREZ-VILLANUEVA Y TOVAR (Spain), on behalf of the European Union, said in connection with this no-action motion, that the European Union regretted the tabling of this procedure. The European Union voted against all no-motion actions on a point of principle, since no country was above consideration by the Human Rights Commission. A no-action motion would undermine the principle of transparency and the credibility of the Commission. These procedures would be detrimental since no-action motions were contrary to dialogue. The European Union called for a vote on this proposal.

JORGE VOTO-BERNALES (Peru) said his delegation considered the no-action motion inappropriate. The resolution was asking for certain improvements in that country. The no-action motion was not a good precedent in the Commission. The spirit of dialogue should be established in the Commission instead of no-action measures. Peru would vote against the motion.

MOHAMED-SALAH DEMBRI (Algeria) said that the text of the resolution against Cuba contained a reference to the unfavourable international environment. The Commission should address the elements making such an environment. The resolution was inappropriate and Algeria would therefore vote in favour of the motion of no-action submitted by China.

TOUFIK SALLOUM (Syria) said that he strongly supported the proposition of China in favour of the no-action motion. He believed that the draft resolution on Cuba was intended to put pressure on the country and to prevent it from putting its excellent political and social policies into practise.

NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI (Libya) said that the regime in Cuba was not a model to be followed by many countries. Nevertheless, all people had the right to self determination and to choose their political status. The draft resolution affirmed that the combat against poverty was a shared responsibility of States but did not refer to the continuation of sanctions and the embargo on Cuba for more than four decades. If the co-sponsors were keen on promoting the human rights of the Cuban people, they should have referred to the defamation campaign and terrorism against Cuba. The Commission should not be used to settle accounts. Libya urged the Commission to avoid selectivity and said it would vote for the no-action motion introduced by China, and it urged all countries who sought peace to do the same.

MARIE GERVAIS-VIDRICAIRE (Canada) said her delegation was against the use of the no-action motion procedure. It denied the Commission the right to consider serious human rights violations in countries where the no-action motions were forwarded. Canada would vote against the no-action motion raised by China.

OMER M. A. SIDDIG (Sudan) said his country expressed its agreement with the no-action motion and his delegation would vote for the motion because this Commission must not become a forum to resolve political problems. It was clear that the human rights situation in Cuba was much better than in the country introducing the report.

NGUYEN QUY BINH (Viet Nam) supported the Chinese proposal. The resolution was an indecent and cowardly attack against Cuba. If the co-sponsors looked at their own human rights compared to Cuba, they would feel shameful.

VICTOR RODRIGUEZ CEDENO (Venezuela) said that there was a tendency to politicize the discussion of the Commission. Venezuela would support the no-action motion of China.

DJISMUN KASRI (Indonesia) said his delegation believed that international cooperation through dialogue was the best approach to advance human rights. Regular assessments ensured compliance with human rights standards, but they must be devoid of politicization. The draft appeared moderate, but was sending the wrong message and would make the chance for dialogue worse. The draft was not only unwarranted but also counterproductive. Indonesia would support the motion for no-action.

LUIZ FELIPE DE SEIXAS CORREA (Brazil) said that his country would abstain in the vote on L.30, as it had done since 1990. Brazil stated however that it recognized some elements in the draft that represented progress, in particular operative paragraph 1 that recognized progress with respect to the social rights of the population despite adverse international environments.

ANTONIO ARENALES FORNO (Guatemala) said that his country had cooperated with the human rights mechanisms and with the Commission. However, it did not accept that a country would not accept a mechanism such as the resolution of the Commission. Cuba should accept the resolution. The resolution was aimed at improving the situation in the country. It was true that there were economic, social and cultural rights improvements in the country.

JORGE VOTO-BERNALES (Peru) said in the past resolutions on Cuba, there had been an ideological approach of the Cold War reflected. This was not the situation today, there had been a change from the political language of condemnation. A large number of Latin American countries had been part of the drafting and both the language and the recommendations were different. It was hoped that there would be an improvement within civil and political rights in Cuba. It was a consistent and friendly appeal. The draft ruled out any condemnation or political manoeuvring, it recognized the progress made in Cuba. It was a Latin American initiative reflecting the democratic visions of the continent and it was consistent with the best traditions and had a fair approach.

JOAQUIN PEREZ-VILLANUEVA Y TOVAR (Spain) speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU), said that the EU shared the concerns about the human rights situation in Cuba. It was also concerned by the economic isolation of the country. The EU stressed that it was not European policy to bring about change by coercive measures. It hoped that the measures proposed in the draft resolution would lead to an improvement in civil and political rights in Cuba.

ALFREDO PINOARGOTE (Ecuador) said that human rights were being violated in many countries. The Government of Ecuador had recently suggested the establishment of a mechanism in human rights. For that reason, Ecuador would abstain on the vote.



* *** *