COMMISION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS MEASURES ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, WOMEN, "SPECIFIC GROUPS"

Commission on Human Rights
59th session
23 April 2003
Afternoon




Extends the Mandates of the Special Rapporteurs
on the Independence of Judges and
Lawyers, Violence against Women



The Commission on Human Rights approved 12 resolutions and a measure this afternoon under its agenda items on civil and political rights, the integration of the human rights of women, and "specific groups and individuals", a category relating to the rights of migrants, minorities, displaced persons, and other vulnerable groups and individuals.
Among other measures, the Commission extended the mandates of the Special Rapporteurs on the independence of judges and lawyers, and on violence against women. It also approved the decision of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to appoint Leila Zerrougui as Special Rapporteur to conduct a detailed study of the subject.
On the topic of civil and political rights, the Commission adopted without a vote a resolution on hostage taking, condemning all acts of hostage taking anywhere in the world and demanding that all hostages be released immediately and without any preconditions. The United States made a statement on this resolution.
In a resolution on the incompatibility between democracy and racism, adopted without a vote, the Commission condemned the persistence and resurgence of neo-Nazism, neo-fascism and violent nationalist ideologies based on racial or national prejudice, and stated that these phenomena could never be justified in any instance.
In a resolution on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, adopted without a vote, the Commission expressed its continuing concern at the extensive occurrence of detention, extrajudicial killing, torture, intimidation, persecution and harassment, abuse of legal provisions on defamation and criminal libel as well as on surveillance, search and seizure, and censorship, threats and acts of violence and of discrimination, often undertaken with impunity, against persons who exercised the right to freedom of opinion and expression. It also said it was concerned at the number of cases in which violations of those rights were facilitated and aggravated by factors such as the abuse of states of emergency, exercise of the powers specific to states of emergency without formal declaration, and too vague a definition of offenses against State security.
In a resolution on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors and assessors and the independence of lawyers, adopted without a vote, the Commission noted the concern of the Special Rapporteur on the topic that the situation of the independence of the judiciary, which was the bedrock of the rule of law, remained delicate in many parts of the world; and it invited the High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue to provide technical assistance to train judges and lawyers. The Commission decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers for a further three years. Ireland, on behalf of the European Union, and the United States made statements on this resolution.
In a measure on discrimination in the criminal justice system, the Commission approved the decision of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to appoint Leila Zerrougui as Special Rapporteur to conduct a detailed study of the subject.
Among measures related to the human rights of women, the Commission adopted without a vote a resolution on integrating the human rights of women throughout the United Nations system in which, among other things, it recognized the importance of examining the intersection of multiple forms of discrimination from a gender perspective and recognized the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and in peace-building, and the need to increase their role in decision-making in such matters. The United States made a statement on the resolution.
In a resolution on the elimination of violence against women, the Commission, among other things, urged States to condemn such violence and not invoke custom, tradition or practices in the name of religion or culture to avoid their obligations to eliminate such violence; strongly condemned violence against women committed in situations of armed conflict; and decided that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women should be renewed for a period of three years. The United States, Cuba, Libya and Argentina spoke on the resolution.
Among measures tabled under its agenda item on "specific groups and individuals", the Commission approved without a vote a resolution on the human rights of migrants in which it strongly condemned manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them; and urged States to eradicate impunity for those who committed such racist and xenophobic acts.
Through a resolution on the protection of human rights in the context of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), adopted without a vote, the Commission invited States to strengthen national mechanisms for protecting HIV/AIDS-related human rights; to take all necessary measures to eliminate stigmatization of and discrimination against those infected and affected by HIV/AIDS; and urged States to ensure that their laws, policies and practices respected human rights in the context of HIV/AIDS.
Concerning the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, the Commission adopted without a vote a resolution in which it requested the Secretary-General to make all the necessary provisions for the timely establishment of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Representatives of Australia, the United States and Canada took the floor on this agenda item.
The Commission also adopted resolutions on the human rights of persons with disabilities; the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities; and on internally displaced persons.
There was an extensive debate on the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in which Representatives of Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, Ireland on behalf of the European Union, Sweden and India made statements. Action on the draft resolution was postponed until Thursday, 24 April.
There was also an extensive debate on the draft resolution on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance by Representatives of the United States, Ireland on behalf of the European Union, Canada, Guatemala, India, Libya, Pakistan, Cuba and Syria. The Commission delayed action on the draft to Thursday.
When the Commission meets at 10 a.m. on Thursday, it will be addressed by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan before continuing to take action on remaining draft resolutions.

Action on Resolutions on Civil and Political Rights
In a resolution on hostage-taking (E/CN.4/2003/L.55), adopted without a vote, the Commission reaffirmed that hostage-taking, wherever and by whomever committed, was a serious crime and under any circumstances was unjustifiable; condemned all acts of hostage-taking anywhere in the world; demanded that all hostages be released immediately and without any preconditions; and called upon States to take all necessary measures to prevent, combat and punish acts of hostage-taking.
A Representative of the United States said some could interpret operative paragraph 1 as suggesting that persons who believed their human rights were being violated might resort to hostage taking as a form of protest or protection. To reject this implication, the United States wished to declare that, for its part, any acts of terrorism, including hostage taking, were criminal and unjustifiable – regardless of their motivation. Regardless of whenever or by whomever such acts were committed, they were to be unequivocally condemned, especially when they indiscriminately targeted or injured civilians. With these important qualifications underpinning the United States opinion, the United States would join consensus on this resolution.
In a resolution on the incompatibility between democracy and racism (E/CN.4/2003/L.56), adopted without a vote, the Commission condemned the persistence and resurgence of neo-Nazism, neo-fascism and violent nationalist ideologies based on racial or national prejudice, and stated that these phenomena could never be justified in any instance; urged States to reinforce their commitment to promote tolerance and human rights and to fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance as a way to strengthen democracy, the rule of law and transparent and accountable governance; invited the mechanisms of the Commission and the treaty bodies to continue to pay particular attention to violations of human rights stemming from the rise of racism and xenophobia in political circles and society at large; invited the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to update and expand the study on the issue of political platforms which promoted or incited racial discrimination; and decided to continue consideration of the matter at its sixtieth session.
Draft resolution E/CN.4/2003/L.57/Rev.1 on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions was postponed until Thursday, 24 April following an extensive debate during which a number of delegations made statements.
A Representative of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, said that that he agreed with the statement by Sweden which spoke of the sanctity of life and the obligation of the State to protect the right to life of each and every individual irrespective of his/her status. However, the resolution made reference to selective situations relating to the right to life. Extrajudicial executions were taking place in situations of occupation and this, for example, was not mentioned in the resolution.
A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union attached great importance to the draft resolution, which addressed the urgent need to combat the deplorable phenomenon of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. All the issues addressed in the text were of great importance. The European Union particularly commended the important role that the Special Rapporteur played in raising awareness and towards the elimination of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The European Union would vote in favour of the resolution.
A Representative of Sweden said that in the course of negotiations on this resolution, his delegation had asked whether it would be acceptable to change the wording in operative paragraph 5 to delete the list of situations and replace it with other wording referring to particularly vulnerable groups and situations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The Representative of the Organization of Islamic Conference had turned down this suggestion. It was therefore suggested that the Commission proceed with voting on the resolution, which had 60 co-sponsors.
A Representative of Pakistan said that Pakistan was trying to develop a consensus while the Representative of Sweden was asking for a vote. Pakistan proposed that the resolution be considered on the basis of the statement previously made by Sweden, which made reference to all situations in which arbitrary executions could take place.
A Representative of India said that the Representative of Pakistan had difficulties in the listing of situations relating to vulnerable groups. He supported the argument raised by the Representative of Sweden and was also sympathetic to the position of Pakistan.
A Representative of Sweden said his country had always wanted to play a role in bridge building and was happy to provide that role between India and Pakistan. However, year after year Special Rapporteurs had reported that special and vulnerable groups were targeted by extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. What was important was that the resolution brought up what Special Rapporteurs had said over the years – that there were people who were more vulnerable than others – and that States had an obligation to protect them. The resolution must mention these vulnerable groups.
A Representative of Pakistan said that the reports of the Special Rapporteur did not include all situations that created conditions of vulnerability. In some cases, the Organization of Islamic Conference did not agree with all the situations listed by the Special Rapporteur. As a result, it could not agree on a specific listing.
A Representative of India said his delegation detected some flexibility in Sweden’s proposal. It was India that was trying to build bridges and not Sweden. Because of the contentious operative paragraph, the discussion was going on.
A Representative of Sweden said that in view of the course of the discussion, he would take the advice of the bridge-builder India, and asked for a postponement of the issue until tomorrow.
In a resolution on the right to freedom of opinion and expression (E/CN.4/2003/L.59), adopted without a vote, the Commission expressed its continuing concern at the extensive occurrence of detention, extrajudicial killing, torture, intimidation, persecution and harassment, abuse of legal provisions on defamation and criminal libel as well as on surveillance, search and seizure, and censorship, threats and acts of violence and of discrimination, often undertaken with impunity, against persons, including professionals in the field of information, who exercised the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the number of cases in which violations of those rights were facilitated and aggravated by factors such as the abuse of states of emergency, exercise of the powers specific to states of emergency without formal declaration, and too vague a definition of offenses against State security; killing of and attacks particularly directed against journalists in situations of armed conflict, as well as other threats and acts of violence, including terrorist attacks, directed against media professionals; the lack of full and effective enjoyment of freedom of expression by women; and high rates of illiteracy continuing to exist in the world, especially among women.
The Commission called upon States to ensure respect and support for the right to freedom of opinion and expression; to create conditions under which violations of the right would be less liable to occur; stressed the importance of a diversity of sources of information; urged all States to respect freedom of expression in the media and in broadcasting, and in particular to respect the editorial independence of the media, and to encourage a diversity of ownership of media and of sources of information; to create and permit an enabling environment in which training and professional development of the media could be organized; to refrain from the use of imprisonment or the imposition of fines for offenses relating to the media that were disproportionate to the gravity of the offense; to take all measures to investigate all threats and acts of violence, including terrorist acts, against journalists; and to refrain from using counter-terrorism as a pretext to restrict the right to freedom of expression.
The Commission encouraged States to review their procedures and legislation to ensure that any limitations on the right to freedom of expression were only such as were provided by law and were necessary for the respect of the rights and reputation of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order or of public health or morals; expressed regret about the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes of vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals, and about the use of new information technologies such as the Internet for purposes contrary to respect for human values; and expressed concern at the inadequate resources provided to the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression and requested the Secretary-General to provide the assistance necessary for the Special Rapporteur to fulfill his mandate effectively.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.48) on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors and assessors and the independence of lawyers, adopted without a vote, the Commission noted the concern of the Special Rapporteur on the topic that the situation of the independence of the judiciary, which was the bedrock of the rule of law, remained delicate in many parts of the world; invited the High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue to provide technical assistance to train judges and lawyers; welcomed the completion of the training manual for judges and lawyers in the context of the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further three years.
A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union attached great importance to this resolution and the independence and impartiality within the administration of law.
A Representative of the United States said that his country traditionally supported and would continue to support the resolution on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. Support was also given to the Special Rapporteur. The Rapporteur had demeaned one of the most prestigious federal courts in the US judicial system for a judgement it had rendered. The United States could not endorse operative paragraph 5 as revised. However, it would join the consensus.
In a measure on discrimination in the criminal justice system, adopted without a vote, the Commission approved the decision of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to appoint Leila Zerrougui as Special Rapporteur to conduct a detailed study of the subject.
The Commission held extensive debate on draft resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.58) on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance. Eventually the Commission decided to delay action on the draft until Thursday. A number of Commission Member States commented on the draft.
A Representative of the United States said that the United States supported the substance of the resolution on religious intolerance. However, the United States was dismayed that no Commission resolution this year addressed the surge of anti-Semitism and the dangers of Islamophobia. Unfortunately, the United States' proposal to include language on this topic in the resolution on the Durban follow-up was blocked through yet another disturbing procedural manoeuvre. As a result, the United States was compelled to withdraw its co-sponsorship from this resolution on religious intolerance and proposed an amendment from the floor. Accordingly, the United States proposed the insertion of language drawn from paragraph 45 of last year’s General Assembly resolution on racism (A/RES/57/195) as preambular paragraph 13bis in this resolution on religious intolerance.
A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that there was a long list of co-sponsors to the resolutions and she was not in a position to accept the United States amendment on their behalf. However, it was felt that it was best not to single out any religion in the language of the resolution and instead to refer to all religions since they all must be treated with respect.
A Representative of Canada said it was important to recognize worrisome increases in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and the emergence of violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed against Jewish, Muslim and Arab communities in various parts of the world. Canada supported the language regarding groups in relation to religious intolerance.
A Representative of Guatemala said Guatemala supported the amendment proposed by the United States.
A Representative of India said that he was concerned about the increase in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and that this was the right moment to bring it up. However, this kind of intolerance and racist movements were not confined to the Jewish and Muslim communities. It was suggested that a reference to other religions be included too.
A Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said the language used in the proposition of the United States was similar to that used in other resolutions. However, the reality was the increased discrimination against certain groups, such as Arabs. The stereotypical fashion of grouping of Islam, Arabs and Jews was not acceptable to the Libyan delegation.
A Representative of Pakistan said the Commission must keep perspective in mind. The resolution dealt with all forms of religious intolerance. However, the amendment proposed by the United States did not deal with religious intolerance. Pakistan questioned the notion that anti-Semitism was a religious concept and wondered why an issue pertaining to racism was being brought into a resolution dealing with religious intolerance.
A Representative of Cuba said Cuba was a co-sponsor and was in line with what had been expressed by Ireland in relation to a resolution that covered all religions without singling out specific religions. Cuba was willing to show flexibility and take into account the views of other delegations. Anti-Semitism was broader than a matter of religious intolerance, and had more to do with racism. And even so, not only Semitic communities faced racism -- other communities, such as communities of African descendents, did as well.
A Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic said the United States once again had attempted to politicize the debate by mixing religion with political issues. Arabs could be Muslims or Christians as in Egypt or Lebanon. The Syrian delegation could not accept the amendment of the United States delegation and would vote against it.

Action on Resolutions on the Human Rights of Women
In a resolution on integrating the human rights of women throughout the United Nations system (E/CN.4/2003/L.50), adopted without a vote, the Commission recognized the importance of examining the intersection of multiple forms of discrimination from a gender perspective; encouraged the Secretary-General to ensure implementation of the joint work plan on integrating the human rights of women throughout the United Nations system, and to continue to elaborate the plan; emphasized the need for further activities in the system to strengthen expertise concerning the equal status and human rights of women; urged all States that had not yet done so to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and its Optional Protocol; and recognized the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and in peace-building, and the need to increase their role in decision-making in such matters.
A Representative of the United States said the United States supported the goals of the resolution and was appreciative of the flexibility shown by the co-sponsors in resolving some areas of difficulty. Nevertheless, the United States continued to have difficulties with the reference to the goal of achieving universal ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) referred to in operative paragraph 26. The United States did not concur in any such call and believed that the issue of ratification of CEDAW and any other human rights treaty was the sovereign right of each State. The United States also stressed that it did not believe that the ratification of CEDAW was particularly relevant to the goals of the resolution. This resolution was addressed to the UN system, not directly to actions at the State level. Nonetheless, because of overall goals of this resolution and the spirit of flexibility shown by the co-sponsors, the United States would join consensus on the resolution.
In a resolution on the elimination of violence against women (E/CN.4/2003/L.52), adopted without a vote, the Commission strongly condemned all acts of such violence; strongly condemned physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring in the family; stressed that all forms of violence against women occurred within the context of de jure and de facto discrimination against women and the lower status accorded to women in society; urged all States to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and its Optional Protocol; stressed that States had the affirmative duty to promote and protect the human rights of women and girls; urged them to condemn violence against women and not invoke custom, tradition or practices in the name of religion or culture to avoid their obligations to eliminate such violence; strongly condemned violence against women committed in situations of armed conflict; stressed the importance of efforts to eliminate impunity for such violence; called upon States to consider establishing appropriate national mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating implementation of measures taken to eliminate violence against women; and decided that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women should be renewed for a period of three years.
Earlier, in a separate vote on operative paragraph 16 of the resolution, requested by the United States, the Commission decided, by a roll-call vote of 38 in favour and 3 against, with 12 abstentions, to retain the paragraph.
The results of the vote were as follows:
In favour (38): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.
Against (3): India, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and United States.
Abstentions (12): Algeria, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Gabon, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda, and Viet Nam.
A Representative of the United States said the United States had taken strong measures to combat violence against women domestically and strongly supported the goals of the resolution – the elimination of all violence against women throughout the world. The US delegation was particularly opposed to the language in operative paragraph 16 urging States to ratify or accede to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which was irrelevant to the theme of the draft text. The United States would request a roll-call vote on operative paragraph 16 of the resolution and would vote no on that paragraph.
A Representative of Cuba thanked Canada and the co-sponsors for the resolution. Unfortunately, Cuba shared the reservations mentioned about operative paragraph 16 to do with the Rome Statute and would therefore abstain in the vote.
A Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya said Libya had reservations about the work of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, as information contained in the Special Rapporteur's report on the situation of women in Libya was erroneous and baseless.
A Representative of Argentina said the delegation had joined in the consensus on resolutions L.50 and L.52, which reflected the Government’s position in favour of the promotion and protection of the rights of women and in support of policies, strategies and programmes towards the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.

Action on Resolutions on "Specific Groups and Individuals"
In a resolution on the human rights of migrants (E/CN.4/2003/L.63), adopted without a vote, the Commission strongly condemned manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them and urged States to eradicate impunity for those who committed racist and xenophobic acts; strongly condemned all forms of racial discrimination and xenophobia related to access to employment, vocational training, housing, schooling, health services and social services, as well as services intended for use by the public; requested all States to firmly prosecute violations of labour law with regard to migrant workers' conditions of work; called upon all States to revise, when necessary, immigration policies with a view to eliminating discriminatory practices; to adopt effective measures to put an end to the arbitrary arrest and detention of migrants; to combat international trafficking and smuggling of migrants; to protect all human rights of migrant children; to adopt measures to prevent the violation of the human rights of migrants while in transit; and to facilitate family reunification.
In a resolution on the protection of human rights in the context of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) (E/CN.4/2003/L.64), adopted without a vote, the Commission invited States to strengthen national mechanisms for protecting HIV/AIDS-related human rights and to take all necessary measures to eliminate stigmatization of and discrimination against those infected and affected by HIV/AIDS; urged States to ensure that their laws, policies and practices respected human rights in the context of HIV/AIDS; requested States to establish co-ordinated, transparent and accountable national policies and programmes for HIV/AIDS response; requested them to develop and support services, including legal aid where appropriate, to educate people infected by HIV/AIDS about their rights and to assist them in realizing their rights; and requested States to ensure that codes of professional conduct, responsibility and practice respected human rights in the context of HIV/AIDS.
In a resolution on the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (E/CN.4/2003/L.67), adopted without a vote, the Commission acknowledged with appreciation the entry into force of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families; called again upon all States that had not yet done so to consider seriously signing and ratifying or acceding to the Convention as a matter of priority; requested the Secretary-General to make all the necessary provisions for the timely establishment of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families; and decided to include in the provisional agenda of its sixtieth session the agenda a sub-item entitled specific groups and individuals: migrant workers.
A Representative of Australia said that the activities of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrants and their Families would only be of direct relevance to the relatively small group of States which were parties to the Convention. Australia was concerned at the implications of funding the Committee from the UN regular budget. The provision of Secretariat support for treaty bodies was already under-resourced and funding this Committee from the regular budget could divert resources from other human rights bodies, the activities of which were of more direct relevance to a greater number of States.
A Representative of the United States said that his delegation would not oppose the adoption of the draft by consensus. It was up to each State to decide which United Nations treaty to ratify, including that of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which the United States had strong reservations about. His delegation was concerned by the financial implications of establishing and maintaining a new migrant workers committee.
A Representative of Canada said though Canada did not consider the Convention an effective instrument to improve the rights of migrants, Canada would not block the consensus. It was within the right of each State to develop its migration system, as Canada had done for the last century. Canada believed that migration was a positive phenomenon and had always welcomed immigrants. After serious review of the Convention, it was Canada’s view that the already existing national managed migration programme was more effective both for the Government and for the migrants in Canada than the Convention would be.
In a resolution on the human rights of persons with disabilities (E/CN.4/2003/L.78), adopted without a vote, the Commission urged Governments to take active measures to ensure the full enjoyment by such persons of all human rights and fundamental freedoms; called upon the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Commission at its sixtieth session on progress in the implementation of the recommendations contained in the study on human rights and disability presented at the fifty-eighth session of the Commission and on the programme of work of the Office in relation to persons with disabilities; urged Governments to consider nominating persons with disabilities for election to the treaty-monitoring bodies; encouraged Governments and relevant intergovernmental institutions to develop programmes for persons with disabilities to enable them to develop their potential to participate fully in all aspects of society; and called upon all United Nations organizations and specialized agencies and all intergovernmental institutions for development cooperation to integrate disability measures into their activities.
In a resolution on the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities (E/CN.4/2003/L.70), adopted by consensus, the Commission urged States to promote and give effect to the Declaration on the rights of such persons; to provide equal access to education to members of minority groups and to facilitate their full participation in the economic progress and development of their country; to pay specific attention to the negative impacts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance on the situation of persons belonging to such minorities; to give special attention to the rights of children belonging to minorities; to protect the cultural and religious sites of minorities; requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to invite Governments and relevant organizations to submit their views on how best to protect the rights of persons belonging to minorities; and requested the High Commissioner to examine existing mechanisms and to identify possible gaps in the protection of the rights of such persons, and to report thereon to the Commission at its sixtieth session.
A Representative of Pakistan said that although appreciative of the efforts of the co-sponsors and in total agreement about the importance of the resolution, Pakistan was puzzled by the revisions tabled by the co-sponsors. Last year, the resolution had made more reference to conflict-prevention. An essential part of the programme was from reaction to prevention of conflict. Pakistan was therefore surprised that these important aspects had been removed. In a spirit of compromise, Pakistan would not ask for a vote. It was however hoped that more focus would be put on this important aspect of the resolution.
In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.71.Rev.1) on internally displaced persons, adopted without a vote, the Commission expressed concern at the persistent problems of large numbers of internally displaced persons worldwide; expressed particular concern at the grave problems faced by many internally displaced women and children; noted the importance of taking the human rights and the specific protection and assistance needs of internally displaced persons into consideration in peace processes and in reintegration and rehabilitation processes; expressed its appreciation of the catalytic role the Representative of the Secretary-General continued to play on the topic; expressed its appreciation of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement; called upon Governments to provide protection and assistance, including reintegration and development assistance, to internally displaced persons; and encouraged all Governments to facilitate the activities of the Representative and to respond favorably to his requests for visits and information.
A Representative of India said that India was fully aware of the need to address globally the issue of internally displaced persons (IDPs). The primary responsibility for IDPs was that of the State concerned. International action should stay within the bounds of sovereignty, that was, action should be taken with the request or consent of the State concerned. It should be also noted that the guiding principles on IDPs were not legally binding.




* *** *