Need for compliance with human rights obligations in fight against terrorism stressed, as Third Committee approves six draft resolutions

Fifty-seventh General Assembly
Third Committee
21 November 2002
57th Meeting (AM)




Other Texts Condemn Human Rights Violations in Iraq,
Democratic Republic of Congo



The General Assembly would affirm that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, under the terms of one of six resolutions approved this morning by the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, Cultural).

The text -- on protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, and new before the Committee this year -- was adopted without a vote. It would have the Assembly reaffirm its unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism wherever and by whomever committed, while stressing that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Also today, the Committee approved a resolution on the human rights situation in Iraq by a vote 86 in favour to 4 against (Libya, Nigeria, Sudan and Syria), with 71 abstentions (Annex VII). (All eight votes taken in the Committee are reflected in the annexes, numbered I and III-IX.)

That text would have the Assembly strongly condemn the systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror. The resolution would also have the Assembly strongly condemn the repression faced by any kind of opposition, in particular the harassment and intimidation of and threats against Iraqi opponents living abroad and members of their families.

Before action was taken on the resolution as a whole, those provisions and two others, which would have the Assembly strongly condemn summary and arbitrary executions, and systematic torture, were retained by separate recorded votes (Annexes III, IV, V and VI). During the discussion, the representative of Iraq stressed that the text was not new and continued to be based on the language of confrontation, politicization and subjectivity. It was politically motivated and once again ignored the humanitarian consequences of the embargo imposed upon his country, as well as the effects of constant bombing by the United States and the United Kingdom.

Also this afternoon, the Committee approved a resolution on the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by a vote of 83 in favour to

3 against (Rwanda, Nigeria and Uganda), with 72 abstentions (Annex IX). The resolution would have the Assembly encourage the Congolese parties to use the present momentum to promote an all-inclusive conclusion to the inter-Congolese dialogue. The text would also have the Assembly express its concern regarding breaches of freedom of expression and other violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and international humanitarian law, primarily in the eastern part of the country.

Prior to that, an operative paragraph welcoming the Democratic Republic of the Congo's ratification of the Statue of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was retained by a vote of 125 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 26 abstentions (Annex VIII). The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said the draft ignored positive improvements in the areas controlled by the Government, as opposed to the flagrant human rights violations in the areas controlled by the rebels. The text should have been stronger and should have exposed the real perpetrators of the human rights violations.

By the terms of a draft approved by the Committee, the Assembly would recognize that the realization of the right to development is critical to achieving the objectives, goals and targets of major United Nations conferences, summits and special sessions and those of the Millennium Assembly. That text was approved by a vote of 114 in favour to 3 against (Australia, United States and Marshall Islands), with 47 abstentions (Annex I).

The Committee also approved resolutions on a new international humanitarian order and on the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, including possible budgetary implications.

There was also an oral decision approved by the Committee, to take note of the reports of the Secretary-General on the operations of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for the Victims of Torture, the status of the United Nations Voluntary Fund on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, and on the status of the Convention against Torture.

The Committee will reconvene tomorrow to take action on the remaining draft resolutions at a time to be announced in the Journal.


Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, Cultural) had before it several draft resolutions on which it expected to take action.

Before the Committee is a draft resolution on the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (document A/C.3/57/L.37) which would have the Assembly call upon Member States that have not yet ratified the Convention to consider urgently signing and ratifying or acceding to it. The text would also have the Assembly request the Secretary-General to make all necessary provisions for the timely establishment of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, as soon as the Convention enters into force.

There will also be a draft resolution on a new international humanitarian order (document A/C.3/57/L.74), through which the Assembly would invite governments to provide the expertise and resources to identify the building blocks of such an order, to strengthen the early warning system at the national and international levels, to ensure the adequate preparedness for the prevention or containment of humanitarian crises and to take the necessary measures.

A draft text on protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (document A/C.3/57/L.61), which would have the Assembly reaffirm its unequivocal condemnation of all the acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever and by whomever they were committed. The text would also have the Assembly call on States to take into account relevant resolutions and decisions on protecting human rights while countering terrorism, and encourage them to consider the recommendations of the special procedures of the Commission on Human Rights.

Also before the Committee there will be a draft on the right to development (document A/C.3/57/L.65), which is based on the agreed conclusions of the last session of the Working Group on the Right to Development, held last April in Geneva. The Group had highlighted key issues that should be addressed by governments, at national and international levels, in order to ensure the right to development for everyone, in line with the Millennium Development Goals. The text would have the Assembly endorse the conclusions of the Working Group and recognize that the realization of the right to development is critical to achieving the objectives, goals and targets of major United Nations conferences, summits and special sessions and those of the Millennium Assembly.

A draft resolution on the human rights situation in Iraq (document A/C.3/57/L.49), would have the Assembly call upon the Government to end all human rights violations and to put a moratorium on all executions, as recommended by the Rapporteur. The text also calls upon the Government to cooperate further with international agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to provide humanitarian assistance and monitoring in the northern and southern areas of the country.

The Assembly would strongly condemn the systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror. The text would further have the Assembly call upon the Government of Iraq to abide by its freely undertaken obligations under international human rights instruments and international humanitarian law to respect and ensure the rights of all individuals, irrespective of their origin, ethnicity, gender or religion, within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction.

A draft resolution on the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/C.3/57/L.50) recalls the ceasefire agreement signed at Lusaka, as well as the Kampala disengagement plan and the peace agreement signed at Pretoria. It encourages the Congolese parties to use the present momentum to promote an all-inclusive conclusion to the inter-Congolese dialogue. The draft would also have the Assembly express its concern regarding breaches of freedom of expression and other violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms and international humanitarian law, primarily in the eastern part of the country. The Assembly would urge all parties to the conflict to cease military activities in the country in order to re-establish the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The Committee also has before it the Secretary-General’s note transmitting the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on a comprehensive and integral international convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities (document A/57/357). The report highlights the work undertaken by the Ad Hoc Committee at its first meeting, held from 29 July to 9 August at Headquarters. It details the agenda and organization of work of the meeting and lists the Committee’s officers and documentation.

The Committee will also hear the introduction of a draft text on the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (document A/C.3/57/L.34), which would have the Assembly call upon all States resolutely to bring to justice the perpetrators of crimes motivated by racism and xenophobia, and call upon those that have not yet done so to consider including in their legislation racist and xenophobic motivation as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing. States would also be called upon to review and revise, where necessary, their immigration laws and policies and practices so that they were free from racial discrimination.

Also before the Committee will be a draft on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1), which would have the Assembly express its dismay that, in a number of countries, impunity continues to prevail and often remains the main cause of continuing occurrences of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The Assembly would, therefore, demand that all governments ensure that those practices be brought to an end and that they take effective action to combat and eliminate the phenomenon in all forms.

The Committee approved, without a vote, an orally revised resolution on a new international humanitarian order (document A/C.3/57/L.74). Among the revisions, the new operative paragraph 2 would read “calls upon Governments to provide expertise and the necessary means to identify the building blocks of such an order and agenda, plan the architecture and undertake the required supplementary activities”.

After the adoption of the resolution, the representative of Canada, speaking on behalf of Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, Switzerland, and Norway, said that this was an important resolution and she regretted to have to take the floor. However, it was unfortunate that paragraphs on humanitarian access and the safety of United Nations personnel had not been included. The General Assembly must continue to indicate its support for such basic humanitarian issues. She hoped that the next time the resolution would be considered, these two paragraphs would be considered.

The representative of Brazil, speaking on behalf of Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), as well as Bolivia and Chile, echoed the concern that there had been no mention of humanitarian access in the resolution. He hoped this omission would be overcome in the future.

The representative of the United States said the United States had welcomed this resolution in 1992 and since then had supported humanitarian relief across the world. Unfortunately, the critical point of humanitarian access had not been included in the resolution. The United States would continue to support the relief efforts of the United Nations but regretted the omission of the safety of humanitarian workers.

The representative of India said her delegation had gone along with the text; however, she wanted to make clear her understanding of it. Humanitarian assistance must be in accordance with other United Nations mechanisms and provisions. The reference to new realities was to do with the increasing number of victims of emergencies, particularly natural disasters. The increase of need had unfortunately been met with declining humanitarian assistance. This was a challenge that needed to be addressed.

The representative of the Czech Republic said she appreciated the facilitating techniques by the delegation of Jordan; however she regretted that paragraphs on unhindered access and safety had been deleted from the draft resolution.

The representative of Egypt congratulated the delegation of Jordan and associated himself with the statement given by the delegation of India.

The representative of Sudan said her delegation also associated itself with the statement made by India. Humanitarian action must be guided by United Nations resolutions and provisions, and unhindered access was important in complex emergencies. However, there must be safeguards pertaining to international humanitarian law and national law.

The representative of Algeria thanked the delegation of Jordan for its efforts in drafting the resolution and associated himself to the statement made by the delegation of India.

The Committee then took up a draft on the International Convention on the Protection of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (document A/C.3/57/L.37). That text was considered along with its budgetary implications contained in document A/C.3/57/L.88, which state that should the Committee approve the main resolution, no immediate financial implications would arise. Should the Convention enter into force in 2003, it was estimated that requirements arising from its ratification would amount to $233,800 for the biennium 2002-2003.

The draft was approved without a vote.

After the draft was approved the representative of the United States said it had joined the consensus because it was a nation of immigrants and recognized that the ability of migrants to enjoy human rights varied and needed to be addressed. It believed however that the Convention may not be the best instrument to address that issue. The United States would also request the Secretary-General not to consider allocating resources for the establishment of a relevant Committee on the rights of migrant workers until the issue had been considered in the Fifth Committee.

The Committee then took up a number of drafts on human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Before delegations was a draft resolution on the right to development (document A/C.3/57/L.65).

Before action was taken, the representative of South Africa said that last Monday, when the text had been introduced on behalf of the mains sponsors, the position of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) had been outlined. He had also said at that time that the NAM was prepared to continue negotiations in order to reach consensus. Unfortunately, the delegation of the United States had said that whether consensus was reached or not, it would call for a vote on the draft. The Member States of the NAM had therefore requested South Africa move forward with a vote today.

A recorded vote was requested.

The representative Egypt asked if any other delegation had joined the United States in requesting a recorded vote. The Bureau informed his that no other delegation had called for a vote.

The representative of Australia said her delegation was an active and constructive participant in the Working Group on the right to development at the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. It had been surprised that less than a month after the recommendations of the Group had been adopted by consensus at the conclusion of that Group’s last session in May, the main sponsors of a relevant text introduced a draft resolution to the Commission that went far beyond what had been agreed. By doing that, the sponsors of the text undermined the work of the Group as well as the legitimacy of the negotiations process. So Australia's vote today was not a vote against the right to development, but it was nonetheless unable to support the resolution.

The representative of Canada said his delegation had been pleased that the Working Group had reached a positive outcome in Geneva this year. Canada had hoped that those agreed conclusions could be used as a basis for reaching consensus in the Committee. It had therefore been disheartening that the sponsors of the text before the Committee had not included those conclusions. The text raised several concerns, including language taken out of context from the Durban Declaration. Canada would abstain from the vote today.

The draft resolution was approved by a vote of 114 in favour to 3 against (Australia, United States, Marshall Islands), with 47 abstentions. (See Annex I.)

Following that action, the representative of the United States said his delegation had voted against the draft, even though it had hoped it would be in a position to support a consensus text this year. The United States believed that development was the key to a sustainable future for all. Development was the duty of governments to ensure that each member of society reached his or her full potential. While there was much in the draft that the United States would support, it would express profound disagreement to the inclusion of language on macroeconomic policy and globalization. Neither did the United States support adding to the mandate of the High Commissioner for Human Rights burdensome tasks related to development, which were already being considered by other United Nations agencies.

The representative of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the Union was committed to the right to development and remained convinced that without more efforts to build on the work done by the Working Group it would be difficult to achieve the right. The outcome of the last session of the Working Group had reached consensus on a set of agreed conclusions after long negotiations. Though the present draft did include elements from those agreed conclusions, some elements went far beyond what had emerged from the negotiations in Geneva. It was a pity that the text did not include language that had been agreed during the negotiations since the agreed conclusions of the Working Group should pave the way for the right to development. The European Union would also insist that the next round of deliberations in the Working Group not be based on the resolution just adopted.

The representative of New Zealand said the text raised some issues that required further consideration. New Zealand would have preferred to see the agreed conclusions of the Working Group used as a basis for the resolution.

The Committee then turned to a draft resolution on protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (document A/C.3/57/L.61). The revisions would make the operative paragraph 2 read “encourages States, while countering terrorism, to take into account relevant United Nations resolutions and decisions on human rights and to consider the recommendations from special procedures and mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights and relevant comments and views of the United Nations human rights treaty bodies”. Some changes were also made to operative paragraph 3, including operative paragraph 3(c) which would read “to provide assistance and advice to States upon their request on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, as well as, to relevant United Nations bodies”.

The orally revised resolution was adopted without a vote.

After the adoption, the representative of Algeria said his delegation had joined consensus right from the outset, since Algeria believed that terrorism could be fought while respecting human rights. Some peoples’ priorities, however, were not the same as others. He stressed that the ultimate goal was to protect human rights. Terrorism violated the right to life. One must therefore not completely impede authorities aiming to protect the rights of their citizens to life.

The representative of Egypt said a balanced resolution was not one that pleased everyone, but one that upset everybody. This was a balanced resolution, he said. Current events in the international arena made it important to further analyse the relationship between countering terrorism and human rights. The resolution could have been stronger in some aspects, and less strong in others.

In a general statement, the representative of Denmark, on behalf of the European Union, stressed that countering terrorism must be carried out with complete respect for human rights. The Committee had approved this resolution by consensus, and this showed the joined responsibility of States to counter terrorism in accordance with human rights. He regretted however that the text had been amended to satisfy just a few delegations. The European Union believed that nothing in the resolution must be read as limiting the mandate of the High Commission.

The representative of Pakistan said Pakistan recognized the importance of the issue and the initiative taken by Mexico, the main sponsor. He felt that the importance of addressing the root causes of terrorism had not been adequately addressed in the text. Terrorism did not spring out of a vacuum. It was acknowledged that poverty, social injustice and conflict, particularly the denial of self-determination, could lead to this kind of violence. However, in the view of solidarity and the importance of the issue, Pakistan had joined the consensus.

The representative of the United States congratulated Mexico on the superb negotiations that had led to the consensus. The United States joined in believing that human rights must be respected in its efforts to counter terrorism. However, the United States stressed that the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly would be a more appropriate committee to deal with the issue of terrorism. In the interest in reaching a consensus the United States had accepted the overly broad language in the resolution.

The representative of Indonesia said his country had been a victim of the act of terrorism and welcomed the adoption of the resolutions. He stressed that while countering terrorism it was important that no State targeted any specific group of people or religion. In order to comprehensively solve the problem of terrorism the root causes needed to be addressed.

The Committee next took up the resolution the situation of human rights in Iraq (document A/C.3/57/L.49).

The text's main sponsor Denmark, on behalf of the European Union, introduced a series of amendments to the draft.

Making a general statement before action was taken, the representative of Iraq said today it was Iraq and yesterday it had been Sudan. He was uncertain which Muslim country would next be targeted by such country-specific draft resolutions. As the Committee was considering the draft, Dr. Hans Blix and a team of United Nations weapons inspectors were in Iraq, with the consent of the Government, to ensure the country was free of weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, the United States and United Kingdom were bombing the highly populated areas of Negev and elsewhere. The Government of the United States was also threatening war and occupation. He believed that everyone would consider such threats and actions were clear violations of human rights.

Despite the effects of such brutal and unjust siege, which undoubtedly affected the human rights situation in Iraq, there had been changes since that draft resolution had been introduced in the 1980s. Those changes as well as the effects of the ongoing bombardment seemed to have escaped the notice of the European Union, the draft's main sponsor. The draft continued to be based on the language of confrontation, politicization and subjectivity. It did not move forward the promotion of the ultimate goal of the Committee, which was the promotion and protection of human rights, not only in Iraq, but throughout the world. The human tragedy of the years of bombardment and attacks could not be ignored. The international community should strive to answer to a higher calling. If the co-sponsors of the draft were really concerned about the human rights of the people of Iraq, they would have done better. The text would have been based purely on humanitarian issues.

The people of Iraq today needed clean drinking water, medical supplies and adequate food, he said. Were those not human rights? Apparently not to the co-sponsors. And he was not merely addressing the European Union. Indeed, he spoke to the "other international community", the countries of South America and Africa and others that cherished human rights free from political motivation. It was important that Iraq's brother developing countries were made aware that such resolutions were used as tools to penalize small countries. It was time to break the silence about the effects of continued violation of the human rights of the people of Iraq. The co-sponsors of the draft had been deaf to the reality of life in Iraq for years, and their notions were based purely on past conditions.

He urged the wider membership of the Third Committee to urge the co-sponsors of the draft to embark on a dialogue with the Government of Iraq. He went on to highlight positive changes under way in Iraq, particularly the recent release of political prisoners. Why hadn't the co-sponsors mentioned that? Moreover, why did they disregard the daily destruction of Iraqi infrastructure? The people of Iraq were being killed everyday. Did genocide mean anything to the co-sponsors? Iraq would speak out against the bias on the part of European Union, so that others did not suffer the way Iraq had, particularly the grave health and environmental consequences wrought by depleted uranium and constant military aggression. The economic and literal state of siege in Iraq had undoubtedly affected the health and well-being of the people of Iraq. Finally, he reiterated that the draft was politicized and not conducive to dialogue and understanding. He called upon delegations to vote against it.

The Russian Federation called for separate votes on operative paragraphs 4(a),(b),(e) and (f).

The proposal to delete operative paragraph 4(a) which would have the Assembly strongly condemn “the systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror” was rejected by a vote of 76 in favour of keeping the paragraph to 8 against (Cuba, China, Libya, Russian Federation, Syria, Viet Nam, Sudan, and Nigeria), with 72 abstentions (See Annex III).

The proposal on deleting operative paragraph 4(b) which would have the Assembly strongly condemn “the repression faced by and kind of opposition, in particular the harassment and intimidation of an threats against Iraqi opponents living abroad and members of their families”, was rejected by a vote of 76 in favour of keeping the paragraph to 8 against (Cuba, China, Libya, Russian Federation, Syria, Viet Nam, Sudan, and Nigeria), with 70 abstentions. (See Annex IV.)

The proposal to delete paragraph 4(e) was rejected by a vote of 76 in favour of keeping the paragraph to 8 against (Cuba, China, Libya, Russian Federation, Syria, Viet Nam, Sudan, and Nigeria), with 71 abstentions. (See Annex V.) The paragraph would have the Assembly strongly condemn “summary and arbitrary executions, including political killings and the continued prison cleansing, the use of rape as a political tool, as well as enforced or involuntary disappearances, routinely practiced arbitrary arrests and detention and consistent and routine failure to respect due process and the rule of law”.

The vote on deleting paragraph 4(f) was rejected by a vote of 77 in favour of keeping the paragraph to 8 against (Cuba, China, Libya, Russian Federation, Syria, Viet Nam, Sudan, and Nigeria), with 71 abstentions. (See Annex VI.) The paragraph would have the Assembly strongly condemn “widespread, systematic torture and the maintaining of decrees prescribing cruel, inhuman punishment as a penalty for offences”.

Before the vote on the draft resolution as a whole, the representative of Sudan explained Sudan’s vote, and said that she rejected selectivity and the politicization of human rights issues. Human rights required serious and constructive dialogue, not the leveling of unfounded allegations intended to politically target States. Therefore, the Sudan would vote against the draft resolution.

The representative of Tunisia said the draft resolution had a selective nature and presented a unilateral point of view when it came to the interpretation of human rights. He regretted that the draft resolution was not objective and based on constructive dialogue. It also ignored the humanitarian consequences of the embargo imposed on Iraq on the human rights situation. For these reasons, his delegation would abstain on the vote.

The Committee then adopted the resolution through a vote of 86 in favour to 4 against (Libya, Nigeria, Sudan and Syria), with 71 abstentions (See Annex VII.)

Following the vote, the representative of Syria said her delegation had voted against the draft resolution although it supported the call for the Government of Iraq to cooperate on a solution to the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners.

The representative of Japan said his delegation's position of principle was that every State should decide whether to place a moratorium on the death penalty.

The representative of Kuwait stressed that the draft was the ideal way to address the human rights situation in Iraq and must be considered as a whole. The Committee had always approved a resolution on the human rights situation in Iraq, but it had not met with the agreement of that Government. Therefore the elements of the draft had not been seriously implemented.

He said that Iraq had not adhered to such resolutions of the Assembly as well as those of the Security Council, particularly on those that called on it to cooperate with the Tri-Partite Commission dealing with the ongoing issue of Kuwaiti prisoners or missing persons. Kuwait would once again call on Iraq to work with that Commission to bring about a solution to that question.

The Committee then took up the draft on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/C.3/57/L.50).

The representative of Denmark introduced a series of oral corrections and amendments to the text, and drew the attention of the Committee and the Secretariat to spelling errors in the various language versions of the draft.

The representative of Rwanda said that his delegation disagreed with the language of the draft. He said that the Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda, had addressed the Security Council earlier this year and had promised to withdraw all Rwandan troops from the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That withdrawal had been carried out and confirmed by the third party monitoring mechanism, as required by the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. Rwanda would not support the resolution.

The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo asked if Rwanda had requested a vote on the draft.

The representative of Rwanda said the Democratic Republic of the Congo's suggestion was contradictory to the spirit of recent developments which had taken place in the Great Lakes Region. He had said his delegation would not support the draft.

The representative of Uganda then requested a recorded vote on the draft as a whole.

The Bureau announced that a recorded vote had previously been requested on operative paragraph 1(i) of the draft, which would have the General Assembly "welcome the ratification in 2002 by the Democratic Republic of the Congo of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)".

The representative of France asked which delegation had called for a vote on the paragraph, and was informed by the Bureau that it had been the United States.

Before action was taken, the representative of the United States confirmed that his delegation had called for a vote. The reasons for the United States opposition to the Rome Statute were well known and would not be repeated today. The United States did not however seek to undermine the Court or its legitimacy. The United States supported the Democratic republic of the Congo's right to ratify the Rome Statute, but would emphasize that its own decision not to ratify that Statue should likewise be respected.

The representative of Canada, speaking on behalf of Liechtenstein and the European Union, regretted that consensus had once again been broken on an important resolution over language on the ICC. The wide ratification and entry onto force of the Court was indeed something that should be welcomed as important developments in international efforts to promote and protect human rights for all.

While the United States continued to repeat that its "position on the Rome Statue was well known", she continued, the issue might perhaps be better addressed if that position were put on record, rather than restated in shorthand to break consensus on an important human rights resolutions. The representatives of New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and Denmark joined that statement.

The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said his country's ratification had made it possible for the Court to enter into force. His delegation did not understand the United States position. He hoped that all countries supporting peace and justice would support the wording of the paragraph.

The paragraph was retained by a vote of 125 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 26 abstentions. (See Annex VIII.)

Before the vote on the draft resolution as whole, the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said that the international community must know the source of the unhappiness of the people of his country -- serious human rights violations as a result of fighting at the borders. There was no reason to inflict such violence and terror on the people of his country, including massacres, burying of people alive, summary and arbitrary executions, and the deliberate spread of HIV/AIDS.

Despite the state of war, his country had shown exceptional commitment to the essence of human rights and international human rights instruments. There were positive improvements in the areas controlled by the Government, as opposed to the flagrant human rights violations in the areas controlled by the rebels from the aggressor countries of Uganda and Rwanda. These two countries were the authors of savage acts against the Democratic Republic of Congo. He would have wished that the provisions of the resolution on this issue had been stronger and showed who the real perpetrators of the human rights violations were.

The Committee was informed that President Kabila had enacted a law eliminating the military court -- information that had not been included in the draft resolution. Concerning the death penalty, he said that in his country, which was in a state of war, there were obvious reasons for maintaining the death penalty. Furthermore, it was enough to undertake a national poll to know that it had national support. He added that the process of the abolition of the death penalty required strong a legal infrastructure often lacking in a state of war. His delegation had not asked for a recorded vote but he hoped that the European Union would overcome some of its misgivings and see the positive developments. His delegation had not asked for the recorded vote and he would abstain in the vote.

The representative of Rwanda said that Rwanda was not an aggressor and did not occupy any area in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It was a well-known fact that the Democratic Republic of the Congo had supported the genocide in Rwanda. It was the Democratic Republic of the Congo that did not want peace or the promotion of human rights. He appealed to that Government to disarm the perpetrators of the genocide in Rwanda and to adhere to Pretoria agreements signed.

The representative of Burundi said his delegation would abstain on this resolution because his delegation could not oppose a draft resolution containing useful language, including provisions calling on the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to respect human rights. Neither would he vote in favour of it, he said, since he deplored the silence on the security concerns that had been expressed by neighbouring countries. Furthermore, the draft did not properly recognize that some progress had been made, including the signing of the Pretoria agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He said that Burundi had withdrawn its last battalion, yet rebel groups were continuing to attack Burundi. Until an agreement on this situation had been made, he would abstain.

The representative of Uganda said his delegation was intervening since it had serious objections to parts of the draft in reference to his country. He had been hoping that this concern would have been addressed. The draft resolution did not reflect the facts on the ground and the significant positive steps that had been taken since last year. Earlier this month, his country had responded to the Special Rapporteur’s report, which had been unbalanced and contained some weaknesses due to the flaws in the investigative technique of the Special Rapporteur. It was against this background that Uganda found this draft resolution unacceptable. The draft resolution welcomed this report of the Special Rapporteur and used this report as a source of information.

The draft resolution also misled the international community regarding Uganda’s role in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda had since May 2001 withdrawn all its troops from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with only one battalion left as a stabilizing force as a result of the request of the Secretary-General. A bilateral agreement had been signed by Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo which made the process for the withdrawal of that last battalion very clear. Normally, Uganda voted with the European Union on issues of human rights, however for the reasons explained above, Uganda would vote against the draft.

The Committee approved the resolution as orally revised by a vote of 83 in favour to 3 against (Rwanda, Nigeria and Uganda), with 72 abstentions. (See Annex IX.)




ANNEX I


Vote on Right to Development

The draft resolution on the right to development (document A/C.3/57/L.65) was approved by a recorded vote of 114 in favour to 3 against, with 47 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Marshall Islands, United States.

Abstaining: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

Absent: Botswana, Central African Republic, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.




ANNEX III


Vote on Human Rights in Iraq, Paragraph 4(a)

The proposal to delete operative paragraph 4(a) of the draft resolution on human rights in Iraq (document A/C.3/57/L.49) was defeated by a recorded vote of 76 in favour of retaining the paragraph to 8 against, with 72 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Yugoslavia.

Against: China, Cuba, Libya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Sudan, Syria, Viet Nam.

Abstaining: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Maldives, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Yemen.




ANNEX IV


Vote on Human Rights In Iraq, Paragraph 4(b)

The proposal to delete operative paragraph 4(b) of the draft resolution on human rights in Iraq (document A/C.3/57/L.49) was defeated by a recorded vote of 76 in favour of retaining the paragraph to 8 against, with 71 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Yugoslavia.

Against: China, Cuba, Libya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Sudan, Syria, Viet Nam.

Abstaining: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Afghanistan, Bahamas, Central African Republic, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Maldives, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Yemen.




ANNEX V


Vote on Human Rights In Iraq, Paragraph 4(e)

The proposal to delete operative paragraph 4(e) of the draft resolution on human rights in Iraq (document A/C.3/57/L.49) was defeated by a recorded vote of 76 in favour of retaining the paragraph to 8 against, with 71 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Yugoslavia.

Against: China, Cuba, Libya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Sudan, Syria, Viet Nam.

Abstaining: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Maldives, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Yemen.




ANNEX VI


Vote on Human Rights In Iraq, Paragraph 4(f)

The proposal to delete operative paragraph 4(f) of the draft resolution on human rights in Iraq (document A/C.3/57/L.49) was defeated by a recorded vote of 77 in favour of retaining the paragraph to 8 against, with 71 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Yugoslavia.

Against: China, Cuba, Libya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Sudan, Syria, Viet Nam.

Abstaining: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Maldives, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Yemen.




ANNEX VII


Vote on Human Rights in Iraq

The draft resolution on human rights in Iraq (document A/C.3/57/L.49) was approved by a recorded vote of 86 in favour to 4 against, with 71 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Yugoslavia.

Against: Libya, Nigeria, Sudan, Syria.

Abstaining: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Yemen.




ANNEX VIII


Vote on Human Rights in Democratic Republic of Congo, Paragraph 1(I)

Operative paragraph 1(i) of the draft resolution on the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/C.3/57/L.50) was approved by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 1 against, with 26 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: United States.

Abstaining: Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Libya, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Uganda.

Absent: Afghanistan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Maldives, Federated States of Micronesia, Morocco, Nauru, Niger, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen.




ANNEX IX


Vote on Human Rights in Democratic Republic of the Congo

The draft resolution on human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/C.3/57/L.50) was approved by a recorded vote of 83 in favour to 3 against, with 72 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.

Against: Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda.

Abstaining: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Oman, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen.




* *** *