THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES 15 DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS, INCLUDING NEW TEXT ON RIGHT TO PEACE

Fifty-seventh General Assembly
Third Committee
19 November 2002
53rd and 54th Meetings (AM & PM)



The General Assembly would solemnly declare that the preservation of the right to peace and that the promotion of its implementation constituted a fundamental obligation of each State, under the terms of one of 15 resolutions approved today by the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, Cultural).

That text -- one of two new drafts before the Committee this year -- was approved by a vote of 90 in favour to 50 against, with 14 abstentions (Annex I). It would have the Assembly solemnly proclaim that the peoples of the planet had a sacred right to peace, and reaffirm that there was a close relationship between disarmament and development, and that resources released through disarmament measures should be devoted to the economic and social development and well-being of all peoples, particularly those in developing countries.

When action was taken on the draft, several delegations expressed serious concern that while fostering peace and maintaining peaceful relations between States was indeed a priority on the agenda of all global actors, the concept of "a right to peace" had not been negotiated by any intergovernmental body. Others felt some of the elements of the text, particularly the calls for broad disarmament, fell outside the mandate of the Third Committee altogether.

Another new text before the Committee, on respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the vital importance of family reunification, was approved by a vote of 86 in favour to 2 against (United States and Israel), with 71 abstentions (Annex IV). That resolution would have the Assembly once again call upon States to guarantee the universally recognized freedom of travel to all foreign nationals legally living within their territory, and to allow the free flow of financial remittances by foreign residing in their territory to their relatives in the country of origin.

A resolution on the respect for the purposes and principles contained in the Charter to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms and in solving international problems of a humanitarian character was approved by a vote of 93 in favour to 51 against, with 17 abstentions (Annex II). By the terms of that text, the Assembly would reaffirm that the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights was essential for the full achievement of the purposes of the Charter.

While many felt the text reaffirmed the importance of respect for human rights, provisions which would have the Assembly affirm that in solving

international problems, all States must fully comply with the principles set forth in Article 2 of the Charter, namely respecting the sovereignty of all States and refraining from threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, were questioned by several delegations. Those opposing the text stressed its "very selective" representation of the Charter's aims and felt the language appeared to suggest that sovereignty was a shield behind which human rights violations could be perpetrated.

By a vote of 106 in favour to 51 against, with Kazakhstan abstaining, the Committee approved a draft resolution on unilateral coercive measures (Annex III), which would have the Assembly urge States to avoid and refrain from such measures that would impede the full achievement of economic and social development of the population of the affected countries, in particular women and children, that hindered their well-being and created obstacles to the full enjoyment of human rights.

Delegations approved without vote a resolution on the question of enforced or involuntary disappearances, which would have the Assembly reaffirm that any act of enforced disappearance was an offence to human dignity and a grave and flagrant violation of human rights, and urge all governments to take appropriate action to prevent and suppress such practices.

Prior to that action, delegations retained -- by a vote of 148 in favour to 1 against (United States) with 8 abstentions (Congo, Honduras, Israel, Libya, Mozambique, Myanmar, Pakistan and Papua New Guinea) (Annex V) -- preambular paragraph 7 of the text, which would acknowledge the fact that acts of enforced disappearances, as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), come within the jurisdiction of the Court as crimes against humanity."

Although the resolution on the human rights situation in Myanmar was adopted without a vote, many delegations voiced their concern that that the purpose country-specific resolutions should be to highlight positive changes and promote internationally recognized human rights objectives. With that in mind, many felt the text "lacked objectivity" and was generally unfair to Myanmar. A host of delegations from East Asia highlighted the unstinting efforts of the Government of Myanmar to improve the lives of the people of that country, and strongly expressed the view that the voices of interested parties, especially in the region, should have been reflected in the resolution.

The Committee also approved, without a vote, resolutions on human rights and cultural diversity; human rights education; missing persons; regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights; human rights and extreme poverty; protection of migrants; hostage-taking; strengthening the rule of law; and enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights.

The Committee also took note of the Secretary-General's note on the situation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women, contained in document A/57/129-E/2002/77.

During the two meetings today, draft resolutions were introduced on items related to refugees and displaced persons, and human rights questions. Draft resolutions on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa; new international humanitarian order; and Khmer rouge trials were introduced by Ethiopia, Jordan and Japan respectively.

The Committee will reconvene tomorrow at 10 a.m. to continue taking action on draft resolutions.


Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, Cultural) met to hear the introduction of all outstanding draft resolutions, and to take action on draft resolutions on items related to human rights questions, the promotion and protection of children, and refugees and internally displaced persons.

The Committee will have before it a draft on human rights and cultural diversity (document A/C.3/57/L.41), which would have the Assembly urge States to ensure that their political and legal systems reflected the multicultural diversity within their societies. It would also have the Assembly affirm that intellectual dialogue essentially enriches the understanding of human rights, and that the benefits to be derived from encouraging and developing international contacts and cooperation in the cultural fields are important.

There will be a draft text on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/57/L.48), which would have the Assembly express its grave concern at the ongoing systematic violation of the human rights, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the people of Myanmar. The text of the draft would have the Assembly strongly urge the Government of Myanmar to end the systematic violations of human rights in Myanmar, to end impunity, and to investigate and bring to justice any perpetrators of human rights violations.

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 Special 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.

There will also be a draft resolution on the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/C.3/57/L.50) which recalls the ceasefire agreement signed at Lusaka, as well as the Kampala disengagement plan and the peace agreement signed at Pretoria, and 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. It urged 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.

Delegations will take up the text on human rights education (document A/C.3/57/L.45), which would have the Assembly express its conviction that human rights education and information contribute to the concept of development consistent with the dignity of women and men of all ages, which takes into account particularly vulnerable segments of society such as children, youth, older persons, indigenous people, minorities, rural and urban poor, migrant workers, refugees, persons with disabilities and persons with HIV/AIDS.

There will be a draft resolution on missing persons (document A/C.3/57/L.46), which would have the Assembly call upon States which were parties to an armed conflict to take immediate steps to determine the identity and fate of persons reported missing and request States to pay the utmost attention to cases of children reported missing. It would also recognize that great technological progress has been pioneered in the field of DNA forensic sciences, which could significantly improve efforts to identify missing persons in conflict areas around the world.

On regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/C.3/57/L.52), there will be a draft resolution which would have the Assembly request the Secretary-General to continue to strengthen exchanges between the United Nations and regional intergovernmental organizations dealing with human rights and to make available adequate resources from within the regular budget, for technical cooperation, to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to promote regional arrangements.

A draft text on the question of enforced or involuntary disappearances (document A/C.3/57/L.57) would have the Assembly call upon governments to take steps to ensure that human rights were protected when a state of emergency was introduced, in particular by preventing enforced disappearances. By the terms of the text, the Assembly would also urge governments concerned to take steps to protect the families of disappeared persons against any intimidation or ill treatment to which they may be subjected.

On the promotion of the right of peoples to peace (document A/C.3/57/L.58), there will be a draft text which would have the Assembly urge the international community to devote part of the resources made available by the implementation of disarmament and arms limitation agreements to economic and social development, with a view to reducing the ever-widening gap between developed and developing countries, and to promote the realization of human rights for all.

A draft resolution on the respect for the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms and in solving international problems of a humanitarian character (document A/C.3/57/L.59), would have the Assembly reaffirm that the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights was essential for the full achievement of the purposes of the Charter and that human rights and fundamental freedoms were the birthright of all human beings.

On the protection of migrants (document A/C.3/57/L.60), there will be a draft resolution which would have the Assembly reiterate the need for all States parties of relevant international conventions to protect fully the universally recognized human rights of migrants, especially women and children, regardless of legal status, and to treat them humanely, in particular with regard to assistance and protection.

A draft resolution on protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (document A/C.3/57/L.61) 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.

There will be a draft text on hostage-taking (document A/C.3/57/L.62), which would have the General Assembly condemn all acts of hostage-taking, anywhere in the world and demand that all hostages be released immediately and without any preconditions. The text expressed concern that despite the efforts of the international community, acts of hostage-taking in different forms, continued to take place at the hands of terrorist groups and had even increased in many regions of the world.

On strengthening the rule of law (document A/C.3/57/L.63), there will be a draft text which would have the Assembly express its firm conviction that the rule of law was an essential factor in the protection of human rights and should continue to attract the attention of the international community. It would have the Assembly encourage the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue the dialogue between his Office and other organs and agencies of the United Nations system, taking into account the need to explore new synergies with a view to obtaining increased financial assistance for human rights and the rule of law and promoting inter-agency cooperation.

A draft resolution on unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/57/L.64) would have the Assembly urge States to avoid and refrain from such unilateral measures that would impede the full achievement of economic and social development of the population of the affected countries, in particular women and children, that hindered their well-being and created obstacles to the full enjoyment of human rights.

Concerning the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (document A/C.3/57/L.66) there will be a draft text through which the Assembly would urge all actors on the international scene to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equality and equity, human dignity, mutual understanding and promotion of and respect for cultural diversity and universal human rights.

A draft resolution on the respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the vital importance of family reunification (document A/C.3/57/L.69) would have the Assembly call upon States to allow the free flow of financial remittances by foreign nationals residing in their territory to their relatives in the country of origin, and also called upon States to refrain from enacting, and to repeal if it already existed, legislation intended as a coercive measure that discriminated against individuals or groups of legal migrants by adversely affecting family reunification and the right to send financial remittances to relatives in the country of origin.

Also before the Committee will be an omnibus draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/57/L.25/Rev.1). Under its terms the Assembly would urge States that have not yet done so to sign and ratify or accede to the Convention on the Rights of the Child as a matter of priority with a view to reaching the goal of universal adherence as soon as possible. A section on protection and promotion of the rights of children would have the Assembly call upon States to take all appropriate measures to prevent and protect children from all forms of violence, including physical mental and sexual violence, torture, child abuse, abuse by police and officials in detention centres or welfare institutions.

There is a section on the rights of children in particularly vulnerable situations and non-discrimination against children, which includes the plight of children working and/or living on the streets, refugee and internally displaced children, children with disabilities, and migrant children. By the terms of the text, the Assembly would call upon all States and parties to conflict to give urgent attention to the fact that refugee and internally displaced children were particularly exposed to risks in connection with armed conflict.

In a section on the prevention and eradication of the sale of children and of their sexual exploitation and abuse, including child prostitution and child pornography, the Assembly would call upon States to enact, enforce, review and revise laws and to implement policies, programmes and practices to protect children from and to eliminate all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse, including commercial sexual exploitation, taking into account the particular problems posed by the use of the Internet in this regard.

The attention of the Assembly is drawn to the protection of children affected by armed conflict, through provisions which would have it condemn the abduction of children in situations of armed conflict and into armed conflict, and called upon all parties to such conflict to ensure that children affected by it receive timely, effective and unhindered humanitarian assistance. Further to a section on the progressive elimination of child labour, the Assembly would call upon States to strengthen cooperation and coordination at the national and international levels to address effectively the problem of child labour. Finally, the Assembly would decide to request the Secretary-General to prepare a report on progress achieved in realizing the commitments set out in the twenty-seventh special session of the Assembly, entitled "A World Fit for Children".

On the enlargement of the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/57/L.77), a draft resolution would have the Assembly decide to increase the number of members of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from 61 to 64 States, and would request the Economic and Social Council to elect the additional members at its resumed organizational session for 2003.

There will be a draft on the continuation of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/57/L.78), the text of which would have the Assembly recognize the need for concerted international action and would decide to continue the Office for a further period of five years from 1 January 2004. It would also have the Assembly decide, no later than its sixty-second session, the arrangements for the Office with a view to determining whether the Office should be continued beyond 31 December 2008.

Finally, under an omnibus resolution on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (document A/C.3/57/L.79), the Assembly would welcome the important work undertaken by the Office. The draft would have the Assembly strongly urge States and relevant NGOs, in conjunction with the Office to cooperate and to mobilize resources with a view towards enhancing the capacity of countries, and reducing the heavy burden borne by those that have received large numbers of refugees and asylum seekers.


Introduction of Draft Resolutions

The Committee heard introductions of draft resolutions on items related to refugees and internally displaced people, and human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The representative of Ethiopia, on behalf of the African group, introduced a draft resolution on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa (document A/C.3/57/L.73) through which the Assembly would call upon States and other parties to armed conflict to observe scrupulously the letter and the spirit of international humanitarian law, bearing in mind that armed conflict was one of the principal causes of forced displacement in Africa. It would also appeal to the international community to respond positively to the third country resettlement requests of African refugees. The representative of Ethiopia said the draft resolution drew the attention of the international community to the specific needs of refugees and internally displaced persons, as well as the specific economic, social and political root causes for their predicament.

In a draft resolution on a new international humanitarian order (document A/C.3/57/L.74), introduced by the representative of Jordan, the Assembly would invite governments to provide the expertise and resources to identity 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 in addition to ongoing measures. The representative of Jordan said the present draft had been inspired by the previous resolution on the issues as well as the report of the Secretary-General. He expressed his gratitude to the Secretary-General for his continuing support.

The representative of Japan introduced a draft resolution on Khmer Rouge trials (document A/C.3/57/L.70) through which the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to resume negotiations, without delay, to conclude an agreement with the Government of Cambodia, based on previous negotiations on the establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers to try those suspected of being responsible for the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge. It would further request the Secretary-General to include in his report recommendations for the efficient and cost-effective operation of the Extraordinary Chambers, including the amount of voluntary contributions of funds, equipment and services to the Extraordinary Chambers through the offer of expert personnel that might be needed from States, intergovernmental organizations and NGOs.

The representative of Japan said the draft resolution was being introduced in response to the Secretary-General’s request and was meant to serve as a basis for negotiations between the United Nations Secretariat and the Cambodian Government over the arrangement on the establishment of Extraordinary Chambers. It was also the product of the earnest and persistent efforts of the Cambodian and other interested delegations to address the legitimate concerns of the people of Cambodia in the pursuit of justice. Assurances had been received by Prime Minister Hun Sen that his Government supported the draft resolution.

The representative of Cambodia said he wished to thank the group of interested States, in particular Japan, France and Australia for their efforts in seeking the resumption of negotiations between Cambodia and the United Nations Secretariat. Cambodia appreciated the efforts made to elaborate this draft resolution, and he hoped that it would be approved by consensus.

The representative of France said his delegation was a co-sponsor of this draft resolution on the Khmer Rouge trials and fully supported it. Furthermore, he was delighted by the Cambodian support for the draft resolution. It was important that this text be adopted without a vote, since it was of fundamental importance that the Secretary-General be enabled to resume negotiations as quickly as possible.


Action on Draft Resolutions

The Committee then took action on a number of draft resolution on items related to human rights questions, including alternative approaches to improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Committee first took up the draft on human rights and cultural diversity (document A/C.3/57/L.41), which had been postponed for action yesterday morning.

The draft's main sponsor, Iran said following yesterday's meeting, negotiations on the paragraph that had drawn the exception of several delegations -- on the contribution made through the Durban World Conference Against Racism to the promotion of respect for cultural diversity -- had yielded a fix which would replace "made through" with "contribution against".

He expressed concern that any change had to be made, however, since the language of the text had been previously agreed and consensus had been reached.

The resolution was approved without a vote.

Following that action, the representative of Canada said her country had always fostered and promoted respect for cultural diversity. Although Canada had joined consensus, it firmly believed that measures to foster respect for such diversity must be undertaken in line with international law. Canada would also note that it would have preferred a more balanced reference to the Durban World Conference with respect to cultural diversity.

The Committee approved without vote, a draft text on human rights education (document A/C.3/57/L.45).

Delegations then approved without vote a draft resolution on missing persons (document A/C.3/57/L.46), as well as another on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/C.3/57/L.52).

The Committee then took up a draft resolution on human rights and extreme poverty (document A/C.3/57/L.53). The text's main sponsor Peru, introduced a series of corrections. The draft was approved, as orally revised, without a vote.

Following that action the representative of Egypt said his country was a co-sponsor to the resolution but had not agreed with the amendments made to the resolutions. Egypt did, however, not want to stop the consensus due to the efforts made by the main sponsor. However, his delegation still believed in the strong link between poverty and democracy. It was a shared and common goal of all States, he said. Fighting poverty would strengthen the promotion of democracy.

Then, it took up a draft text on the promotion of the right of peoples to peace (document A/C.3/57/L.58).

A recorded vote was requested.

In explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Canada, on behalf of the United States, New Zealand and Australia, said there were questions and concerns regarding the right of peoples to peace, which had not been addressed in the draft resolution. The draft seemed to focus more on relations between States, as opposed to States’ obligations to its people. Although Cuba had held one consultation on this resolution, it was clear that Cuba had not been willing to compromise. Therefore, he advised delegations to vote against the draft resolution.

The representative of Denmark, on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said while underlining the link between peace and human rights, the issues raised in this resolution were better dealt with in other forums. The resolution focused on the relationship between States as opposed to the relationship between States and citizens, which was the core mandate of this Committee. Therefore, the European Union could not support this resolution and would vote against it.

The text was approved by a vote of 90 in favour to 50 against, with 14 abstentions. (See Annex I.)

In explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Mexico said she had voted in favour of the draft resolution on the promotion of the right of peoples to peace. The Third Committee and the Commission on Human Rights were, however, not the appropriate fora for this issue.

The representative of India said her delegation had abstained, as the Third Committee was not the appropriate forum to deal with disarmament questions.

The representative of Gambia said his delegation, which had not been in the room, would have voted for the draft.

The Committee then considered the draft on respect for the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms and in solving international problems of a humanitarian character (document A/C.3/57/L.59).

A recorded vote was requested.

The representative of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union, associated Central and Eastern European Countries, as well as Cyprus, Malta and Turkey, Iceland and Norway, said her delegation was committed to the purposes and principles of the Charter. The resolution before the Committee was almost identical with that adopted in previous years, albeit never by consensus. Moreover, the European Union did not believe that a text solely based on the Charter of the United Nations could contribute to the respect for the promotion of human rights for all. She added that, from within the Third Committee, the European Union did attempt to take on the work of other substantive committees.

She said the draft did not contribute to solutions of problems in the humanitarian field and would merely duplicate some of the agenda items of other substantive committees of the wider Assembly. Indeed, the text did not rightly address the work of the Third Committee, and she would vote against it.

The representative of New Zealand considered that the resolution implied that sovereignty should be protected and promoted over other human rights objectives outlined in the Charter. The draft sought to confine the important role of the United Nations in the field of human rights in contradiction with the broad purposes of the Charter. It would again vote against the text.

The representative of Canada, on behalf of Australia and the United States, said the text introduced some important issues that were being addressed in other United Nations forums. Further, it did not provide an important vehicle to address its stated aims. It was very selective and unbalanced in its presentation of the Charter's aims. Rather than embracing the spirit of the Charter, the text aimed to limit its scope by presenting elements on sovereignty without sufficient counter-balancing language on human rights. The text presented sovereignty as a shield behind which human rights violations could occur. Those delegations would vote against the text and encourage others to do so.

The draft was approved by a vote of 93 in favour to 51 against, with 17 abstentions. (See Annex II).

Following that action, the representative of Cuba said the vote on the text reflected the diverse views of Member States on the interpretation and scope of the Charter.

The representative of Suriname said that her delegation had supported the text because it called on all States to respect human rights. She therefore felt the language did not limit respect for human rights but reinforced it.

The Committee next approved without a vote the draft resolution on the protection of migrants (document A/C.3/57/L.60).

The representative of Singapore gave his opinion about operative paragraph 6 and said that Singapore took the welfare of migrants very seriously and acknowledged the responsibility of States to ensure the welfare of migrants in their countries. However, the immigration policies of each country needed to be decided by States according to their own interest and situation. Despite this concern, Singapore went along with the consensus but reserved its right to change its position later.

The Committee then approved without vote a draft on hostage-taking (document A/C.3/57/L.62).

Following that action, the representative of the Czech Republic said her Government had joined the consensus; however, perhaps this topic should be dealt with in the Security Council, not in the Third Committee.

The text on strengthening the rule of law (document A/C.3/57/L.63), was approved without a vote.

Delegations then took up the text on human rights and unilateral measures (document A/C.3/57/L.64).

A recorded vote was requested.

The text was approved by a vote of 106 in favour to 51 against, with one abstention (Kazakhstan). (See Annex III.)

The Committee next considered the draft resolution on the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (document A/C.3/57/L.66).

The Committee next turned to the draft resolution on respect for the right to universal travel and the vital importance of family reunification (document A/C.3/57/L.69).

A recorded vote was requested.

During explanations of vote before the vote, the representative of the United States said the United States would be pleased to consider positively a resolution on the subject of freedom to travel and family reunion, but not this one, due to its emphasis on a bilateral issue which must not come before the General Assembly. Operative paragraph 1 was aimed at United States regulations concerning the travel of Cuban Government officials in the United States. This was a bilateral matter between the Unites States and Cuba, which was consistent with the United States’ obligations under international law.

The United States supported the portions of this resolution that endorsed the freedom to travel internationally and family reunification and called on all countries, including Cuba, to take steps to implement those provisions of this resolution, she said. It was ironic that Cuba had introduced this resolution, as Cuba continued to severely restrict the travel of its own citizens. The United States was one of the world’s largest immigrant countries, and the majority of immigrants arrived through family reunion provisions in United States immigration law. For the reasons stated above, the United States would vote “no” on this resolution.

The resolution was adopted in a vote of 86 in favour to 2 against, with 71 abstentions. The United States and Israel voted against the resolution. (See Annex IV.)

After the vote, the representative of Mexico said she had voted in favour of the resolution because the elements included in the text were of particular importance for the rights of migrants. This was a right to be all people, regardless of their migratory status.

The representative of Costa Rica said that the elements contained in the text were important for migrants, however she would have wanted to see references to paragraph 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which stressed the freedom of the right to travel of all people.

The representative of Suriname said her country would like to be consistent in its approach to human rights, and had therefore supported the resolution, which protected the rights of migrants.

The representative of Cuba, speaking after the adoption of the draft resolution, said the draft had no bilateral purposes and dealt with a universal problem with importance to all, particularly migrants. At the same time, she urged all States to allow the free travel of people and reminded the Committee that the United States Government did not allow its citizens to visit Cuba.

The Committee took action on an oral draft decision, whereby it recommended that the General Assembly take note of the note by the Secretary-General on the situation of the International Research and Training Institute of the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) (document A/57/129-E/2002/77).

That note updated information on the implementation of the Institute's work programme and on managerial and financial matters. It also described the current status of the working group on the operation of the Institute. That group would be composed of two governmental representatives from each of the five regional groups and one representative of the host country, and aimed to make recommendations to the Assembly for consideration by the end of 2002, on the full operation of the Institute. It also stressed that despite the Institute's efforts to implement its modest but relevant work programme, financial and institutional difficulties persist.

The Committee then adopted, without a vote, the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Myanmar (document A/C.3/57/L.48) as well as programme budget implications, as contained in document A/C.3/57/L.83.

Before the vote, the representative of Myanmar said that last year, the General Assembly had adopted resolution A/56/231 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar. It had contained unsubstantiated allegations of anti-Government groups and was the legacy of a politically biased report by Mr. Lallah, a former human rights special rapporteur. The resolution set aside the positive measures and developments in the reports by the new human rights special rapporteur Mr. Pinheiro. The resolution therefore did not reflect reality, and instead was selective and subjective. The Myanmar delegation had therefore had no choice by to reject the allegations in the resolution.

In light of the significant positive developments in Myanmar, which had been reflected in the reports of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General and the special rapporteur, the Myanmar delegation had expected that the draft resolution this year would be different -- that it would be fair and balanced. Unfortunately, the draft resolution was once again biased, selective and subjective, he said. It had very little to do with the actual promotion and protection of human rights in Myanmar; instead it sought to impose unwarranted and undue political pressure on a process that fell within the domestic jurisdiction of the country. Myanmar had embarked on the process of national reconciliation that would lead to a peaceful multi-party democratic society where the universal principles of justice, tolerance and equality prevailed. Myanmar therefore unequivocally dissociated itself from the present draft resolution.

The representative of Pakistan said he did not favour using human rights to forward a political agenda. This resolution was likely to be adopted by consensus; however, it should have taken into consideration the positive developments in Myanmar. These developments included Myanmar’s full cooperation with the special rapporteur; the invitation to the High Commissioner for Human Rights; and Myanmar’s cooperation with the International Labour Organization (ILO).

The representative of Cuba stressed that this selective initiative did not aim at genuinely promoting human rights in Myanmar. He therefore supported Myanmar’s dissociation with the resolution.

The representative of Sudan said her delegation objected to the politicization of human rights as well as the practice of double standards in their implementation. For these reasons, her delegation dissociated itself from the draft resolution.

The representative of Egypt emphasized that human rights must not be politicized or used to intervene in the domestic affairs of States. She also rejected the practice of singling out of States for reasons that had nothing to do with human rights. Egypt too dissociated itself from the draft resolution.

The representation of Suriname stressed that the conclusion of the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar had showed that there were prospects for democratization in Myanmar which needed to be treated with great and delicate care.

After the adoption of the resolution, the representative of Japan said that Japan had joined the consensus of the resolution. However, the Government of Japan felt it was necessary to take due notice of positive developments and encourage the Government of Myanmar to take further steps. She strongly believed that the voices of interested parties, especially in the region, should have been reflected in the resolution. This would have led to the elaboration of a more balanced text.

The representative of Bangladesh said human rights, pluralism and gender rights were dear to the people of Bangladesh, at home and internationally. Therefore, the situation in Myanmar had been followed with great interest in Bangladesh. He commended the close attention paid to the situation by the European Union; yet the aims of the international community in Myanmar could only be realized if the Government of Myanmar was constructively engaged. Any action impeding this was best avoided.

The representative of Nepal noted that there had been some progress in Myanmar and urged the Government to continue along the lines of these positive steps. The international community too must recognize these improvements.

The representative of India placed on record India’s appreciation of the work of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General and the special rapporteur. It was important to take note of the efforts undertaken by the Government of Myanmar, particularly the national reconciliation process. India believed that such undertakings must be supported through active bilateral engagement.

The representative of Indonesia said that the resolution had not been adopted in a clear consensus, since Myanmar and several other countries had dissociated themselves from it. If the resolution had taken into account the concerns of Member States it would have been more efficient. He hoped that there would be change by next year.

The representative of Philippines said this issue was a sensitive one for several delegations. It was stressed that concerned delegations had proposed a number of important suggestions to make the resolution more balanced. Regrettably, these suggestions had not been reflected in the final text, showing procedural drawbacks during the consultations.

The representative of Thailand said country-specific resolutions must be balanced and fair. Their aim should be to further improve the human rights situation of people. Thailand encouraged the steps taken by the Government of Myanmar, particularly the national reconciliation process. Myanmar was commended for its cooperation with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General as well as the special rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights. He hoped that the Government of Myanmar would continue to engage with the international community on issues of common concerns.

The representative of China said that in recent years, the Government of Myanmar had made untiring efforts to improve the human rights situation in Myanmar. The Government had also invited the High Commissioner to visit the country. It was important that the international community show more encouragement and support for the Government’s achievements in the human rights area. The resolution had lacked objectivity and had been unfair to the Government of Myanmar.

The representative of Viet Nam said that her delegation welcomed the positive developments in Myanmar -- its national reconciliation as well as its cooperation with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General. The present resolution should have reflected reality.

The representative of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic regretted that there had been no mention of the positive developments towards democratization in Myanmar in the resolution. Only by taking into account of reality could the people of Myanmar be best served.

The representative of Cambodia said the international community must treat human rights issues in a fair manner globally, avoiding all politicization. In this context, she noted the encouraging developments in Myanmar and welcomed the positive changes in furthering human rights.

The Committee then took up the draft on the question of enforced or involuntary disappearances (document A/C.3/57/L.57). The representative of France, the text's main sponsor, recalled that several oral revisions had been made at the time the draft had been introduced.

The main change concerned preambular paragraph 7: "welcoming the fact that acts of enforced disappearances, as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), come within the jurisdiction of the Court as crimes against humanity."

The representative of France amended that paragraph with compromise language that would replace "welcoming" with "acknowledging".

A recorded vote was requested on preambular paragraph 7.

In a general statement, the representative of Liechtenstein said his delegation would stress the need to include an appropriate reference on the Rome Statute of the ICC in the resolution, as that Statute was the most solid legal basis on which to combat such crimes internationally. It was also the most significant international instrument on enforced disappearances since the issue had first come before the Assembly some 20 years ago. With that in mind, the text would lose its legitimacy without a reference to the Court or the Statute. He added that, while some delegations objected to the Court, its creation and proceedings, it should be recognized that the Statute had been widely accepted, and the Court itself had entered into force.

The representative of France said his delegation regretted that consensus had been broken for the first time on this text, by the United States. France had led the negotiations and had moved to suggest more neutral language that would be suitable to all delegations. His delegation was perplexed by the somewhat tardy nature of the request for a vote. The language of the text was fully in line with the language of the Rome Statute. The United States appeared to be confusing competence and exercise of competence.

The delegations of Switzerland and Chile, Norway, Denmark, on behalf of the European Union, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela, Brazil, and Panama supported the statement made by Liechtenstein. The representative of Mexico also supported that statement and would note that it would have liked to have seen even stronger language concerning the Court.

The representative of Canada regretted that consensus on the draft had been broken by compromised language, particularly as it reflected language adopted by consensus in the wider Assembly.

The representative of New Zealand reminded all delegations that if they had previously joined consensus on the language of the draft, they should be able to vote in favour of it today. That sentiment was supported by Costa Rica.

In explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of the United States said his country's opposition to the Rome Statute as adopted was well known and did not need to be mentioned here. He would however reaffirm that the United States did not seek to undermine the ICC. While it was not trying to dissuade other States from becoming a party to the Court, the United States' decision not to be a party should likewise be respected.

The United States had proposed inserting a line that read that such enforced or involuntary disappearances "could" fall within the purview of the Court. The current draft suggested that all -- not some -– such crimes came within the Court's jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the United States would join consensus on the draft as a whole, to reflect its strong position on the abhorrent practice of enforced disappearances.

Preambular Paragraph 7 was retained by a vote of 148 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 8 abstentions (Congo, Honduras, Israel, Libya, Mozambique, Myanmar, Pakistan and Papua New Guinea). (See Annex V.)

The resolution as a whole was adopted as orally revised without a vote.

After the adoption of the resolution, the representative of India said that her delegation had joined on the consensus as a whole, however, there were aspects of concern to India, such as the reference to the working group in operative paragraph 11. She added that it was also not the normal practice to “welcome” the report of independent experts. India would have preferred the word “noting”, with regard to the report of the independent expert.



ANNEX I


Vote on Right of Peoples to Peace

The draft resolution on promotion of the right of peoples to peace (document A/C.3/57/L.58) was approved by a recorded vote of 90 in favour to 50 against, with 14 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, 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, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Yugoslavia.

Abstaining: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ethiopia, Guatemala, India, Madagascar, Malawi, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

Absent: Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.



ANNEX II


Vote on Respect for Charter Purposes

The draft resolution on respect for Charter purposes in promoting human rights (document A/C.3/57/L.59) was approved by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to 51 against, with 17 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, 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, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Yugoslavia.

Abstaining: Argentina, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Fiji, Guatemala, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Thailand, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

Absent: Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.



ANNEX III


Vote on Unilateral Coercive Measures

The draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/57/L.64) was approved by a recorded vote of 106 in favour to 51 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

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

Against: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, 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, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Yugoslavia.

Abstaining: Kazakhstan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.



ANNEX IV


Vote on Right to Freedom of Travel

The draft resolution on respect for the right to travel and on family reunification (Document A/C.3/57/L.69) was approved by a recorded vote of 86 in favour to 2 against, with 71 abstentions, as follow:

In favour: Afghanistan, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, India, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against: Israel, United States.

Abstaining: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Congo, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.

Absent: Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe.



ANNEX V


Vote on Paragraph 7 of Draft on Disappearance

The preambular paragraph 7 of the draft resolution on disappearance (document A/C.3/57/L.57 pp7) was approved by a recorded vote of 148 in favour to 1 against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia.

Against: United States.

Abstaining: Congo, Honduras, Israel, Libya, Mozambique, Myanmar, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea.

Absent: Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Morocco, Nauru, Nicaragua, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.




* *** *