UN SECRETARY-GENERAL SAYS IRAQ SHOULD NOT DISTRACT THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS FROM OTHER VIOLATIONS

Commission on Human Rights
59th session
24 April 2003
Morning




Commission Continues to Adopt Measures
on Specific Groups and Individuals,
Civil and Political Rights, Indigenous Issues



United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan this morning told the Commission on Human Rights that he hoped that a new era of human rights in Iraq would now begin with the end of the war. He stressed that Iraq should not distract the Commission from violations of human rights around the world which were intensifying.
Mr. Annan said that the Commission's current session had coincided with dramatic events on the world stage. He said that what all should hope was that a new era of human rights in Iraq would now begin with the end of the war. And here, in the first instance, the Secretary-General hoped the Coalition would set an example by making clear that they intended to act strictly within the rules set down by the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, and by demonstrating through their actions that they accepted the responsibilities of the Occupying Power for public order and safety, and the well-being of the civilian population.
The Secretary-General said that the decision to go to war without specific authorization by the Security Council had created deep divisions that would need to be bridged if one was to deal effectively, not just with the aftermath in Iraq, but with other major challenges on the international agenda. The threats to international peace and security of which the international community had become so much more acutely conscious in the last few years might require a searching review of the adequacy of existing instruments, with a view to coming up with a collective response.
"But let us not allow events in Iraq to distract us from what is happening in other parts of the world. There are many places where violence, chaos, oppression and the violation of human rights have intensified in the last few weeks and months", Mr. Annan added. The Ituri region in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where hundreds of people had been butchered in cold blood within the last few weeks, was only the most flagrant of those cases.
The Secretary-General said that this was a time when the mission of the Commission to promote and protect human rights in the widest sense was more important than ever and its responsibility to act was more urgent. And yet, divisions and disputes in recent months had made the Commission's voice not stronger, but weaker. The Commission's voice in the great debates about human rights was more muffled, not clearer. That should change if the Commission was to play the role intended for it, and if the cause of human rights was to be advanced in the broad and universal manner that all desired, Mr. Annan continued to state.
After hearing the statement of the Secretary-General, the Commission continued to take action on remaining draft resolutions under its agenda items on specific groups and individuals, civil and political rights, and indigenous issues.
Under its agenda item on specific groups and individuals, the Commission adopted without a vote a resolution on human rights and mass exoduses in which it called upon States, among other things, to ensure effective protection of refugees by, inter alia, respecting the principle of non-refoulement; and to ensure full, safe, unhindered access by humanitarian workers to displaced populations. Representatives of India and the United States took the floor on this resolution.
The Commission endorsed the decision of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to appoint Paulo Sergio Pinheiro as Special Rapporteur to carry out a comprehensive study of the topic.
Concerning civil and political rights, the Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 37 in favour, none against, and with 16 abstentions, a resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in which it stressed the importance of States taking effective measures to end impunity with regard to extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Pakistan, India, Argentina and the United States addressed the Commission on this resolution.
And a resolution on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance was adopted by a vote of 51 in favour, none opposed, and 2 abstentions. In the resolution, the Commission, among other things, urged States to take all necessary action to combat hatred, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance based on religion or belief; and to recognize the right of all persons to worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief and to establish and maintain places for these purposes. Representatives of the United States, Syria and Cuba took the floor on this resolution.
With regards to indigenous issues, the Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 34 in favour, to 15 against and 4 abstentions, a resolution on the Working Group on indigenous populations in which it noted that the respective mandates of the Working Group on indigenous populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people of the Commission were complementary and did not give rise to duplication. Australia, the United States, Ireland on behalf of the European Union, and Algeria made statements on this resolution.
The Commission also adopted without a vote a resolution on human rights and indigenous issues in which it requested the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of indigenous people to request, receive and exchange information on violations of the human rights of indigenous people, wherever they occurred. Cuba addressed the Commission on this resolution.
In another resolution, the Commission recommended that the Working Group of the Commission to elaborate a draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples to meet for 10 working days prior to the sixtieth session of the Commission. A Representative of the United States addressed the Commission on this resolution.
The Commission also recommended that the Economic and Social Council authorize the Working Group of indigenous populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to meet for five working days prior to the fifty-fifth session of the Sub-Commission. Cuba and the United States made statements on this resolution.
And after an extensive debate, the Commission adopted in a recorded vote of 34 in favour and 8 against, with 10 abstentions, a resolution in which it endorsed the decision of the Sub-Commission to appoint Erica-Irene A. Daes as Special Rapporteur to undertake a study on indigenous people's permanent sovereignty over natural resources. The United Kingdom, Cuba, Guatemala, China, Algeria, Indian, Syria, Pakistan, the United States and Germany made statements on this resolution.
When the Commission reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will continue to take action on remaining draft resolutions. The Commission will conclude its fifty-ninth session on Friday, 25 April.

Statement by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan
NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, welcomed the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, stating that he himself had often referred to Geneva as the city of human rights due to the critical role played by the Commission on Human Rights and its human rights mechanisms.
KOFI ANNAN, United Nations Secretary-General, said that the Commission's current session had coincided with dramatic events on the world stage. In the past few weeks, the international community had witnessed, often in real time, scenes so vivid that they would live in "our memories for the rest of our lives". He said war invariably brought with it suffering. It brought loss of life, surely the most basic of all human rights. Especially, the loss of innocent civilian life was to be mourned.
But whatever view might be taken of the war in Iraq, it was right to acknowledge that the international community had also witnessed scenes of jubilation at the fall of an oppressive regime. They were reminders that – as the High Commissioner for Human Rights said on 27 March – the human rights crisis in Iraq did not begin with that war.
Mr. Annan said that what all should hope was that a new era of human rights in Iraq would now begin, with the end of the war. And here, in the first instance, the Secretary-General hoped the Coalition would set an example by making clear that they intended to act strictly within the rules set down by the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, and by demonstrating through their actions that they accepted the responsibilities of the Occupying Power for public order and safety, and the well-being of the civilian population.
The Secretary-General said that the decision to go to war without specific authorization by the Security Council had created deep divisions that would need to be bridged if one was to deal effectively, not just with the aftermath in Iraq, but with other major challenges on the international agenda. The threats to international peace and security of which the international community had become so much more acutely conscious in the last few years might require a searching review of the adequacy of existing instruments, with a view to coming up with a collective response.
"But let us not allow events in Iraq to distract us from what is happening in other parts of the world. There are many places where violence, chaos, oppression and the violation of human rights have intensified in the last few weeks and months", Mr. Annan added.
The Ituri region in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where hundreds of people had been butchered in cold blood within the last few weeks, was only the most flagrant of those cases, Mr. Annan said.
"We are living through a time of global tensions and division, a time when states and peoples around the world are witnessing great upheavals in the global system, and in their own lives", the Secretary-General went on to say. War, terror and the threat of political violence had become a much greater part of many peoples' lives. Their human rights were under siege, their fundamental sense of security shaken. While some were concerned that human rights might fall victim to the dictates of security, others feared that focusing on violations in one or two places would be at the price of ignoring equally egregious breaches elsewhere. While some wished to focus on civil and political rights, others would like to see equal attention paid to economic, social and cultural rights, complaining bitterly that the right to vote was worth little if their children were hungry and did not have access to safe water.
"This is a time when your mission to promote and protect human rights in the widest sense is more important than ever, your responsibility to act more urgent", Mr. Annan said. And yet, divisions and disputes in recent months had made the Commission's voice not stronger, but weaker; the Commission's voice in the great debates about human rights more muffled, not clearer.
That should change, if the Commission was to play the role intended for it, and if the cause of human rights was to be advanced in the broad and universal manner that all desired, Mr. Annan continued to state. Inaction was not an option. The Commission should take a proactive approach if the wider agenda for human rights was to be realized everywhere.
Human rights -- whether they were civil, political, economic, social or cultural -- were universal, and by forging unity and determination in their defence, the Commission could set an example of common progress for the broader international community, he said. He did not wish to suggest that the divisions the international community faced were not serious. But he did believe that the cause of human rights had the potential to bridge those divisions and restore a sense of common purpose among States and nations.
The international community had to acknowledge that there were differences of opinion – held with conviction on both sides – on the manner, the pace and the scope of the effort to achieve human rights for all, the Secretary-General said. "What we do agree on is that human rights are universal and indivisible, and must be upheld with equal determination in every country. And that means looking beyond cultural differences -- to recognize, for example, that the rights of women on one continent are the rights of women on every continent."
Mr. Annan said that each country, and the Commission as a whole, should likewise sharpen the focus on monitoring and advancing human rights at the country level. The Commission could do that through greater support for the work of the Commission's special procedures, such as the special rapporteurs, independent experts, working groups and special representatives. The achievements of those procedures were, in many cases, remarkable, and should be built on.
In closing, Mr. Annan returned to a core principle that he had addressed in the Commission and other fora over the past few years: the idea that gross violations of human rights should not be allowed to stand. And that responsibility should be exercised equally and universally, whether the violators were rich or poor, strong or weak, developed or developing.
"When we speak of human rights, we must never forget that we are labouring to save the individual man, woman or child from violence, abuse and injustice", Mr. Annan said. Freedom from want and freedom from fear must go hand in hand. It was that perspective – the individual's – which should guide the Commission's work, and not the point of view of contending States. At the same time, all should recognize that for the individual's rights to be secured, States should act, to make those rights a reality for every citizen of every nation.

Action on Measure and Resolution on Specific Groups and Individuals
In a measure on housing and property restitution in the context of refugees and other displaced persons (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/46, Chapter I, draft decision 2), adopted without a vote, the Commission endorsed the decision of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to appoint Paulo Sergio Pinheiro as Special Rapporteur to carry out a comprehensive study of the topic.
In a resolution on human rights and mass exoduses (E/CN.4/2003/L.65), adopted without a vote, the Commission called upon all States to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms and in so doing to make a substantial contribution to addressing human rights situations that led to or resulted from mass exoduses and displacements; emphasized the responsibility of all States and international organizations to cooperate with those countries, particularly developing countries, affected by mass exoduses of refugees and displaced persons; called upon States to ensure effective protection of refugees by, inter alia, respecting the principle of non-refoulement; to ensure full, safe, unhindered access by humanitarian workers to displaced populations; to uphold the civilian and humanitarian character of asylum consistent with international law; and to protect and promote and respect the human rights of refugees and displaced women and children.
The Commission expressed its grave concern at allegations of sexual exploitation of and violence against refugees and internally displaced persons, condemned all instances of abuse and exploitation of such persons, and called on all relevant agencies to ensure the effective implementation and monitoring of the United Nations Inter-Agency Standing Committee Plan of Action on "Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in Humanitarian Crises" and other relevant codes of conduct; underscored the importance of so-called forgotten emergencies and called upon all States to promote conditions conducive to the voluntary return of refugees in safety and dignity; and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare an analytical report on measures taken to implement the present resolution.
A Representative of India said that the Commission was not the forum for this topic, particularly operative paragraphs 5, 8 and 11 which were within the jurisdiction of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The work of the Commission must not be overloaded with the work and responsibilities of other United Nations bodies and agencies. It was not clear why the Commission was considering this issue. It was hoped that the co-sponsors would keep this in mind for future years, to avoid hindering the consensus on this issue. India would not stand in the way for the consensus this year.
A Representative of the United States said that United States was pleased to support the draft resolution on human rights and mass exoduses. The United States believed that the relevant international instrument addressing many of the issues with which the resolution was concerned was the 1967 Protocol to the 1951 Convention. The applicability of the original 1951 Convention was limited in terms of both time and geography. Any substantive provisions of instruments that were pertinent to current refugee matters had been incorporated into the 1967 Protocol. Therefore the United States would continue to assert that. While calling upon governments to consider accession to and ratification of the 1967 Protocol was relevant, calls for the accession to or ratification of the 1951 Convention were now unnecessary. The United States rejected the assertion in this or any other measure that the United States or any other country now needed to ratify the 1951 Convention as was implied in operative paragraph 5.

Action on Resolutions on Civil and Political Rights
In a resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (E/CN.4/2003/L.57/Rev.1), adopted in a recorded vote of 37 in favour, none against, and 16 abstentions, the Commission called upon all States in which the death penalty had not been abolished to comply with their obligations as assumed under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments; stressed the importance of States taking effective measures to end impunity with regard to extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; commended the important role the Special Rapporteur continued to play towards the elimination of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; strongly urged all States to cooperate with and assist the Special Rapporteur so that her mandate might be carried out effectively; urged the Special Rapporteur to continue to draw to the attention of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights such situations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution as were of particularly serious concern to her or where early action might prevent further deterioration; and requested the Secretary-General to provide the Special Rapporteur with adequate human, financial and material resources in order to enable her to carry out her mandate effectively. The Commission decided to consider the question as a matter of priority at its sixtieth session.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (37): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.
Against (0)
Abstentions (16): Algeria, Bahrain, China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, and Viet Nam.
Earlier, the Commission, in a separate vote on operative paragraph 5, decided to retain the paragraph in a recorded vote of 27 in favour and 10 against, with 15 abstentions.
The result of the vote on operative paragraph 5 was as follows:
In favour (27): Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sweden, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Against (10): Algeria, Bahrain, Cameroon, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syrian Arab Republic.
Abstentions (15): Argentina, China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, India, Paraguay, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.
A Representative of Pakistan said that his delegation had made earnest efforts with the sponsors of the texts to try to bridge the differences between them. As indicated yesterday, the basic problem with the resolution was the listing of situations in operative paragraph 5 which included situations that were objectionable and excluded other situations of importance. The delegation of Pakistan called for a separate vote on operative paragraph 5.
A Representative of India said that a meeting had been scheduled this morning between the delegations of India, Sweden and Pakistan to try to bridge differences on operative paragraph 5 of L.57. Unfortunately, the last party was conspicuous by its absence. India announced that it would abstain in the vote on operative paragraph 5.
A Representative of Argentina said his delegation had traditionally voted in favour of the resolution and would continue to do the same this year. However, operative paragraph 5 of the text was not acceptable to the Argentinean delegation and it would abstain from voting on that paragraph.
A Representative of the United States said her country enthusiastically joined the co-sponsors in condemning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. However, the United States believed there should have been stronger language regarding the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. In the past, the Special Rapporteur had gone far beyond her mandate, including the questioning of capital and death penalty and the campaigning against the death penalty in countries where it existed. Despite this, the United States would support the resolution.
In a resolution on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance (E/CN.4/2003/L.58), adopted by a vote of 51 in favour, none opposed, and 2 abstentions, the Commission urged States to ensure that their constitutional and legislative systems provided adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief to all without distinction; to ensure that no one within their jurisdiction was deprived of the right to life or the right to liberty and security of person because of religion or belief; in conformity with international human rights standards, to take all necessary action to combat hatred, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance based on religion or belief; to recognize the right of all persons to worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief and to establish and maintain places for these purposes; encouraged the continuing efforts of the Special Rapporteur to examine incidents and governmental actions in all parts of the world that were incompatible with the provisions of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief; and requested the Special Rapporteur to submit an interim report to the General Assembly at its fifty-eighth session and to report to the Commission on Human Rights at its sixtieth session.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (51): Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.
Against (0)
Abstentions (2): Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, and Syrian Arab Republic.
Earlier the Commission adopted, by a vote of 25 in favour, 5 against with 22 abstentions, an amendment proposed by the United States to insert a new preambular paragraph 13 bis to read as follows: "recognizing with deep concern the overall rise in instances of intolerance directed against members of many religious communities in various parts of the world, including, inter alia, cases motivated by Islamaphobia and anti-Semitism".
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (25): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.
Against (5): Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Sierra Leone, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (22): Algeria, Bahrain, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Kenya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Thailand, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Viet Nam.
A Representative of the United States said that it withdrew the amendment yesterday and had proposed another amendment currently circulating before the Commission. The amendment would read "recognizing with deep concern the overall rise in instances of intolerance directed against members of many religious communities in various parts of the world, including, inter alia, causes motivated by Islamophobia and anti-Semitism".
A Representative of Syria said that the amendment was not a balanced one. It considered Islam and Semitism on equal footing, which was wrong. Islam was a religion while Semitism was not. "We are all Semites," he said. Syria would therefore reject the United States amendment.
A Representative of Cuba said that Cuba did not participate in the vote on the amendment since the only way to vote was to vote in favour. Cuba regretted attempts made to upset consensus on the resolution.
A Representative of Syria said that his delegation had always endeavored to vote in favour of this important resolution. However, the political game that had been played by one of the delegates and the resulting inclusion of an unbalanced paragraph forced him to ask for a recorded vote on the draft.

Action on Resolutions and Measure on Indigenous Issues
In a resolution on the Working Group on indigenous populations, (E/CN.4/2003/L.17), adopted in a roll-call vote of 34 in favour, 15 against and 4 abstentions, the Commission noted that the respective mandates of the Working Group on indigenous populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people of the Commission were complementary and did not give rise to duplication. The Commission was convinced of the continuing need for the Working Group on indigenous populations on account of its present mandate, which was distinct from those of the Permanent Forum and the Special Rapporteur. The Commission endorsed recommendations 5 and 8 of the Sub-Commission and recommended that the Economic and Social Council duly take into account the contents of the present resolution when carrying out its review of all existing mechanisms, procedures and programmes within the United Nations concerning indigenous issues.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (34): Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.
Against (15): Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.
Abstentions (4): Armenia, Cameroon, Malaysia, and Senegal.
A Representative Australia said that Australia, which accorded real importance to the review of all existing mechanisms, procedures and programmes within the United Nations relating to indigenous issues, was compelled to call a vote on L.17. The text of the draft was inappropriate as it sought to preempt the Economic and Social Council's review and present to that review a consensus position of the Commission which clearly did not exist. The Commission was not at this stage in a position to give that sort of direction to the review.
A Representative of the United States said that the Working Group had taken the responsibility of standard setting. Last year the Permanent Forum had met in New York. The Forum, with its mix of Governmental and Indigenous representatives, was a unique body from which indigenous experts could address the range of issues faced by indigenous people today – from human rights to economic development to the environment. The Forum was better placed to host the wide range of discussions than the Working Group, which was a subsidiary body of a subsidiary body. It was unlikely that the Working Group could contribute positively and constructively to the ongoing dialogue between indigenous people and States. The United States therefore believed that the Working Group must complete its work during its 2003 session. Passage of the resolution would put the international community farther from the goal of reaching such a consensus. The United States opposed the text and would vote no on the draft resolution.
A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union's Member States of the Commission, said that the European Union believed that promoting one specific view, as the draft resolution did, would pre-judge the outcome of the review soon to taken place. Therefore, as a matter of principle, the European Union would not act in contradiction to the decision of the Economic and Social Council and would vote against L.17.
A Representative of Algeria said that Algeria would support L.17 as it considered that the Working Group on indigenous populations had made possible the emergence of two new bodies and had carried out an in-depth study which was today on the agenda of the Commission. The Working Group had done remarkable work and had sensitized the international community to the problems facing indigenous people. For these reasons, Algeria would support the draft resolution.
In a resolution on human rights and indigenous issues (E/CN.4/2003/L.60), adopted without a vote, the Commission requested the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of indigenous people to request, receive and exchange information on violations of the human rights of indigenous people, wherever they occurred; invited the Special Rapporteur, in carrying out his tasks, to take into account all the recommendations of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Working Group on Indigenous Populations relevant to his mandate; requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to facilitate the attendance of the Special Rapporteur at the second annual session of the Permanent Forum; took note of the intention of the Office of the High Commissioner to organize a seminar on the administration of justice to assist the Special Rapporteur in examining the main topic of his annual report for 2004; and urged those States that had not yet done so to consider ratifying the 1989 Convention concerning indigenous and tribal peoples in independent countries (No.169).
A Representative of Cuba said that as in previous years, his delegation would vote in favour on this resolution. The work of the Special Rapporteur and the way in which it was dealt with in the resolution was worthy of merit. The Commission should unanimously support this resolution without passing to a vote.
In a resolution on the Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples in accordance with paragraph 5 of General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994 (E/CN.4/2003/L.69), adopted without a vote, the Commission recommended that the Working Group meet for 10 working days prior to the sixtieth session of the Commission; and requested the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group to undertake enquiries with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to determine the possibility of convening additional meetings of the Working Group, within existing resources, with a view to facilitating progress in drafting a declaration on the rights of indigenous people.
A Representative of the United States said that the United States supported the articulation of a strong declaration on the rights of indigenous people. Such a declaration must stand for the proposition that indigenous people had a right to manage their own local affairs. It must be unequivocally stated that the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous individuals must not be abridged. The Commission had met in Working Groups and in the Sub-Commission setting to consider a draft declaration for over ten years, and so far had only agreed on two of the 45 paragraphs. It was clear that there was no consensus among States and that the draft declaration offered by the Sub-Commission experts did not have a broad support among States. With two years to go before the end of the International Decade of the World's Indigenous People, time was growing short. States must now take on the responsibility to negotiate a declaration, which could be adopted by consensus. If States did not take up this challenge, the Decade would pass, no declaration would be agreed upon, and the current Sub-Commission draft would have no standing.
In a resolution on the Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and the International Decade of the World's Indigenous People (E/CN.4/2003/L.72), approved without a vote, the Commission recommended that the Economic and Social Council authorize the Working Group to meet for five working days prior to the fifty-fifth session of the Sub-Commission; requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in his capacity as Director of the Decade, to submit an updated annual report on the Decade to the Commission at its sixtieth session; emphasized the important role of international cooperation in promoting the goals and activities of the Decade; appealed to all in a position to do so to contribute to the Voluntary Fund for the Decade; encouraged Governments to support the Decade in consultation with indigenous people; and requested the High Commissioner to ensure that the indigenous people's unit in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was adequately staffed and resourced to enable the activities of the Decade to be effectively implemented.
A Representative of Cuba said that Cuba supported L.72 and thanked the delegation of New Zealand for the efforts it made to incorporate ideas contained in L.70 in L.72. Cuba suggested that the resolution be approved without a vote.
A Representative of the United States said it remained committed to working within the United Nations system to address the promotion and protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people. However, as stated previously, the United States remained convinced that the work of the Working Group must be concluded. The United States was convinced that the streamlining of mechanisms of the United Nations system was key in order for States to work among themselves, and with indigenous people and non-governmental organizations, to address the issues pertaining to indigenous people. In order to accomplish this goal the Working Group must complete its work.
In a measure on indigenous peoples' permanent sovereignty over natural resources, adopted in a recorded vote of 34 in favour and 8 against, with 10 abstentions, the Commission endorsed the decision of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to appoint Erica-Irene A. Daes as Special Rapporteur to undertake a study on the topic.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (34): Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.
Against (8): Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.
Abstentions (10): Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Ireland, Japan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Sweden, and Thailand.
Earlier, an amendment suggested by the United Kingdom, as contained in L.61, was rejected in a recorded vote of 16 in favour and 30 against, with 7 abstentions.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (16): Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.
Against (30): Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.
Abstentions (7): Cameroon, Paraguay, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Uganda.
A Representative of the United Kingdom said the delegation proposed an amendment due to its concern about the precedent being set by, and the longer-term implications of, the Commission mandating someone who was no longer a member of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to carry out a new study. The United Kingdom believed the draft decision brought into question the value of the elections for the Sub-Commission; undermined its own raison d'etre as a dedicated body of experts elected by the Commission to assist the Commission in its work; and had implications for its own methods of work. The amendment asked the Sub-Commission to reconsider its request.
A Representative of Cuba said his delegation could not agree with the amendment presented by the Representative of the United Kingdom. The amendment was, in practice, a no-action motion. Although she was not currently a member of the Sub-Commission, Mrs. Daes was an appropriate expert to carry out the work on the indigenous peoples' permanent sovereignty over natural resources. His delegation would reject the proposal of the Representative of United Kingdom. There were no legal provisions that prohibited the Special Rapporteur from doing the work. His delegation would request a recorded vote on the amendment and would vote against it.
A Representative of Guatemala said that appointing Mrs. Daes, who no longer a member of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, to carry out a study did not constitute a precedent and did not discredit the Sub-Commission. Guatemala believed that it was important to allow Mrs. Daes to carry on with her study since she was the most competent person to do the job. Consequently, Guatemala called on the United Kingdom to withdraw its amendment.
A Representative of the United Kingdom said that in relation to issues raised by Cuba, she pointed out that her proposed amendment had not been a no-action motion. With regards to remarks made by Guatemala, the instances referred to were those of members of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights who had not had time to finish their reports within the time of the mandate.
A Representative of China said that his delegation had listened attentively to the amendment of the United Kingdom's delegation. When the Sub-Commission proposed the appointment of Mrs. Daes to carry out the work, it was because of her expertise in indigenous matters. The proposal of the Sub-Commission should be respected. In the event the United Kingdom's proposal would be voted on, the Chinese delegation would vote against it.
A Representative of Algeria said that the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights had decided unanimously and democratically to appoint Mrs. Daes as a Special Rapporteur. She had worked for 18 years on issues pertaining to indigenous people. Algeria was of the opinion that it was important to use her capital of knowledge.
A Representative of India said that Mrs. Daes had been mandated by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to carry out her work. As a matter of principle, the Commission must not subvert the mandates of the Sub-Commission. He appealed to the Commission to let Mrs. Daes complete her work and suggested that the issues raised by the United Kingdom could be discussed intersessionally.
A Representative of Syria said that his delegation appreciated the work done by Mrs. Daes in the past; and for that reason his delegation would not accept the United Kingdom's proposal.
A Representative of Pakistan said that Pakistan held Mrs. Daes in great esteem for her contribution to the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous people. Consequently, Pakistan did not understand the difficulty in appointing Mrs. Daes as a Special Rapporteur. Mrs. Daes was the most qualified person to carry out the mandate.
A Representative of the United States said that the United States strongly supported the amendment of the United Kingdom and believed that the issue was becoming clouded in the room. It was not an issue of personality, but an issue of the Commission adhering to its own rules of procedures.
A Representative of Germany said that his delegation supported the proposal tabled by the United Kingdom's delegation. It was a question of principle and not a personal matter.
A Representative of Cuba said that the adoption of the Sub-Commission's decision would not be counter to the rules of procedure and he called on all Members to vote against the amendment presented by United Kingdom.



* *** *