FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON ANTI-PERSONNEL LAND-MINES ADOPTED BY REVIEW CONFERENCE ON INJURIOUS WEAPONS

7 May 1996

Press Release
DC/2556

FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON ANTI-PERSONNEL LAND-MINES ADOPTED BY REVIEW CONFERENCE ON INJURIOUS WEAPONS

19960507 States Parties to Convention End Three-Week Session in Geneva; Secretary-General Regrets Lack of Response to `Groundswell' for Total Ban

GENEVA, 3 May (UN Information Service) -- After more than two years of negotiations, the parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects this afternoon adopted new curbs on the use, production and transfer of anti-personnel land-mines.

At the end of the second resumed session of the Review Conference of the Convention, meeting in Geneva since 22 April, the 55 States parties adopted an amended Protocol II to the treaty prohibiting the use of non-detectable anti-personnel mines. They agreed that all mines produced after 1 January 1997 must contain at least eight grammes of iron or the equivalent to make them detectable. The scope of application of the Protocol has also been extended to cover armed internal conflicts.

Among the other main features of the revised Protocol are: prohibition of the use of mines designed to detonate during detection operations; prohibition of the use of any mine, booby-trap or other device designed, or of a nature to, cause superfluous injury; and restriction of the use of remotely delivered mines, which will have to be constructed so that they self-destruct within 30 days of emplacement with 90 per cent reliability.

Such mines must also have a "back-up self-deactivation feature" so that no more than one in 1,000 of them will be functional after 120 days. Mines delivered non-remotely outside marked areas also must adhere to these requirements, although if a party to the Protocol determines that it cannot immediately comply, it may declare that it will defer adherence with respect to older mines for a period not to exceed nine years.

The new restrictions will apply not only to States, but to "parties to a conflict". In another breakthrough, the parties to the Convention agreed that States that accepted the revised Protocol II would undertake not to transfer any mines prohibited by that instrument. In the way of monitoring compliance, States parties agreed to hold annual meetings to discuss implementation of the amended Protocol.

In their Final Declaration, States parties also agreed to hold the next Review Conference no later than 2001. It also had the parties express their satisfaction at the adoption of the new restrictions and solemnly declared their commitment to continue to strive for a complete ban on the transfer of all anti-personnel land-mines in the context of their eventual elimination.

Addressing the final meeting of the resumed session, Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali said the progress made at the Review Conference fell short of expectations. In a statement delivered by the Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, Vladimir Petrovsky, the Secretary-General welcomed the extension of the scope of the Convention and the inclusion of provisions restricting the transfer of mines and the clear attribution of responsibility for mine clearance, but he said the revised mines Protocol did not reflect the groundswell of international public opinion for banning land mines.

The view was echoed by a number of nationals and non-governmental delegates taking the floor this afternoon.

The President of the Review Conference, Johan Molander of Sweden, said it was inevitable that many at the Conference felt that not enough had been achieved. The amended Protocol represented the consensus of all States parties -- the growing number of those favouring an international ban and those of a different opinion. Still, the amended Protocol represented substantial progress when compared to its predecessor. Human lives would be spared, he added.

Final Declaration

In a Final Declaration, the High Contracting Parties to the Review Conference reaffirmed their conviction that a general and verifiable agreement on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons would significantly reduce the suffering of civilians and combatants. They, therefore, solemnly declared their conviction that States should strive towards the goal of the eventual elimination of anti-personnel land-mines, consistent with the terms of General Assembly resolution 50/70(O), as well as a complete ban on their transfer.

The Conference also attached importance to the earliest possible entry into force of the amended Protocol II and expressed its desire that all States, pending its entry into force, respect and ensure respect for the substantive provisions of the amended Protocol to the fullest extent possible. It was also agreed that nothing in amended Protocol II should be invoked as affecting the purposes and principles contained in the United Nations Charter.

- 3 - Press Release DC/2556 7 May 1996

Statement of Secretary-General

In his statement delivered to the Review Conference, Secretary-General BOUTROS BOUTROS-GHALI congratulated participants on the great efforts made in the course of a long and sometimes difficult process. In some respects, progress had been made. "But", the Secretary-General added, "I must register my deep disappointment that the progress achieved falls so far short of what I had hoped for at this Review Conference."

When the Review Conference convened in Vienna on 25 September 1995, only 14 countries were in favour of a total ban. Seven months later, this number had risen to 34, and it was increasing almost daily, thanks in large part to the work of the hundreds of non-governmental organizations of the International Campaign to Ban Land-mines. In that respect, the revised Mines Protocol did not reflect the groundswell of international public opinion. He found it disappointing that, for example, States which accepted binding obligations had not been able to agree on independent verification of their compliance. There would also be widespread disappointment that the international community recognized the need for the eventual elimination of anti-personnel mines, but was not ready to prohibit their supply.

With its many shortcomings, the amended Protocol still represented a step forward in the development of international humanitarian law, the Secretary-General said. Universality was essential, and he recommended all States to accede to the amended Protocol. The United Nations and its agencies would continue to work closely with non-governmental organizations worldwide to seek to ensure that humanitarian considerations, too often subordinated to military and geopolitical considerations, remained in the forefront of the minds of governments. The United Nations would continue to strengthen its programmes of humanitarian mine-clearance in affected countries -- they required increased human, financial and technical support from all governments.

The impact land-mines were having, both on the civilian population and on the economy as a whole in affected countries, was so appalling, he said, so devastating, that a total ban on all anti-personnel mines was the only solution. That must be the aim of the next Review Conference.

Other Statements

JOHAN MOLANDER (Sweden), President of the Review Conference, said over two years of hard work and negotiations were coming to a close. Negotiations might seem to have been about weapons and legal procedures. Surely, that was part of the picture. But at a more fundamental level, they had been negotiations about human values -- about innocent women and children falling prey to indiscriminate warfare. The truest test of the Conference's success would be whether it would contribute to limiting that moral and humanitarian

- 4 - Press Release DC/2556 7 May 1996

affront. He remained convinced that the only viable long-term solution to the land-mine disaster would be a comprehensive international ban on all anti-personnel mines.

It was inevitable that many at the Conference felt that not enough had been achieved, he went on. The amended Protocol represented the consensus of all States parties -- the growing number of those favouring an international ban and those that were of a different opinion. Still, the amended Protocol represented substantial progress as compared to the old one. All the new provisions taken together represented significant humanitarian progress. Human lives would be spared.

Two major tasks lay ahead, Mr. Molander said: ensuring universality and compliance. Difficult compromises had been made, but the road was still ahead. The land-mine catastrophe continued to require urgent attention and action. "Its victims are ultimately, and in a deeper sense, our constituency", he concluded.

ANDREA PERUGINI (Italy), speaking on behalf of the European Union, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and the Slovak Republic, said the Union had, over the last few years, redoubled its efforts to combat the severe consequences caused to civilians by the indiscriminate use of land-mines, in particular, anti-personnel mines. In order to confirm its commitment to the objective of a strengthened Protocol II, the Union had adopted a joint action in May last year through which member States undertook to promote the universal nature of the 1980 Convention. In a number of important areas, progress had been made, and some of the objectives set out had been achieved. Nevertheless, the results of the Conference fell short in some important respects. The initial aim of a substantially strengthened Protocol II had only been partially achieved.

MARIA FRANCISCA ARIAS (Colombia), Coordinator of the Non-Aligned Movement and other Observer States, said the adoption of amended Protocol II and of Protocol IV were major steps forward towards strengthening international law and might give greater incentive to universal ratification of the Convention.

ADRIANO A. TEIXEIRA PARREIRA (Angola) said his Government was deeply concerned about the meagre results attained by the Review Conference. It seemed as though the governments of countries producing and selling such weapons were not willing to consider that the total ban on their production, export and use was the only effective solution to the humanitarian catastrophe they were causing all over the third world. Angola deplored that the Review Conference had not brought about substantial positive changes to the Convention; that no feasible mechanism for verification of the restrictions imposed on the utilization of anti-personnel land-mines had been set up; and

- 5 - Press Release DC/2556 7 May 1996

that the security and protection of civilian populations had not been safeguarded.

JOELLE BOURGOIS (France) said it was true that the amended version of Protocol II fell short of ambitions and of the ideals shared by representatives of countries, non-governmental organizations, humanitarian workers, mine clearers, mine victims and their families. However, the gains were substantial. The mechanism for consultation and the commitment to reconvene in five years demonstrated that participants were well aware of what was at stake. But efforts to eliminate the land-mine plague would not achieve full fruition before the adoption of a verifiable international agreement on the total elimination of anti-personnel mines. France declared itself today in favour of the total elimination of anti-personnel land-mines.

OCTAVIO NETO VALERIO (Portugal) said his Government today had announced that it was joining international efforts for a total ban on anti-personnel land-mines. Portugal's own land-mine stockpiles were being progressively destroyed. Portugal reserved the right to change its position in exceptional circumstances, maintaining strict respect for the laws governing armed conflict, including Protocol II.

MARK J. MOHER (Canada) said Canada's belief that the objective of the international community should be the elimination of anti-personnel land-mines had been reinforced by the Government's decision on 17 January to declare an indefinite moratorium on the production, export and operational use of those weapons. The overall objective, then, was the elimination of anti-personnel mines. The objective of the Conference had been more limited. Against that yardstick, the Review Conference had made significant progress. It was not a perfect outcome, but the best that could be achieved. Canada would host a meeting this September for Government and non-governmental organizations which supported a comprehensive ban on all land-mines.

JOSE VIEGAS (Brazil) said the results of the Review Conference could not fully satisfy all parties concerned. It was, of course, possible to find deficiencies in the text of Protocol IV on blinding laser weapons agreed at the Review Conference session in Vienna and on amended Protocol II. The work must be seen in the perspective of the continuing suffering of millions of people whose lives were constantly threatened by land-mines. It was now necessary to build on the political consciousness the Conference had raised and concentrate future efforts on practical matters such as dramatically increasing capabilities for mine clearance.

RAKESH SOOD (India) said extending the scope of the land-mines Protocol to internal armed conflicts without a comprehensive ban only served to legitimize the use of "smart" mines and was of limited utility. Moreover, more and more mines being produced today were remotely delivered mines. That was why the Indian delegation had consistently called for a complete ban on

- 6 - Press Release DC/2556 7 May 1996

the use of remotely delivered mines. Mere technical fixes related to self-destruction and self-deactivation were not enough. What was needed was resolute political will to prohibit the use of those weapons. India proposed a ban on all transfers of all land-mines.

SHA ZUKANG (China) said China had consistently supported humanitarian efforts by the international community to prevent casualties of civilians caused by land-mines and favoured the imposition of further and appropriate restrictions on the use of land-mines, especially anti-personnel mines. During the Review Conference, China had declared its commitment to ban the export of booby-traps and would implement a moratorium on its export of anti-personnel land-mines which did not meet the technical specifications on detectability, self-destruction and self-deactivation provided for by Protocol II. However, a balance must be struck between humanitarian considerations and legitimate self-defence requirements.

PETER POPTCHEV (Bulgaria), speaking as Coordinator of East European countries, said that while much was left to be desired of the two new Protocols from the humanitarian point of view, the international community should be aware of the fact that the Eastern and Central European States had substantially contributed to those features of the work of the Review Conference which could safely be considered as important improvements in the international regulations concerning anti-personnel mines and laser blinding weapons. He was pleased to announce that the Government of Bulgaria had decided to impose a unilateral moratorium on the export of anti-personnel mines, effective immediately and to last until April 1999.

LUCIUS CAFLISCH (Switzerland), reviewing the progress made since the ratification of the 1980 Convention, said the international community had been able to anticipate developments in the field of armaments with the adoption of Protocol IV. The very act of being able to amend Protocol II was also cause for hope. But the international community should continue to work for a total ban on anti-personnel mines. The agreements reached at Geneva were but a stage in the long march towards that goal.

PAUL DUHR (Luxembourg) noted with satisfaction that after two hard working weeks, a large number of countries had adopted measures to enable the international community to restrict suffering caused daily by anti-personnel mines. Luxembourg had declared a full moratorium on the production, transfer, stockpiling and employment of anti-personnel mines. The Luxembourg army was abandoning those weapons; existing stocks would be destroyed.

CAROLINE FORSYTH (New Zealand) said her delegation regretted the lengthy deferral periods agreed to in cases where States were unable to comply with requirements on detectability, self-destruction and deactivation. The Review Conference also had not dealt satisfactorily with the problems associated with anti-tank mines, in particular remotely delivered anti-tank mines fitted with

- 7 - Press Release DC/2556 7 May 1996

anti-handling devices. Moreover, the article adopted on compliance was too weak. A total ban was the only measure which would, over time, put an end to the suffering and misery caused by land mines.

GOMEZ ROBLEDO (Mexico) said the Review Conference had not been able to adopt provisions to completely ban the transfer of mines. Self-detection and self-deactivation discouraged the production of cheap mines and promoted expensive mines. In short, the provisions would not significantly reduce the suffering of civilian populations. In endorsing the new Protocol Mexico, was aware that it was the very minimum that was possible. At no time could it be considered that the adoption of the Protocol signified that there could ever be any legitimate use of land-mines. Mexico would continue to strive for a complete ban on mines.

NEVEN MADEY (Croatia) said everyone was aware that the provisions of Protocol II had become obsolete due to changes in technology and to new developments in international relations that could not have been foreseen at the time the Convention was being elaborated. He attached special importance to the fact that many countries -- 34 so far -- had declared their commitment to a comprehensive ban on all land-mines. That showed their readiness to address growing humanitarian concerns; it was hoped other States would follow suit in the near future. For its part, Croatia had now announced a moratorium on the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of all anti-personnel land- mines. That should be viewed as a contribution from a country with the tragic experience of a recent aggression which desired to reduce the suffering of innocent civilians in any conflict.

HISAMI KUROKOCHI (Japan) said she hoped that strict compliance with amended Protocol II by all States would save numerous civilians from needless death and injury. However, participants of the Conference should not allow themselves to be complacent. A challenging task still lay ahead. It was to be hoped that the first annual meeting of High Contracting Parties would be held at an early date. It could serve as a useful vehicle to further discuss issues which had been raised in the Review Conference. Japan had contributed close to $25 million to United Nations mine-clearance activities.

BARON ALAIN GUILLAUME (Belgium) said Belgium had been the first country to declare anti-personnel mines outside the law. The Belgian army had already started to dismantle its stocks. Belgium had thereby set an example for other States. It was sad that hopes for the Conference had been dashed, although if amended Protocol II was compared to the 1980 text, it became clear that there had been improvements.

RONALD WALKER (Australia) said the amended Protocol II did not ban anti-personnel mines and did not go as far in the area of interim protection for civilians as many would have wished. While that was disappointing, the amended Protocol could still be welcomed as an important first step on the

- 8 - Press Release DC/2556 7 May 1996

road to a legally binding global ban -- a step with real, practical and immediate benefits which could be built upon. A small number of States parties had considered it necessary to insist on retaining the option of availing themselves of a long phase-in period for the technical standards on detectability and which limited longevity. Australia regretted that that had been a pre-condition for agreement. It hoped very few, if any, States parties would avail themselves of that option.

ANNE ANDERSON (Ireland) said the amended Protocol II represented a significant advance on the 1980 text; those achievements should not be undervalued. Every step mattered, every life saved as a result of that work was immensely worthwhile. But a 1996 Protocol should reflect a post-cold-war world, a world which time and again had seen the devastating effects of land- mines. It was hard to recognize such a world in the text agreed today. Ireland had acquiesced in the outcome of the text of Protocol II because it had come to accept that it represented the outside limit of what was possible to secure on a consensus basis.

HRYSCHENKO KONSTANTIN (Ukraine) said the Review Conference had managed to reach a compromise text for Protocol II, but it was too far from meeting the objectives of many States or the aspirations of millions of people all over the world. Verification mechanisms for compliance with the provisions of the Protocol were still missing. None the less, important steps had been taken. Ukraine was actively engaged in reducing its stockpiles of anti- personnel mines; it did not rule out a complete ban on their production.

JACQUELINE AQUILINA (Malta) said her Government had declared its support for a total ban on anti-personnel land-mines. It was also totally committed to the immediate and total elimination of anti-personnel land-mines. States that had not yet ratified the Convention should do so as soon as possible with a view to achieving a total prohibition on those mines at the next Review Conference.

MALIK AZHAR ELLAHI (Pakistan) said each country participating in the negotiations for the amended Protocol II had been expected to make concessions in order to achieve consensus. Pakistan had contributed in full measure to that endeavour. The Government had decided to freeze an entire programme of production of a category of remotely delivered mines which, in its assessment, would not be able to conform to the technical requirements of Protocol II. Instructions had also been issued to cease production of non-detectable mines. Pakistan would achieve the required standards of the Technical Annex of Protocol II regarding detectability much earlier than the permitted deferral period.

EUMELIO CABALLERO (Cuba) said his country attached particular importance to amended Protocol II, which would allow the international community to respond to humanitarian needs. Cuba welcomed the amendments, although it

- 9 - Press Release DC/2556 7 May 1996

would have wished to see an international commitment to a total ban on remotely delivered mines. Cuba was also worried at the small number of countries that had ratified the Convention. Cuba manufactured mines only as far as required for the defence of the country; it did not export those weapons.

MARIA THERESA P. LAZARO (Philippines) said the Philippines continued to hold to the ideal of a total ban on land mines, although it remained perfectly aware that only realistic international cooperation would achieve that objective. A total ban was the only solution.

ANDRES CARRASCOSA-COSO (Holy See) welcomed calls for a total ban on anti-personnel mines or for at least a moratorium on their production. He recalled that Pope John Paul II had called for a ban.

ROMY TINCOPA (Peru) said the amended Protocol represented an important result in terms of humanitarian law; it would serve to prevent death and casualties. But far from being exhausted, the subject needed follow-up and development. Peru welcomed the commitment of some countries to ban the use of land-mines.

ANDREI SANNIKAU (Belarus) said the text of Protocol II was a delicate balance of competing requirements -- it represented reality and the ability of countries to implement it. For its part, Belarus had recently declared a moratorium on the export of mines.

MICHAEL H. MATHESON (United States) said the Review Conference could take satisfaction that it had finally arrived at a result representing genuine humanitarian progress. Protocol II was a significant improvement over the former text and would, if widely observed, result in a substantial decrease in civilian casualties caused by the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines. The revised Protocol did not include all improvements favoured by the United States, however. In particular, it did not include a mechanism for compliance investigations nor did it impose adequate restrictions on certain types of anti-tank mines, particularly non-detectable anti-tank mines that posed special risks to civilians or mine-clearance personnel.

SUANA RIVERO (Uruguay) said that since the outset of the review of the Convention, Uruguay had made known its opposition to the use of mines and other weapons that unjustly took the lives of innocent people. That was why it was committed to a total ban on anti-personnel mines.

ANDREW G. MICHIE (South Africa) said the South African Government supported efforts to achieve an international prohibition on the production, stockpiling, transfer and use of anti-personnel land-mines. The Government had also decided unilaterally to suspend the operational use of anti-personnel land-mines by the South African National Defence Force; and to replace its

- 10 - Press Release DC/2556 7 May 1996

moratorium on the export of land-mines with a prohibition on the export of all types of land-mines.

GORDON B. REDD (United Kingdom) said the sentiments of his Government had been eloquently expressed by the representative of Italy speaking on behalf of the European Union. Although the text of Protocol II had fallen short of high expectations, it would, none the less, have an impact. On 23 April 1996, the Government of the United Kingdom had joined the growing number of countries committed to a ban on anti-personnel land-mines.

SAM SOTHA (Cambodia) said over 30 countries had called for a total ban on all anti-personnel mines. As a country that had suffered from them, Cambodia called on all States to join a total ban on production, transfer, use and stockpiling of anti-personnel mines of any type. He asked the nations of the world to heed the cry of the people: no more mines -- whether "smart" or "dumb".

HUMAYUN TINDER (Afghanistan) said the victims of land-mines would doubtless look at the outcome of the Review Conference and say that the atrocities of their amputations and the distress of their lives had not penetrated the hearts and minds of some States. There were now more than 15 million mines on the territory of Afghanistan; the Government was grateful to the United Nations and States which had assisted Afghanistan with its mines clearance problem. But his delegation had been depressed after hearing what had been said during the Review Conference. The results had been meagre and it was necessary to express regret at least for the victims. Only one solution would satisfy the Government of Afghanistan: a total ban on the manufacture, export, use and stockpiling of anti-personnel mines.

W. EHRLICH (Austria) fully supported the comments made by the representative of Italy on behalf of the European Union. Austria had been one of the first countries to impose a moratorium on the use of land- mines. The Austrian armed forces had now destroyed their stockpiles of those weapons.

CLOVIS KHOURY (Syria) said States that had laid mines, booby-traps and other devices should themselves be responsible for mine clearance once conflicts were over, in accordance with articles 5 and 10 of the amended Protocol II. His delegation considered that any interpretation of the contents of the articles which ran counter to clearly defined accountability would be a step away from the humanitarian objectives of the Conference.

MARGARETHA WAHLSTROM, of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, asked: "What do you tell a Red Cross volunteer whose colleague died on an anti-personnel mine while trying to help others?" And, she said, what did that volunteer tell refugees who wanted to return to their mine-infested countries, as was the case in Bosnia, Angola, Somalia, Cambodia, Afghanistan and so many other countries where mines had become a central issue

- 11 - Press Release DC/2556 7 May 1996

in the rehabilitation and development of the country. The next Review Conference must ban all anti-personnel mines.

ERIC ROETHLISBERGER, of the International Committee of the Red Cross, said several of the measures adopted by the Conference were of particular importance, including the extension of the scope of Protocol II to include non-international armed conflicts and the clear assignment of responsibility for mine clearance. The introduction of articles on transfers in Protocols II and IV were important steps in the development of humanitarian law. However, the limitations adopted on the use of land-mines were woefully inadequate in that they would encourage the production, transfer and use of a new generation of mines while not prohibiting any existing types other than non-detectable anti-personnel mines.

SALLY CURRY, of the International Association "For Humanity's Future", said the Review Conference had dealt exclusively with "restrictions", not "prohibitions". Yet, it was well-known that legal prohibition provided a legal basis for effective monitoring, controlling and stopping of the production, transfer and use of weapons. That had been confirmed by the example of chemical weapons. That practical approach had been totally ignored. That was because in spite of many solemn declarations in support of human rights, the rights of the child, and the social and economic development of "less developed" countries, the great Powers, which clearly determined the course of the Review Conference, did not have the political will to place humanitarian criteria and development above geo-political and military considerations.

SUSAN B. WALKER, of the International Campaign to Ban Land-Mines, said the land-mine problem was not a "modest" one -- it was a global crisis that demanded urgent and bold action. In that respect, governments had failed miserably. How could one tell the millions of people around the world whose lives had been destroyed by anti-personnel land-mines that they must now wait through a "transition" period of a decade or more before "modest" new restrictions came into place? Governments said over and over again that that was the best they could do. But the 1996 version of the Convention failed to meet its own standards and purposes. Rather than put anti-personnel land- mines outside the law, the governments and military had laboured long and hard to maintain leeway for anti-personnel land-mines -- and they had succeeded. That diplomatic success was the failure of the Convention's regime on land- mines.

Also speaking on behalf of the International Campaign to Ban Land-Mines, TUN CHANNARETH, a Cambodian mine victim, told participants: "Please go back to your own countries and work for a total ban there. Please go back to your own countries and ask them to give money to de-mining. Please go back to your countries and use your minds to solve the problems of poverty." "First, let

- 12 - Press Release DC/2556 7 May 1996

us remove mines from our hearts. Then let us remove them from the world", he added.

CHRIS MOON, speaking as a victim of a land-mine while working for a charity in Africa, said he accepted his misfortune with good grace because he had chosen to run humanitarian mine-clearance teams. People living in mined areas had no choice and frequently no voice. He challenged members of the Review Conference to regard the Convention not as an end but as a beginning.

Background on Review Conference

The General Assembly in 1993 called on Member States of the United Nations, regardless of whether they were parties to the Convention's land-mines Protocol, to establish a moratorium on the export of mines. To date, 30 States have responded by enacting total or partial temporary export bans.

During its first meeting, held from 25 September to 13 October 1995, in Vienna, the Review Conference adopted "Protocol IV" banning the use and transfer of blinding laser weapons. However, despite considerable efforts by the participants at the Conference, it was impossible, in the time available, to reach final agreement on provisions that would further strengthen Protocol II of the Convention by restricting the production, sale and use of land- mines, due to the number of new proposals and positions that were advanced. The States parties, therefore, agreed to continue their work at sessions in Geneva from 15 to 19 January and from 22 April to 3 May 1996.

At the resumed session in January, the Conference concentrated on further consideration of articles 2 to 7 of Protocol II on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of mines, booby-traps and other devices and its Technical Annex, in particular, as regards their military-technical aspects.

Officers of Conferences and States Parties to Convention

Mr. Molander of Sweden was the President of the Review Conference. Sohrab Kheradi, Deputy Director of the United Nations Centre for Disarmament Affairs, was its Secretary-General. The Conference also had 10 Vice-Presidents from the following States parties: Austria, China, France, India, Mexico, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Tunisia, Ukraine and the United States.

As of 3 May 1996, there were 55 States parties to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. They are as follows: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Pakistan,

- 13 - Press Release DC/2556 7 May 1996

Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay and Yugoslavia. Togo and Uganda have accepted and acceded to, respectively, the Convention. In accordance with the provisions of the Convention, they will become parties to it six months after the date on which they deposited their instrument of accession.

States Calling for Comprehensive Ban on Anti-Personnel Land-Mines

According to Human Rights Watch, the following States have, at various times, called for a comprehensive ban on anti-personnel land-mines: Afghanistan, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Colombia, Congo, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Honduras, Holy See, Iceland, Ireland, Jamaica, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and Uruguay.

* *** *