THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES REMAINING TEXTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS, INCLUDING DRAFTS ON IRAN, NIGERIA

29 November 1996

Press Release
GA/SHC/3408

THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES REMAINING TEXTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS, INCLUDING DRAFTS ON IRAN, NIGERIA

19961129 Also Approves Draft on Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) this morning approved draft resolutions on the human rights situation in Iran, Nigeria, and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), as well as on strengthening the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights/Centre for Human Rights.

The draft resolution on the human rights situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) was approved by a vote of 131 in favour to 1 against (Russian Federation), with 20 abstentions (Annex II).

Before approving the draft, the Committee rejected a proposed amendment by the Russian Federation by a vote of 90 against to 4 in favour (Azerbaijan, China, India and Russian Federation), with 43 abstentions (Annex I).

According to the terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would call on all States and the parties to the Dayton Peace Agreement to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and ensure that persons it indicts stand trial. It would also call for the Dayton Agreement to be implemented fully and consistently and for the parties to determine the fate of missing persons, particularly near Srebrenica, Zepa, Prijedor, Sanski Most and Vukovar.

The text calls for the Croatian Government to respect the rights of any national, ethnic, religious or linguistic minority; to allow the expeditious return of all refugees and displaced persons; to secure their safety and human rights; and to investigate and arrest those responsible for violence and intimidation aimed at driving people away.

By the draft, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) would be called on to immediately allow all residents in Kosovo to participate fully in the region's political, economic, social, and cultural life and guarantee them equal treatment and protection regardless of ethnic affiliation.

Third Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

By the terms of another draft, the Assembly would urge the Iranian Government to abide by its obligations under the International Human Rights Covenants and other human rights instruments, and ensure that all individuals, including members of religious groups and persons belonging to minorities, enjoyed all the rights enshrined in those instruments. The Assembly would call on the Government to implement existing agreements with international humanitarian organizations and the Special Rapporteur's conclusions and recommendations on religious intolerance relating to the Baha'is and other minority religious groups, including Christians. The Committee approved the text by a vote of 78 in favour to 26 against, with 49 abstentions. (See Annex III.)

The Committee approved a draft resolution on the human rights situation in Nigeria by a vote of 86 in favour to 14 against, with 56 abstentions. (See Annex IV.) According to its terms, the Assembly would express deep concern about violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country and call on the Government to release all political prisoners, guarantee freedom of the press and ensure respect for the rights of all individuals, including people belonging to minorities.

The Nigerian Government would be asked to ensure trials were held in strict conformity with international human rights instruments and abide with its treaty obligations. The text also called on the Government to implement, without delay, its interim undertakings to the Secretary-General and to respond to the recommendations of his mission to Nigeria.

According to the terms of a draft resolution on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights/Centre for Human Rights, approved without a vote, the Assembly would ask the Secretary-General to enhance the capability of the High Commissioner and the Centre to carry out their mandates and coordinate activities efficiently with other United Nations departments and agencies. It would fully support the Secretary-General's and High Commissioner's restructuring of the Centre to improve its efficiency and effectiveness. The High Commissioner would be asked to continue to regularly inform Member States and exchange views with them on the Centre's restructuring through informal, open briefing sessions.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. today to act on its proposed programme of work for 1997-1998.

Committee Work Programme

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) was scheduled to take action this morning on the following draft resolutions.

A text on strengthening the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights/Centre for Human Rights (document A/C.3/51/L.39/Rev.1) would have the General Assembly ask the Secretary-General to enhance the capability of the High Commissioner and the Centre to effectively fulfil their mandates and their ability to carry out mandated operational activities and to coordinate efficiently with other departments of the Secretariat, as well as other elements of the United Nations system. It would also fully support the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner in their efforts to strengthen the human rights activities of the United Nations through reorganization of the structure of the Centre to improve its efficiency and effectiveness.

Programme budget implications for the draft resolution are contained in a statement of the Secretary-General (document A/C.3/51/L.51). Regarding operative paragraphs 2 and 3 of the draft, the statement says that the General Assembly had decided that the amounts under expenditure sections represented a provisional total of $2,712,265,200, and that the projected level of savings to be achieved during the biennium would be $103,991,200. The Assembly further decided that the total level of expenditures provided for in 1996-1997 would be $2,608,274,000. The Secretary-General's report to the General Assembly which identifies reductions required to the 1996-1997 budget to bring it to $2.608 million is currently under consideration by the Fifth Committee, which will decide on the reduction required among the various sections of the programme budget.

The draft is sponsored by Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Venezuela.

By the terms of a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran (document A/C.3/51/L.41/Rev.1), the Assembly would urge the Government of Iran, as a State party to the International Covenants of Human Rights, to abide by its freely undertaken obligations under the Covenants and under other international instruments of human rights, and to ensure that all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction, including members of

Third Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

religious groups and persons belonging to minorities, enjoy all the rights enshrined in those instruments.

The Assembly would call on the Government to implement existing agreements with international humanitarian organizations and the Special Rapporteur's conclusions and recommendations on religious intolerance relating to the Baha'is and to other minority religious groups, including Christians.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

By the terms of a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Nigeria (document A/C.3/51/L.53/Rev.1), the Assembly would call on the Nigerian Government to: ensure that trials were held in strict conformity with the international human rights instruments to which Nigeria is a party; abide by its freely undertaken obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other human rights instruments; implement fully and without further delay its interim undertakings to the Secretary-General; and respond in full to the recommendations of the Secretary-General's mission to Nigeria.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

By the terms of a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) (document A/C.3/51/L.68), the Assembly would urgently call on all States and parties to the Dayton Peace Agreement to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, particularly by ensuring that persons indicted by the Tribunal stand trial. It would call for the full and consistent implementation of the Dayton accords and for the parties to determine the fate of missing persons, particularly near Srebrenica, Zepa, Prijedor, Sanski Most and Vukovar. The Assembly would also call on the Peace Implementation Meeting, to be held in London on 6 December 1996, to ensure human rights promotion was a central element in the new civilian structure implementing the Peace Agreement.

The Government of Croatia would be called on to fully respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the rights of persons belonging to any national, ethnic, religious or linguistic minority; to allow the

Third Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

expeditious return of all refugees and displaced persons; to secure their safety and human rights; and to investigate and arrest those responsible for violence and intimidation aimed at driving people away.

It would call on the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to immediately allow all residents in Kosovo to participate fully in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the region; to guarantee them equal treatment and protection regardless of ethnic affiliation; to make greater efforts to institute democratic norms; to revoke all discriminatory legislation; to apply other legislation without discrimination; and to prevent arbitrary evictions, dismissals and discrimination against any ethnic or national, religious and linguistic group.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Monaco, Morocco, New Zealand, Pakistan, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovenia, Tunisia, Turkey and the United States.

Action on Draft Resolutions

The Committee took action on a draft resolution on strengthening of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights/Centre for Human Rights.

The representative of Ireland read out the following amendments to the text:

-- operative paragraph 6 should read: "Emphasizes the need for full participation of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights/Centre for Human Rights in all mechanisms related to the follow-up to major United Nations conferences, in particular the Inter-Agency Task Forces established for this purpose";

-- operative paragraph 7 should read: "Requests the High Commissioner to continue to provide information on, and exchange views with, all States, on a regular basis on the ongoing process of restructuring the Centre, inter alia, through informal open briefing sessions".

He also said Cyprus, Peru, United States and Japan had been added to the list of co-sponsors. San Marino, Andorra, Republic of Moldova, Ukraine, Marshall Islands and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia also asked to be listed as co-sponsors.

The representative of Zambia said she had participated in the 1993 negotiations in which the post of High Commissioner for Human Rights was created. It was made clear that the High Commissioner would maintain a

Third Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

dialogue with States on human rights and that the High Commissioner was, therefore, designated the official with the principal responsibility for human rights activities throughout the United Nations system. There was overwhelming support for the creation of this post as a political office and equally strong support to have the Centre be maintained as a separate entity with its own mandate. There was no consensus to combine the mandates of these two entities; they were not one and the same. The Centre identity and mandate should be kept distinct and separate. She said there were still problems to be resolved regarding the mandate and responsibilities of the High Commissioner; however, the use of the term "Office of High Commissioner/Centre for Human Rights" was not a solution to these problems and was ill-advised. And it was this type of approach that was undermining the Office of the High Commissioner. The entire United Nations family should feel a sense of ownership of this office, and any exercise undertaken in the strengthening of the Office of the High Commissioner should be objective and based on genuine consensus, so the end-product would have the support of the entire Organization.

The representative of Nicaragua said that the international community had two valuable and important instruments in the field of human rights in the High Commissioner and the Centre. There should be measures taken to strengthen both bodies so their mandates could be carried out with the appropriate structure and funding. The right to development should also be fully considered, as stated in the second preambular paragraph of the draft resolution.

The representative of the Philippines said her Government expressed full confidence in the High Commissioner for Human Rights, who had done a marvellous job in the face of insurmountable odds. It was the moral obligation of all States to see to it that he was able to perform his functions and to express confidence in his abilities.

The representative of Costa Rica said she fully agreed with the comments made by both Nicaragua and the Philippines.

The Committee approved the draft resolution, as orally amended, without a vote.

The representative of the Russian Federation said his Government had not wished to disrupt the consensus that was reached traditionally on human rights issues. However, he recalled the position that the Russian Federation had taken on this issue in a series of statements on agenda items. The over- optimistic assessments of the activities of the High Commissioner were not soundly based. His Government would be carefully watching the activities of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and assess them not on the text of draft resolutions, but in terms of the real state of affairs. He called on other delegation to do the same.

Third Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

The Committee then took action on a draft resolution on the human rights situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).

The representative of the United States read out two revisions to the text as follows:

-- a new third preambular paragraph would read "reaffirming the territorial integrity of all States in the region within their internationally recognized borders";

-- the beginning of operative paragraph 24 should read "demands that the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in particular the Republic of Srpska and the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) ensure full ...".

The Russian Federation said that at its last meeting on Wednesday, the Committee was ready to take action. He asked for clarification on the proposed revisions. Were they permitted?

Committee Chairperson PATRICIA ESPINOSO (Mexico) said that under the rules of procedure the co-sponsors could propose any revisions to the text up until the time of voting.

The Russian Federation said the United States' proposal was a reaction to his delegation's amendment and he wanted his amendment put to the vote before any other proposal was considered.

The representative of the United States said he supported the opinion of the Chairperson. The amendment had been read out and the meeting suspended so consultations could take place. The revisions were part of the draft resolution. He asked if the Russian Federation's proposed amendment was the one read out on Wednesday or this morning?

The representative of the Netherlands said procedural matters were always puzzling and rather awkward. He asked that the proposals be laid on the table. One delegation had expressed doubts about the draft resolution and the main sponsor had made very substantial efforts to address those concerns. Did the revisions address the concerns of the Russian Federation and, if not, would he say what they were? If they had been addressed, it would be logical to express appreciation and then the draft could be acted on.

The Russian Federation expressed gratitude to the representative of the Netherlands for his constructive suggestion. He then read out the proposed amendment:

Third Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

"Reaffirming the territorial integrity of the Republic of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia within internationally recognized borders;"

The representative of Pakistan said the meeting had been suspended on Wednesday and the co-sponsors had made revisions which addressed the concerns of the Russian Federation, whom he asked to show flexibility by withdrawing its proposed amendment and going along with the co-sponsors' efforts to address the issue comprehensively.

The representative of Egypt said it was inappropriate for delegates to bargain as if they were in a market. The Committee was in the process of taking action on a draft resolution and the action had been stopped to allow the co-sponsors to respond to the amendments by the Russian Federation. Recalling rules of procedure 130 and 131, he said the Committee should take action on the latest amendments proposed. So, if the United States' proposal was part and parcel of the resolution, then the Committee should take action on the Russian Federation's amendment. If the United States' proposal was a counter to the Russian Federation's proposed amendment, then the Committee should take action first on the United States' amendment and then on the Russian Federation's.

The representative of the United States said he thought the Committee was only considering proposed amendments by the Russian Federation to the revised text presented this morning. He appealed to the Russian Federation to show flexibility and reserved his right to call for a recorded vote.

The CHAIRPERSON said the Committee was considering a draft resolution as revised by the sponsors, which they were entitled to continue to revise at any stage before action was taken. There was also an amendment by the Russian Federation which had been subsequently amended again. She proposed that the Committee put the Russian Federation's amendment to the vote.

The representative of Ireland said the Committee appeared to be bogged down in a procedural quagmire and asked for the Russian Federation's amendment to be read out again. He wanted to know what was the problem with the co- sponsors' revisions to the text which seemed to address all the Russian Federation's concerns. It was strange that the draft resolution could not be approved in the Committee. Was the problem one of mentioning specific countries by name? Would the Russian Federation's representative make his concerns clear?

The representative of the Russian Federation said that speaking of the countries of the region was not the worst formula. It would have changed the whole concept of the draft resolution to have referred only to the region and not specific countries and that would not have been acceptable to the

Third Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

co-sponsors. He proposed that a vote be taken on his amendment, adding that his delegation was open to dialogue.

The CHAIRPERSON asked if the Russian Federation wanted a vote on the amendment proposed on Wednesday or today?

The Russian Federation asked for a vote on the amendment proposed today which was in response to the revisions made by the co-sponsors to the draft resolution.

The representative of Cuba asked for a short suspension of the meeting and said he was confused about the wording of the different amendments.

The representative of the United States said he did not reject in principle Cuba's request for a short suspension. He then read out his amendments again and those of the Russian Federation, which he said all the co-sponsors would vote against. He also reserved his right to explain his position when the Committee took a vote.

The representative of the Russian Federation said he was ready for dialogue and was ready to follow the procedure for a vote or suspend the meeting. But the amendment was one of principle.

The meeting was suspended for 10 minutes.

When the meeting re-convened, the Secretary of the Committee read out the Russian Federation's amendment as follows:

-- "Reaffirming the territorial integrity of the Republic of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, within internationally recognized borders;"

The representative of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia asked that the Russian Federation not mention her country's name in the draft resolution.

The representative of the Russian Federation said he was ready to refer to all States by name, but if the representative of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had serious objections, he would not mention her country's name in his amendment. He said the draft resolution was the result of a negotiating process and his delegation had stated its position in the beginning. He was sorry that it had not been taken into account.

The CHAIRPERSON said any reference to The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia should be removed from the amendment.

Third Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

The representative of Canada asked the Russian Federation to withdraw its amendment. If it did not, his delegation would vote against it.

The representative of the Russian Federation, speaking on a point of order, asked if statements were being made before the vote.

Statements Before Vote

The representative of Slovenia said her delegation could not support the proposed amendment because the main scope of the Russian Federation's concerns had been accommodated in co-sponsors' revisions. The proposed amendment also included an incorrect nomenclature which would be inconsistent with United Nations usage.

The representative of Saudi Arabia said he regretted the Russian Federation did not accept the flexibility demonstrated by the co-sponsors since they addressed most of that delegation's concerns. He would vote against the amendment.

The representative of Croatia said he was grateful for the Russian Federation's concerns about his country's territorial integrity. However, the amendment would only add to the confusion and was not needed as the co- sponsors' revisions addressed the Russian Federation's concerns. His country attached great importance to the principle of territorial integrity, since some 30 per cent of its territory had been occupied and eastern Slovenia had not been reintegrated back into Croatia's territory.

The representative of Ireland said his delegation would vote against the proposed amendment since the co-sponsors had more than addressed the concerns of the Russian Federation.

The representative of the United States said he would vote against the amendment, as would most of the draft resolution's co-sponsors, because the revisions took into account most of the Russian Federation's concerns. Any attempt to name specific countries in the text was confusing, distracting and not pertinent to the Committee's work.

The representative of Senegal said he regretted that the Committee was voting on the amendment and he would vote against it.

The representative of Malaysia concurred with the statements made by Slovenia and Croatia. The co-sponsors' revisions took into account the concerns of the Russian Federation and his delegation would vote against the proposed amendment.

The representative of Oman said the co-sponsors had made every effort to address the Russian Federation's concerns. The Committee should not be

Third Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

concerned with irrelevant items such as disputes or conflicts which were the domain of other United Nations organs, including the Security Council. His delegation would vote against the amendment.

The representative of Pakistan said he regretted that the Russian Federation had not withdrawn its proposed amendment, as its concerns had been addressed by the text's co-sponsors. The draft resolution reaffirmed the principle of territorial integrity. The omission of "Serbia and Montenegro" in the draft resolution raised a question about the succession and successor States which could not be resolved by the draft resolution. It introduced an incorrect nomenclature, as stated by Slovenia.

The representative of the Netherlands said he supported the statement by Ireland.

The representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina said that, as a co-sponsor, his delegation would vote against the amendment.

Morocco said it regretted the proposed amendment by the Russian Federation and would vote against it.

The representative of Spain said he supported statements by Ireland and the Netherlands and recalled the European Union's position respecting the nomenclature of the States in question and would vote against the amendment, not because it opposed its content, but because the co-sponsors' revisions made it unnecessary.

The representative of Chile said he regretted the vote on the proposed amendment as the revisions of the co-sponsors addressed the concerns of the Russian Federation. He would vote against it.

The representative of Italy said he wished to be associated with the statement of Ireland.

The representative of Costa Rica said her country had always supported the principle of territorial integrity which was guaranteed in paragraph 3 of the text. She appreciated the statements by Slovenia and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia which was not included in the draft resolution's title. Her delegation would vote against the amendment.

The Committee then rejected the proposed amendment by a recorded vote of 90 against to 4 in favour (Azerbaijan, China, India and Russian Federation), with 43 abstentions. (See Annex I.)

Third Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

Statements after Vote

France said it had voted against the amendment for procedural reasons. The co-sponsors' revisions addressed the concerns of the Russian Federation.

The representative of China said it had voted in favour of the amendment because it believed the principle of the territorial integrity of all countries should be fully respected. For the same reason, it agreed with the revisions read out by the United States on behalf of the co-sponsors.

Brazil said it had abstained because the proposed revisions addressed the principle of territorial integrity.

The representative of Colombia said he had abstained for procedural reasons, but concurred with statements by other representatives that the co- sponsors' new revisions addressed the issue of territorial integrity.

The representative of the Philippines said her delegation had abstained because the proposed amendments were not within the purview of the Committee and her delegation was not in favour of any duplication in the functions of organs in the United Nations system.

The Committee then took action on the draft resolution.

The CHAIRPERSON said Poland had joined the list of co-sponsors.

The representative of the United States said the list of co-sponsors included all members of the European Union except Greece.

The Russian Federation asked for a recorded vote on the draft resolution.

Explanation of Vote

The representative of Greece said her Government supported the full respect for rights sought by persons belonging to minorities as envisaged by international legal instruments -- a principle which must be applied by all States with regard to minorities. However, promotion and protection of those rights should not be misconstrued as a means to pursue secessionist policies or alter long existing and internationally recognized borders, particularly in the case of the former Yugoslavia, where new problems would further endanger security and stability and would risk jeopardizing the implementation of the Dayton peace agreements. She said she would vote in favour of the draft resolution in recognition of those principles.

Third Committee - 12 - Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

The representative of the Russian Federation said his delegation welcomed the inclusion by the co-sponsors of several changes which made the draft resolution better balanced and more objective. However, a number of provisions were prejudiced, unrealistic or could be misinterpreted, which was why he had proposed amendments. The reaction by some delegations to the revisions only convinced him of the correctness of his amendment. Operative paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 were particularly unacceptable and he was therefore compelled to put the whole text to the vote. He would vote against it.

The Committee then approved the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 131 in favour to 1 against (Russian Federation), with 20 abstentions. (See Annex II.)

Speaking after the vote, the representative of The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia said she had voted in favour of the draft resolution in the hope that it would generate positive developments. However, her delegation believed the words "former Yugoslavia" were used incorrectly in several paragraphs of the text. As there was no more "former Yugoslavia", it was advisable to refer to the names of particular States and avoid unnecessary confusion. Operative paragraphs 26 and 27 were not clearly defined and she hoped there would be no difficulties in their implementation.

The representative of Ghana said he would have abstained in the vote if he had been present.

The Committee then took action on a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran.

Japan, Poland and the United States asked to be added to the list of co- sponsors.

The representative of Ireland said that revisions had been introduced to bring the text more into line with the report of the Special Representative and the addendum to his report, particularly in preambular paragraphs 5 and 10 and operative paragraph 6. Kyrgyzstan should not be listed as a co-sponsor, even though it was still listed in the revised version of the text.

The representative of Iran said the draft resolution was a by-product of an unhealthy trend of hostility towards his Government. During deliberations on the item, Iran had expressed its position and registered its objection to the politicization of human rights, the manipulation of the issue and misuse of United Nations machinery by a few countries. The adoption of these resolutions would uncover the real intention and motivation of the co-sponsors hidden behind the facade of human rights. The end result would be that another politically motivated resolution would be adopted to satisfy the short-sighted political interest of a few countries, whether or not there had been cooperation with the United Nations human rights system, whether the

Third Committee - 13 - Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

Special Rapporteur had visited the country or, above all, whether there was any improvement in human rights in the country. It seemed as if these countries had chosen to sabotage any improvement in Iran's relationship with the United Nations in the field of human rights, no matter what the consequences might be.

The initiatives and measures undertaken by the Government of Iran in the ongoing process of promotion of human rights was quite clear, he said. It had cooperated to the fullest extent possible with the Special Representative of the Commission on Human Rights and the special rapporteurs on religious intolerance and freedom of opinion and expression. The ulterior motives of the co-sponsors of the draft resolution against Iran were quite clear. Therefore, his Government called upon all representatives to consider the facts and vote against the draft resolution.

The representative of Algeria, referring to operative paragraph 9, said, at the time the case involving Salman Rushdie had appeared, her Government had expressed its position with respect to the irreverent references to the symbols of a great monotheistic religion, references that could openly flout the faith of millions of people throughout the world. Algeria associated itself with the universal condemnation of all forms of coercion and terrorism and considered that such a condemnation took its legitimacy in the necessity to preserve the right to life. Anything which had the effect of creating divisions between people was harmful.

The representative of Egypt said his Government affirmed its full commitment for the respect for human rights; however, it believed it was important to depoliticize human rights questions. Policies that apply double standards when addressing human rights questions should not be pursued. Egypt wished to reiterate its full support for the sovereign right of every State to enact national legislation in accordance with the values and traditions of its society. Those questions lay within the internal competence of each State. For these reasons, the delegation of Egypt would abstain from voting on the draft resolution.

The Committee approved the draft resolution by a vote of in 78 in favour to 26 against, with 49 abstentions. (See Annex III.)

The representative of South Africa said his Government had abstained in the voting because Iran had cooperated with the special rapporteurs on religious intolerance and freedom of expression. It hoped that its abstention would encourage Iran to improve the situation of human rights in its country.

The Committee then took action on a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Nigeria.

Third Committee - 14 - Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

The representative of Ireland said for a number of days the co-sponsors had been conducting discussions and consultations with delegations, particularly representatives of Nigeria, in order to reach a consensus on this text. A number of changes had been made to take into account concerns expressed by the Nigerian delegation. The operative paragraphs had been extensively reworked, most notably operative paragraph 7 which welcomed the Secretary-General's intention to pursue his good offices and mentions the possibility of the international community's offer of practical assistance to Nigeria to achieve the restoration of democratic rule and the full enjoyment of human rights.

The representative of Nigeria said his Government was thankful to all the Member States which had worked to try to reach a consensus on the draft resolution. Nigeria still believed there were a number of inaccuracies and imbalances. Therefore, it requested a vote on the resolution.

The representative of Ireland said Albania wished to be added as a co- sponsor. Further changes would not be made to the resolution since consensus would not be possible. As the representative of Nigeria had asked for a vote, he would request that the vote be recorded.

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Liechtenstein and Lithuania asked to co-sponsor the draft resolution.

The representative of Nigeria said that one year ago, when the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Nigeria was tabled, his Government opposed it with all the resources at its command. The draft received 98 votes in favour, 12 against, with 42 abstentions. This year Nigeria had greater and more justifiable reasons to oppose this resolution, and it was notable that no African country was included among the co-sponsors. The draft resolution was inaccurate, superfluous and unfair, and the true friends of Nigeria and Africa should oppose it. The situation of human rights in Nigeria had come a long way, and the text was both unnecessary and ill-timed. The representative of Nigeria had earlier detailed the positive developments in the country in the transition to democracy, judicial reform and in other human rights areas.

Regarding the transition to democracy, five political parties had been registered and full-fledged political activities had been initiated, he said. It was important to remember that democracy was the involvement of the people in the governance of their affairs, and there was no worldwide form of democracy that was transferable to all countries. The commitment to democratic governance was a cause that Nigerians had embraced voluntarily. Nigeria would implement such governance at its own time and pace.

In the field of judicial reform, a civil disturbances act had been amended, the right of appeal was now permitted, the writ of habeas corpus had been restored and a panel to review cases of those detained had been

Third Committee - 15 - Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

established, he said. Numerous detainees had been released recently, including three on 14 October 1996, in obedience to the relevant court order. The National Human Rights Commission had been established and was now functioning. Most of the Secretary-Generals's recommendations had been implemented after his visit to Nigeria. There had been a restoration of constructive dialogue between the Commonwealth of Nations and Nigeria, and both sides had agreed that the constructive dialogue held in June 1996 should be continued.

The draft resolution has a number of inaccuracies, he said. The ninth preambular paragraph stated that a number of political associations had been instructed to disband. Most associations tended to be based on ethnicity or religion, and this had been divisive. During the transition period, the 53 political associations were replaced by five registered political parties. The associations were not registered as political parties. Operative paragraph five states the Government of Nigeria had not enabled the special rapporteurs to visit the country; however, the Government had agreed to their visit and had discussed how and when they could visit. Consultations were still going on between the special rapporteurs and Nigeria, and they were still welcome to visit.

The draft resolution's several imbalances did not give due credit to the positive developments in human rights in Nigeria, he said. Instead, it dwelt on negative observations and didn't recognize the role Nigeria continued to play in promoting peace and security in its region and in Africa, particularly Liberia. It was for these inaccuracies, imbalances and unfairness that Nigeria could not support the resolution and asked others to do the same.

The representative of Iraq said his Government did not have the right to vote, due to reasons stemming from the payment of Iraq's contribution to the United Nations that had been affected by the blockade it was suffering, and by Iraq's frozen assets. If it were able to cast a vote, Iraq would have voted against the draft resolution.

The representative of The Gambia said his Government would not vote for the resolution because it was unnecessary due to the many positive developments that had taken place in Nigeria in the last year and all that Nigeria had done in the area. The complexity of the situation in Nigeria could not be reflected in the statements in the draft resolution.

The Committee approved the draft resolution by a vote of 86 in favour to 14 against, with 56 abstentions. (See Annex IV.)

The CHAIRPERSON said the Third Committee had concluded action on all draft resolutions placed before it for consideration.

(annexes follow)

Third Committee - 16 - Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

Third Committee Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

ANNEX I

Vote on Russian Federation Amendment to Draft on Human Rights in Bosnia...Croatia and FRY

The amendment by the Russian Federation to the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) (document A/C.3/51/L.68) was rejected by a recorded vote of 4 in favour to 90 against, with 43 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Azerbaijan, China, India, Russian Federation.

Against: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan.

Abstaining: Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Cyprus, Ecuador, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Greece, Kenya, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Ukraine, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Algeria, Armenia, Belarus, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chad, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Jamaica, Kazakstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Liberia, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Monaco, Mongolia, Niger, Nigeria, Palau, Panama, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zaire.

(END OF ANNEX I)

17

Third Committee Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

ANNEX II

Vote on Human Rights in Bosnia...Croatia and FRY

The draft resolution on human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) (document A/C.3/51/L.68) was approved by a recorded vote of 131 in favour to 1 against, with 20 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela.

Against: Russian Federation.

Abstaining: Angola, Belarus, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, India, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Armenia, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chad, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ghana, Grenada, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Palau, Panama, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zaire.

18

(END OF ANNEX II)

19

Third Committee Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

ANNEX III

Vote on Situation of Human Rights in Iran

The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran (document A/C.3/51/L.41/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 78 in favour to 26 against, with 49 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia.

Against: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, China, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Gambia, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Viet Nam.

Abstaining: Albania, Angola, Bahrain, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Jordan, Kazakstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Zimbabwe.

Absent: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Chad, Croatia, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Georgia, Grenada, Liberia, Madagascar, Mauritius, Morocco, Palau, Panama, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zaire.

20

(END OF ANNEX III)

21

Third Committee Press Release GA/SHC/3408 56th Meeting (AM) 29 November 1996

ANNEX IV

Vote on Situation of Human Rights in Nigeria

The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Nigeria (document A/C.3/51/L.53/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 86 in favour to 14 against, with 56 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: China, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Gambia, Ghana, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Syria, Togo.

Abstaining: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam.

Absent: Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Honduras, Kuwait, Kyrgyz Republic, Liberia, Maldives, Mauritius, Oman, Palau, Panama, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zaire.

22

* *** *