HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ACTS ON TEXTS RELATED TO UNILATERAL COERCIVE MEASURES, TOXIC WASTES, RIGHT TO FOOD AND EXTREME POVERTY

Press Release
HR/CN/788

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ACTS ON TEXTS RELATED TO UNILATERAL COERCIVE MEASURES, TOXIC WASTES, RIGHT TO FOOD AND EXTREME POVERTY

(Reproduced as received; delayed in transmission.)

GENEVA, 3 April (UN Information Service) -- The Commission on Human Rights this morning called upon all States to refrain from adopting or implementing unilateral measures not in accordance with international law and the United Nations Charter, in particular those of a coercive nature with extraterritorial effects which created obstacles to trade relations and affected human rights. The move came in a resolution adopted by a vote of 37 in favour to 8 against, with 7 abstentions. The text was one of seven resolutions and decisions adopted this morning dealing with a variety of issues from the right to food and extreme poverty to the dumping of toxic wastes.

In voting against the resolution on unilateral measures, the United States said the text was simply another attempt by the Cuban Government to divert attention from its negative human rights record.

The Commission also categorically condemned the increased rate of dumping of toxic wastes in developing countries and urged all governments to take measures to prevent such illegal international trafficking. The text was opposed by 12 countries, including several who argued that the Commission was not the proper forum to deal with the issue of toxic wastes.

Through another resolution, passed by a 34 to 15 with three abstentions, the Commission stressed the importance of continuing to implement immediate, effective, and durable actions for alleviating the debt and debt-service burdens of developing countries. It also voted to appoint an independent expert to study the effects of structural adjustment programmes, to study the effects of such programmes in cooperation with the Centre for Human Rights.

No votes were needed to pass other decisions or resolutions on human rights and the environment, the right to food, human rights and extreme poverty and the status of the International Covenants on human rights.

Voting on resolutions and decisions will continue in the afternoon session, starting at 3 p.m. Among the texts to be acted on will be a draft resolution on the abolition of the death penalty introduced by Italy. The draft sparked a lengthy debate at the end of the morning meeting.

The Commission is scheduled to meet until 12 a.m. to continue its debate on technical assistance and advisory services in the field of human rights and the further promotion of human rights.

Action on Resolutions and Decisions

In a resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document E/CN.4/1997/L.13) passed by a roll call vote of 37 in favour to 8 against, with 7 abstentions, the Commission called upon all States to refrain from adopting or implementing unilateral measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, in particular those of a coercive nature with extraterritorial effects which created obstacles to trade relations; rejected the application of such measures as tools for political or economic pressure against any country, particularly against developing countries, because of their negative effects on the human rights of vast sectors of their populations; endorsed and reaffirmed the criteria of the Working Group on the Right to Development according to which unilateral coercive measures were one of the obstacles to the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development; and urged the Working Group to give due consideration to the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures.

The following countries voted in favour: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Uruguay, Zaire, Zimbabwe.

The following countries voted against: Bulgaria, Canada, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom, United States.

The following countries abstained: Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Ukraine.

NANCY RUBIN (United States) said the country could not support resolution L.13; its reason was simple; each nation had the absolute right to decide which nations it would trade with, and under what conditions. The resolution was simply another attempt by the Cuban Government to distract the Commission from its negative human rights record; if the Cuban Government wished better trade conditions, it should grant full human rights to its population.

- 3 - Press Release HR/CN/788 7 April 1997

In a measure passed by consensus on the human rights and the environment (document E/CN.4/1997/L.19), the Commission decided to invite the Secretary-General to bring relevant reports and the Commission's own consideration of the question to the attention of the General Assembly at its special session on Agenda 21, the Commission on Sustainable Development, the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Development Programme, and other relevant international bodies and organizations, and to request the Secretary-General to prepare a consolidated report based on the deliberations of the General Assembly and of those international bodies and organizations for consideration of the matter at the Commission's fifty-fifth session.

In a resolution on the right to food (document E/CN.4/1997/L.21/Rev.1), passed by consensus, the Commission considered it intolerable that over 800 million people in the world, particularly in developing countries, did not have enough food to meet their basic nutritional needs, resulting in infringement of their human rights; stressed the need to make efforts to mobilize and optimize the allocation and use of technical and financial resources from all sources, including external debt relief for developing countries, to reinforce food security; encouraged the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights to pay further attention in its activities to the right to food; and endorsed the request made in the World Food Summit Plan of Action to the High Commissioner for Human Rights to better define rights related to food and to propose ways to implement and realize these rights, taking into account the possibility of formulating voluntary guidelines for food security for all.

LELMIRA MEREGA REGAZZOLI (Argentina) said that while it had not cosponsored the resolution, Argentina had voted in favour because it felt the definition of the right to food should be the object of serious commitment from the international community.

Ms. RUBIN (United States) said the country was pleased to join consensus on resolution L.21, because as amended it incorporated language from the Rome Declaration on World Food Security; it felt nonetheless that food security was better addressed in other fora than the Commission, although it recognized that vital rights were involved. The United States believed the attainment in any society of a "right to adequate food" or a "right to be free from hunger" did not give rise to any international obligations or diminish the responsibilities of national Governments to their citizens. Any reference to external debt relief necessitated negotiations between debtors and creditors.

In a resolution passed by a roll call vote with 32 countries in favour, 12 countries against and 8 countries abstaining,on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights (document E/CN.4/1997/L.22), the Commission took note of the progress report of the Special Rapporteur on the topic and

- 4 - Press Release HR/CN/788 7 April 1997

regretted that she had encountered serious obstacles, in particular lack of resources, which kept her from discharging her mandate effectively and kept her from undertaking in situ missions; categorically condemned the increased rate of dumping of such wastes in developing countries, adversely affecting human rights there; urged all Governments to take measures to prevent such illegal international trafficking; invited relevant agencies and programmes to intensify their cooperation and assistance on environmentally sound management of such chemicals and wastes; urged the international community and relevant United Nations bodies to implement the provisions of existing instruments controlling the transboundary movement of such substances; requested the Special Rapporteur, in her next report, to include information on countries and enterprises, including transnational corporations, engaged in illicit movement of such substances in African and other developing countries; and requested the Rapporteur to include information on persons killed and injured in developing countries because of such transfer and dumping.

The following countries voted in favour: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Uruguay, Zaire, Zimbabwe.

The following countries voted against: Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

The following countries abstained: Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Ireland, Malaysia, Philippines, Republic of Korea.

TYGE LEHMANN (Denmark) said it would vote against the resolution on toxic waste dumping. This decision was not because Denmark did not share the concerns expressed by the co-sponsors. However, the issue of toxic waste was of a very serious nature, and there were already a number of binding decisions enforced under the Basel Convention. The Commission was not the right forum for solving the problem of the dumping of toxic wastes.

PETER VAN WULFTEN PALTHE (Netherlands) said it would vote against resolution L.22 because the subject was not an appropriate one for the Commission, and was seriously addressed elsewhere. The delegation also was concerned that in carrying out the resolution's paragraph 11, where the Special Rapporteur was to mention specific situations involving specific countries, that she should carry out some research before naming countries; she mentioned the Netherlands twice in her current report, in one case over a matter of pollution, not trafficking, and in the other over a case resolved and closed many years ago. The delegation fully agreed with another article of the resolution calling for Governments to have the chance to respond to any references made to them.

- 5 - Press Release HR/CN/788 7 April 1997

Ms. RUBIN (United States) said the subject of toxic waste was not appropriate for the Commission to consider because the body lacked the ability to address it professionally. The proper places to deal with this issue were the Basel Convention and the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. Toxic waste was a complex issue and should not be addressed superficially nor added to the Commission's already over-burdened agenda. The United States urged that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur not be renewed when it expired next year.

In a resolution passed by a roll call vote with 34 countries in favour, 15 countries against and 3 countries abstaining, on the effects on the full enjoyment of human rights of the economic adjustment policies arising from foreign debt and, in particular, on the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development (document E/CN.4/1997/L.23), the Commission stressed the importance of continuing to implement immediate, effective, and durable actions for alleviating the debt and debt-service burdens of developing countries; affirmed that a permanent solution to the foreign-debt problem lay in the establishment of a just and equitable international economic order which guaranteed the developing countries, among other things, better market access, stable exchange and interest rates, access to financial and capital markets, adequate flows of financial resources, and better access to the technology of developed countries; stressed the need for programmes arising from the foreign-debt issue to take account of the specific characteristics and needs of the debtor countries involved, and the need to incorporate the social dimensions of development; affirmed that the exercise of basic rights to food, housing, clothing, employment, education, health services, and a healthy environment could not be subordinated to structural adjustment polices and economic reforms arising from foreign debt.

Also, it emphasized the need for recent initiatives on such debt to be implemented completely and flexibly, and at the same time noted with concern the rigidity of the eligibility criteria approved by the international creditor community for these initiatives; emphasized the need for new flows of financial resources to indebted developing countries; recognized that there was a need for more transparency in the activities of international financial institutions; and considered that in order to find a durable solution to the debt problem there was a need for a political dialogue between creditor and debtor countries within the United Nations system, based on the principle of shared interests and responsibilities.

The following countries voted in favour: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Uruguay, Zaire, Zimbabwe.

- 6 - Press Release HR/CN/788 7 April 1997

The following countries voted against: Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

The following countries abstained: Czech Republic, Philippines, Republic of Korea.

In a resolution passed by consensus, as amended, on human rights and extreme poverty (document E/CN.4/1997/L.24), the Commission called upon the General Assembly, specialized agencies, United Nations bodies, and intergovernmental organizations to consider the contradiction between the existence of situations of extreme poverty and exclusion from society, which must be overcome, and the duty to guarantee full enjoyment of human rights; invited the treaty bodies monitoring the application of human rights instruments to take into account, when considering reports from States parties, the question of extreme poverty; requested the Secretary-General to publicize and distribute widely the report of the relevant Special Rapporteur; and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to give high priority to the question of human rights and extreme poverty within United Nations human-rights bodies; to ensure better cooperation between institutions and bodies involved in development of policies and strategies for dealing with the problem; to invite Governments, specialized agencies, and intergovernmental organizations to take account of the contradictions between extreme poverty and exclusion from society, which must be overcome, and the duty to guarantee full enjoyment of human rights; and to inform the General Assembly regularly of the evolution of the question of human rights and extreme poverty.

In a measure passed by a roll call vote with 36 countries in favour, 13 countries against and 3 countries abstaining, on the effects of structural adjustment policies on the full enjoyment of human rights (document E/CN.4/1997/L.27), the Commission decided to authorize the open-ended working group on structural adjustment programmes and economic, social, and cultural rights to meet for one week, at least four weeks before the fifty-fourth session of the Commission, to gather and analyze information on the effects of structural adjustment on such rights, and to elaborate basic policy guidelines on structural adjustment programmes which could serve as a basis for continued dialogue between human-rights bodies and international financial institutions; requested the Chairman of the Commission, in consultation with regional groups, to appoint an independent expert, preferably an economist specializing in the area of structural-adjustment programmes, to study the effects of such programmes in cooperation with the Centre for Human Rights and to update previous work done on the subject; and requested the Secretary-General to circulate the study to relevant Governments and agencies.

The following countries voted in favour: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea,

- 7 - Press Release HR/CN/788 7 April 1997

India Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Uganda, Uruguay, Zaire, Zimbabwe.

The following countries voted against: Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

The following countries abstained: Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland.

MASAKI KONISHI (Japan), explaining the country's votes on resolutions adopted, said the resolution on toxic wastes had led Japan to vote no, as it believed the matter should be considered by more appropriate United Nations bodies, specifically those that dealt with the environment. Japan believed that if the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in toxic wastes received allegations against a country, the Government should be informed and given ample opportunity to reply, and the replies should be reflected in the Rapporteur's report. As for the resolution on foreign debt, Japan had been extending assistance to heavily indebted countries, and would continue to do so; the delegation regretted that the resolution failed to reflect language from the Vienna declaration on human rights, and also distorted the true situation and did not reflect the actual nature of the problem. Japan therefore had voted against the resolution.

LILIA BAUTISTA (Philippines) said it had abstained in voting for L.22, not because it was not affected by problems related to toxic wastes, but because the technical aspects of the issue were beyond the Commission. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur had not considered the response of government's in her report. In a case relating to the Philippines, the Special Rapporteur had relied solely on newspaper reports. On the resolution on structural adjustment, the Philippines had also abstained. The country had undergone structural adjustment, and there were some good and bad points to that. Some aspects of this question could be improved.

Through a draft resolution on the question of the death penalty (document E/CN.4/1997/L.20), the Commission would, among other things, call upon all States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that had not yet done so to consider acceding to the Covenant's Second Optional Protocol, aiming at abolition of the death penalty; and urge all States still maintaining the death penally to comply fully with their obligations under the Covenant and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, notably not to impose the death penalty for any but the most serious crimes, not to impose it for crimes committed by persons below age 18, to exclude pregnant women from capital punishment and to ensure the right to seek pardon or commutation of sentence.

- 8 - Press Release HR/CN/788 7 April 1997

ROBERTO TOSCANO (Italy) said the country could not accept criticism on the draft resolution L.20 because it had distributed the draft widely and had sought and waited for reactions, and had received a number of them. Both the spirit and letter of the resolution had been to try to find a wording to address the concerns of those with doubts, not on the final result but on the speed of reaching a solution to ultimately eliminating the death penalty. The amendments introduced went beyond the limits which Italy was prepared to accept, and would result in a loss of meaning and the core purpose of the resolution. It appealed for support of the original resolution.

TYGE LEHMANN (Denmark) said the Commission should keep in mind that the United Nations Security Council, in the statutes governing the Tribunals for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, had not provided for the death penalty. While it voted on this resolution, the Commission should keep in mind that, at the highest level of the international community, this form of sanction was not accepted.

JOHN BIGGAR (Ireland) said the statement made by Ireland some weeks ago on the subject had explained clearly why Ireland believed the Italian initiative on eliminating the death penalty was worthy of support; but the delegation disagreed entirely with the impression created by the representative of Malaysia in introducing its amendments that the sponsors of the original resolution were trying to impose their views on others. But Ireland firmly believed it was the right of all to seek to persuade others to change their views. Ireland believed the draft resolution was a persuasive rather than a coercive measure, and would oppose the amendments.

GILBERTO VERGNE SABOIA (Brazil) said it was a co-sponsor of resolution L.20 and was firmly committed to its spirit. Brazil took exception to amendments which subverted entirely the nature of what was being pursued. It would vote against that draft resolution.

SHAMBHU RAM SIMKHADA (Nepal) said the delegation would vote in favour of the resolution, which presented the final abolition of the death penalty as a goal to be approached, and in such as way as not to interfere with national sovereignty; for the same reason, Nepal would vote against the proposed amendments.

ROSS HYNES (Canada) was not a co-sponsor of L.20 but commended Italy's leadership and would vote in favour of the resolution. For the same reasons expressed by Italy, it would oppose the amendments introduced. Suggestions that national legal systems needed merely to take into account international laws was inconsistent with international legal principles. National legal systems should make sure they were in compliance with international laws and rights, in particular when it came to the right to life.

- 9 - Press Release HR/CN/788 7 April 1997

GUSTAVO CASTRO GUERRERO (Colombia) said the delegation considered the proposed amendments would run counter to the original spirit of the draft resolution on the death penalty. Colombia believed the drafting of the resolution had been done in a transparent manner. It did not share the views expressed by Philippines in proposing the amendments, and would vote against the amendments.

GAUTAM MUKHOPADHYAY (India) said that it was not against the spirit of the draft resolution. India only imposed the death penalty in the rarest of cases. Special reasons had to be given to justify the death penalty, the accused had several avenues of appeals and pregnant women and juveniles were not subject to capital punishment. However, India was unable to support the language currently used in L.20, which had been tabled without consultations and was unbalanced. India had urged Italy to seek the views of all interested parties. India would vote for the proposed amendments, which brought about balance. India also believed that it was not proper to bring the issue up in the Commission when it had been rejected by the General Assembly two years ago.

Ms. RUBIN (United States) said it regretted it could not support the resolution on capital punishment, although it shared the goals of the sponsors that capital punishment be imposed in strict accordance with international standards. But the language of the measure was unbalanced and did not reflect international legal opinions on the matter; international law did not prohibit capital punishment; it was for each State to decide, through its democratic process, whether the death penalty could be imposed in keeping with international norms and safeguards.

LUIS LILLO (Chile) said it joined the co-sponsors of L.20 because it shared the general spirit of the resolution. Chile believed the amendments in L.35 would seriously affect the spirit of L.20 and therefore would vote against it.

MOHAMED-SALAH DEMBRI (Algeria) said the delegation was sorry it could not support the draft resolution on the death penalty, although it approved of international limits on imposition of the death penalty. Algeria would have preferred that the resolution had tried to pave the way for a moratorium on the death penalty instead of aiming at elimination of capital punishment; Algeria had imposed such a moratorium domestically. It would vote in favour of the proposed amendments.

The representative of Egypt said it was a co-sponsor of the amendments proposed. L.20 was not a balanced draft proposal; moreover, it tried to impose legal norms on States. Egypt could not give its approval or support L.20.

- 10 - Press Release HR/CN/788 7 April 1997

Mr. KONISHI (Japan) said it would vote against the draft resolution; the question of whether or not to keep capital punishment should be studied carefully by each country; in the view of Japan, it was not fitting or proper to try to abolish the death penalty uniformly, without considering the individual circumstances of specific countries.

JOUN YUNG SUN (Republic of Korea) said it would vote against L.20 because each government had the sovereign right to decide on whether to adopt or abolish the death sentence. If citizens of a country decided through their representatives to adopt laws which permanently removed felons from society, that should be respected by other societies.

IFTEKHAR AHMED CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) said Italy's efforts to abolish the death penalty deserved respect; however, such an accomplishment presumed certain conditions that as yet did not pertain in the real world. Bangladesh only rarely imposed the death penalty, and hoped that some day conditions would be such that there would no longer be the need for such a penalty; but for now it was a noble idea whose time had not yet come.

LIU XINSHENG (China) said it would vote in favour of the amendments because L.20 was not balanced.

* *** *