SOCIAL COMMITTEE SEEKS INTERNATIONAL BURDEN-SHARING FOR PROTECTION OF REFUGEES, ASYLUM-SEEKERS

Press Release
GA/SHC/3568

SOCIAL COMMITTEE SEEKS INTERNATIONAL BURDEN-SHARING FOR PROTECTION OF REFUGEES, ASYLUM-SEEKERS

Assembly Asked To Condemn Threats to Their Security; Other Texts On Rights Violations in Iraq, Human Rights Impact of Globalization

The General Assembly would condemn all acts posing a threat to the personal security of refugees and asylum-seekers, by a draft resolution approved without a vote this afternoon by the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural). The Assembly would further stress the importance of international solidarity and burden-sharing in protecting refugees through the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

The text was one of six approved by the Committee this afternoon.

A draft resolution condemning grave violations of human rights in Iraq was approved by a recorded vote of 96 in favour to 2 against (Libya and Sudan), with 51 abstaining. (For details of vote, see Annex IV.) Four of the operative paragraphs in the draft resolution were approved by a separate recorded vote of 91 in favour to 1 against (Sudan), with 54 abstaining (see Annex III).

By a recorded vote of 100 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 59 abstaining, the Committee approved a draft resolution on globalization and its impact on human rights (see Annex II). An amendment proposed by the European Union to delete a preambular paragraph (relating to a request for a report from the Secretary-General) was defeated by a recorded vote of 44 in favour to 92 against, with 22 abstaining (see Annex I).

Approved without a vote were drafts on: follow-up to the regional conference on refugees in the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS); the situation of human rights in Afghanistan; and the situation of human rights in Rwanda.

Also considered this afternoon was a draft resolution on the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Further consideration and action on that draft was postponed until Monday, to allow for continued negotiation for a possible consensus agreement on the text.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Monday, 22 November, to continue consideration of draft resolutions, and acting upon them.

Committee Work Programme

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this afternoon to consider a wide range of issues and to take action on some draft resolutions. (For background information, see Press Release GA/SHC/3567 of today’s date.)

Action on Draft Resolutions

The Committee took up the draft on the “Follow-up to the regional conference to address the problems of refugees, displaced persons, other forms of involuntary displacement and returnees in the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States and relevant neighbouring States” (document A/C.3/54/L.91). The following countries were added as sponsors: Croatia, Afghanistan, Cyprus and Iceland.

The Committee approved the draft without a vote.

The representative of Ukraine said the draft provided a good basis for international cooperation and for the continuation of the conference. It was also useful for the establishment of a working group in that regard.

Next, the Committee took up the draft resolution entitled “Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees” (document A/C.3/54/L.95).

The representative of Denmark made revisions to the draft. Operative paragraph 10 was replaced by the following: “Urges States to uphold the civilian and humanitarian character of refugee camps and settlements, inter alia, through effective measures to prevent the infiltration of armed elements, to identify and separate any such armed elements from refugee populations, to settle refugees in secure locations and to afford to the Office of the High Commissioner and other appropriate humanitarian organizations prompt, unhindered and safe access to asylum seekers, refugees and other persons of concern”. Also, in operative paragraph 4 “of 12 August 1949 for the protection of victims of war” should be replaced by “on the law of armed conflict”.

The following countries were added as sponsors to that draft: Croatia, Gabon, Panama, Bahamas, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Solomon Islands, Benin, Micronesia, Guinea Bissau, Malawi, Trinidad, Uruguay and Venezuela.

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

The representative of Singapore said her Government had reservations on the provisions made in the draft with regard to asylum. There was no unrestricted or automatic right to asylum. The draft did not reflect the current issues on the right of asylum. It needed to be more realistic and indicate that practices had evolved and changed.

Next, the Committee took up the draft entitled “Globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights” (document A/C.3/54/L.71/Rev.1). The following countries joined in sponsoring that draft: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Burundi, Chad, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Grenada, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Guyana, Jamaica, Malawi, Morocco, Mozambique, Niger, Namibia, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Suriname, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Zimbabwe, Gabon, Mauritius and Cameroon.

The representative of Libya said globalization constituted a complex question which called for an in-depth study of the matter, to check the dependence on the part of developing countries in the social, cultural, military, information and other fields. The process of globalization would give immense power to transnational corporations. It would limit the role of States in the exercise of human rights. Globalization was highly controversial and full of contradictions. The study undertaken would provide the basis for the respect for human rights.

The representative of Finland, on behalf of the European Union, said that given the cross-cutting nature of human rights issues, human rights considerations should be part of the discussion on globalization. A study would be submitted by the Commission on Human Rights that would take into account the views of treaty bodies, other United Nations bodies and also the views of States. To request the Secretary-General to prepare a report on a matter requested just a few months before to be prepared by the Commission seemed to show no confidence in the Commission. That was the reason for wanting to delete paragraph 4.

The representative of Algeria, as the main sponsor of the draft, said globalization had created hardship for people. What was the value of any human right when the fundamental needs were deprived? Only the humanization of globalization would bring about beneficial effects. All delegations should support operative paragraph 4.

The representative of Pakistan said the Millennium Assembly would be the appropriate time for the Secretary-General to submit the report requested in the resolution. It would complement the Commission’s effort, not undercut it.

The representative of Egypt said operative paragraph 4 was the whole objective of the resolution. It was simply asking for a report from the Secretary-General, which would take into account the views of States. He could not go with the deletion and asked for paragraph 4 to be retained. Since the amendment had been presented, he asked for a vote on the amendment.

The representative of Bangladesh said he saw no conflict between the Commission’s report and the one requested of the Secretary-General in the present report.

The representative of Cuba said the world had not achieved the promises of globalization. The Secretary-General’s report requested by the resolution would address that issue.

The Chairman said the Committee would take a vote on operative paragraph 4 of the resolution on globalization and its impact on human rights.

The representative of Japan, also on behalf of Australia and New Zealand, said that considerations of globalization were generally in a more specific context than here presented. He would support the deletion of operative paragraph 4.

The amendment to delete operative paragraph 4 was defeated by a vote of 44 in favor to 92 against, with 22 abstentions. (See Annex I)

The representative of the United States requested a recorded vote on the draft resolution.

The representative of Madagascar said he should have voted no on deleting the operative paragraph.

The representative of Chile said he would abstain on the draft to show his disagreement with the resolution. He was concerned about the United Nations extending its work in human rights to areas that would dilute the human rights agenda. The issue of globalization did not belong on the human rights agenda. It belonged in the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) and other United Nations bodies. The right to development was the only related issue that belonged in the present Committee. It was not just a drafting matter but a fundamental difference of perspective.

The Committee then approved the resolution by a vote of 100 in favor to 1 (United States) against, with 59 abstentions. (See Annex II)

The representative of Cape Verde brought attention to preambular paragraph 5 as not being specific enough about the United Nations role in human rights.

The Committee next took up the draft resolution entitled “The question of human rights in Afghanistan” (document A/C.3/54/L.58).

The Committee approved that orally revised draft without a vote.

The representative of Pakistan said hostilities continued in Afghanistan. The situation there would improve once peace was re-established. The Government in Kabul would receive the Special Rapporteur on human rights and the one on the rights of women. The latter reflected that Government’s will to cooperate with them. Conditions to fully enjoy human rights needed to be created. An arms embargo against it had been established.

Next, the Committee took up the draft on “Human rights in Iraq” (document A/C.3/54/L.60) and the amendment thereto contained in document A/C.3/54/L.101. The following countries were added as sponsors to that draft: Malta and Slovakia.

The representative of the United States said that due to recent amendments in the draft, his delegation was withdrawing its sponsorship. There was a lack of balance which made it unclear that sanctions were imposed by the Security Council. Nor did the text make clear that the sanctions remained as a result of non- compliance.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that following productive negotiations with the European Union, it would withdraw its amendments.

The representative of Iraq said the draft was a replica of previous resolutions which were based on political considerations. The elements of the draft depended on the reports of the Special Rapporteur to his country and were based on false premises. References to Security Council resolutions in the preambular paragraphs in the draft were inaccurate. It was time for the Security Council to lift sanctions against his country. His Government had cooperated with humanitarian international organizations working there.

Referring to various operative paragraphs, he said freedom of expression in his country was guaranteed by constitutional laws and established systems. Also, his Government stood against any activity that would violate human rights. Publication of local and foreign books that ran counter to the ethical and religious values of its society were banned. The Government was also committed to respect justice. Any death sentence was automatically transferred to the Supreme Court. Torture was considered a criminal act.

He said legislation enforced rights specified in international instruments. Cooperation with United Nations human rights bodies was under way. The Special Rapporteur on human rights was concerned with selling the reputation of his Government. Also, law in Iraq was being respected by the executive power. In addition, minority rights received special care by his Government, which had been the only one to grant the Kurdish population self-government.

The United States and the United Kingdom had impeded the work of the tripartite Committee, he added. Once those countries left that Committee, his Government would participate in its meetings. Monitoring visits had taken place and the monitoring process had continued. The fair distribution of foodstuffs had been testified to. The draft was a pretext to offend his country and its national leaders. He called for a recorded vote on the draft.

The representative of the Russian Federation requested that paragraphs 2a, 3g, 3i and 3j of that draft be put to a vote together, but separately from the draft. (The paragraphs relate to condemnation of “widespread terror” in Iraq, calls to respect ethnic groups and cooperate with aid agencies, and implementation of the oil-for-food programme.)

The representative of Finland said he hoped delegations would vote in favour of the paragraphs.

The Committee decided to retain the paragraphs, by a recorded vote of 91 in favour to one against (Sudan), with 54 abstentions. (See Annex III)

The representative of the United States urged the Committee to approve the draft resolution. There were systematic widespread violations of human rights in Iraq, and that regime imposed fear and oppression among the Iraqi population. The Government needed to respect the rights of all individuals. The international community needed to condemn the Government of Iraq for its use of resources to enrich itself. It was spending less than previously on nutritionally enhanced food for its population. The sanctions were imposed because of Iraq’s failure to comply with Security Council resolutions. It remained in non-compliance.

The representative of Egypt said he would abstain from voting on the draft, invoking the nonpoliticization of human rights issues. While calling on Iraq to fulfil its obligations, including with regard to the Kuwaiti prisoners and those who had disappeared, there still was the need to respect the national unity and sovereignty, the territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq.

The representative of Sudan said she would vote against the draft, and would vote on other resolutions on the same basis. She said she rejected the “selectivity” involved in the resolution; no country in the world existed without some human rights violations in one way or another. But when the Committee studied a country, a people suffered a violation of their rights, because sanctions created situations that could be considered catastrophic.

The representative of Libya said she would vote against the resolution, although she was committed to the protection of human rights and international humanitarian law. International cooperation in human rights could not take place without objectivity and impartiality. Sanctions were depriving children and women of life itself, and the resolution made no mention of the attacks in the no-fly zones in the north of Iraq. Nor did it refer to the victims of those attacks. She objected to the call for Iraq to allow human rights monitors throughout its territory because that was an encroachment. She called on Iraq to cooperate with the Tripartite Commission.

The representative of Benin said she would not participate in the vote because of confusion: there seemeed to be no correlation between what Iraq was saying and what the United States was saying and what was contained in the resolution.

The Committee then approved the draft by a recorded vote of 96 in favour to two against (Sudan, Libya) with 51 abstaining. (See Annex IV).

The representative of Benin said she had voted inadventently.

The representative of Pakistan said he was concerned about the humanitarian problem of missing Kuwaiti persons. He urged Iraq to cooperate with the Tripartite Commission.

The Committee then took up the draft on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/C.3/54/L.63).

Finland, on behalf of the European Union and as the main sponsor of the draft, said Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Malta, Monaco, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and the United States would also become sponsors.

He said after intensive consultations with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, he would propose amendments so as to bring about consensus on the draft. Those amendments referred to changes in preambular paragraphs updating the situation. In addition, an operative paragraph (1f) would be added to indicate the appointment of a Special Representative for the Democratic Republic. Also, the Assembly, through the resolution, would “encourage” instead of “call on” the Democratic Republic to implement its commitments in operative paragraph 1g. Changes in operative paragraphs 3 to 5 concerned similar changes to reflect the increased progress being made in the Democratic Republic.

The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said respect for human rights was a major aspiration of his Government, which was not a pupil needing to be taught about human rights. The text contained many paradoxes and inconsistencies. The Special Rapporteur himself had noted the presence of foreign aggressors in the eastern part of the country. That situation should have been revisited. The aggression was the source of the violation of human rights and those violations were a reality that could not be obfuscated.

He said the text of the European Union both encouraged and denied actions taken by the Ministry of Human Rights. For example, it asked his Government to abide by the human rights instruments as though nothing had been done in that regard. The people in camps had been protected and those who had wanted to leave the country had left, he said. The resolution did not take account of changes in his country and he therefore rejected the spirit of consensus and requested a vote. Nevertheless, his Government was committed to human rights.

He had told the European Union he would accept the resolution, despite his reservations about much of it, if it contained a single additional paragraph stating that the Special Rapporteur had pointed out that fighting was worse in the eastern part of the country and if it called upon the forces of the non-invited States within the country to put an end to the occupation that was making the people suffer. Finland had rejected a proposal for that paragraph, he said, so as not to hurt the feelings of the Democratic Republic’s neighbours.

The representative of Finland said that based on intensive consultations between the European Union and the Democratic Republic, he was hearing a spirit of cooperation from the Democratic Republic. If the Committee approved, Finland would continue to meet with the Democratic Republic over the weekend in the effort to be able to agree on some kind of consensus document.

The representative of the United States said he would support Finland if it and the Democratic Republic wanted more time to work.

The Committee decided to postpone consideration of the draft resolution until Monday.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Rwanda (document A/C.3/54/L.87/Rev.1). The following countries were added as sponsors: Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic and Iceland.

The representative of Canada made additional revisions to that draft. In operative paragraph 11, between the words “encourages the” and “community” the word “international” was added. Also, in operative paragraph 19 “including a strong civil society” should be added at the end.

The representative of Finland, also speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the situation in Rwanda was still of concern. He fully supported the commitment of the Government of Rwanda to remove all child soldiers. Also, the conditions of prisons in that country needed to improve. He hoped that that country would support the International Tribunal.

The draft was approved, as orally revised, without a vote.

The representative of Rwanda thanked the sponsors of the draft. However, he said, he wished to clarify on the comments made by the representative of the European Union. The situation of human rights in his country was still of concern because it was still recovering from war. The situation of child soldiers was a matter of the past; there were no children soldiers in his country any more. Also, no United Nations agency had complained about his country’s alleged refusal to cooperate. In addition, the state of prisons in his country had greatly improved and the process of improvement continued.

Rights of Reply

The representative of Kuwait said the Government of Iraq had eluded its responsibilities as if the war continued. The war happened in 1992 and Iraq still had 605 Kuwaiti citizens detained in its prisons. Iraq had refused to report on the fate of those people. They seemed to have disappeared. The Government must immediately free those persons. It had not complied with Security Council resolutions. Iraqi authorities needed to cooperate with the Tripartite Committee. The representative of Iraq said 6,000 prisoners of war had been returned, even before the Security Council resolutions were adopted. There were 500 missing persons. As for the Tripartite Committee, the United States and the United Kingdom should withdraw from it.

The representative of Kuwait said that paragraph 30 of Security Council resolution 687 particularly referred to Kuwaiti citizens and not missing persons. Also, Iraq had agreed to be part of the Tripartite Committee. That country seemed to want to politicize the issue and was oblivious to humanitarian issues. Civilians had been taken from their homes by force during the Iraqi aggression against his country.

The representative of Iraq said that resolution referred to parties that committed an act of aggression in 1998. He wondered how his country could cooperate on missing persons. As for the Tripartite Committee, when those two parties would withdraw from the Committee, his country would join.

(annexes follow)

ANNEX I

Vote on Deleting Operative Paragraph on Globalization and Human Rights

The Third Committee failed to approve an amendment to delete operative paragraph 4 in the draft resolution on globalization and its impact on the enjoyment of human rights (document A/C.3/54/L.71/Rev.1) by a recorded vote of 44 in favour to 92 against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Against: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Abstain: Argentina, Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, Federated States of Micronesia, Guatemala, Kazakhstan, Marshall Islands, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Singapore, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chad, Dominica, Fiji, Haiti, Honduras, Kiribati, Lesotho, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Tajikistan, Tonga, Uganda, Uzbekistan.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Globalization and Enjoyment of Human Rights

The draft resolution on globalization and its impact on the enjoyment of human rights (document A/C.3/54/L.71/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 100 in favour to one against, with 59 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Against: United States.

Abstain: Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Chad, Dominica, Fiji, Honduras, Kiribati, Lesotho, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Tajikistan, Tonga, Uganda, Uzbekistan.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on Operative Paragraphs in Draft on Human Rights in Iraq

The Third Committee decided to retain four operative paragraphs in the draft resolution on human rights in Iraq (document A/C.3/54/L.60) by a recorded vote of 91 in favour to 1 against, with 54 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Sudan.

Abstain: Algeria, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Yemen.

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on Human Rights in Iraq

The draft resolution on human rights in Iraq (document A/C.3/54/L.60) was approved by a recorded vote of 96 in favour to 2 against, with 51 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Libya, Sudan.

Abstain: Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Comoros, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela and Vet Nam.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Bolivia, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Honduras, Iran, Kiribati, Lesotho, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Yemen.

* *** *