Fifty-sixth General Assembly

Third Committee

53^rd Meeting (AM)

THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES EIGHT DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS,

RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT, GLOBALIZATION, IRAN, SUDAN

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) this morning continued its efforts to finish its current session today by adopting eight more resolutions that focused on both far-reaching general matters, including development and globalization, as well as the human rights situations in specific countries.

The Committee approved texts, after lengthy debates, on the human rights situation in Iran and Sudan.

The resolution on human rights in Iran which was approved by a vote of 71 in favour, with 53 against and 41 abstentions (Annex III), expressed concern at the continuing violations of human rights there, and at the fact that no invitation had been extended by the Government to the Special Representative to visit the country since 1996.  It called upon the Government to abide by its freely undertaken obligations under the international human rights covenants and other international human rights instruments.

But the delegate of Iran, who was joined by other speakers in opposing the resolution, said progress had been made in the promotion and protection of human rights in his country, yet there was no reference to that in the text.  Further, the European Union, which was a co-sponsor of the text, pointed out a number of human rights violations, all in developing countries, while turning a blind eye to the human rights violations of developed countries.  They had a political agenda.

Countries opposing the resolution on Sudan, which was approved by a vote of 82 in favour, 34 against with 45 abstentions (Annex IV) echoed those sentiments.  Saying that no country could claim infallibility in the promotion and protection of human rights, the delegate of Sudan insisted progress had been made, and that should be reflected in the resolution.  Instead, he said, the text was prejudiced against the Sudanese Government, and scandalously biased in favour of the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA).

In the draft resolution, the General Assembly would express deep concern at the impact of the ongoing conflict on the situation of human rights and its adverse effects on the civilian population, in particular women and children, and the continuing serious violations of human rights by all parties to the conflict,

including the occurrence of cases of extrajudicial summary or arbitrary execution resulting from armed conflict, and the use of civilian premises for military purposes by the Sudanese army and the SPLA.

A representative of the United States, however, said his delegation had abstained in its vote because the resolution did not go far enough in showing the tragic situation of human rights in Sudan.  It was made clear, he said, that ending slavery was imperative to finding a peaceful end to the civil war there.

The Committee also approved a text on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights, by a vote of 109 in favour to 44 against, with ten abstentions (Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Guatemala, Federated States of Micronesia, Panama, Peru, Republic of Korea, Singapore, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)(Annex II).

The representative of Egypt said the draft resolution text did not indict or praise globalization.  It simply made sure that globalization was a fair force for all countries.  The delegate of Benin agreed, maintaining that all countries agreed on the positive impact of globalization, but not on the negative impact.  Others said globalization was enjoyed disproportionally by developed countries, while developing countries grew poorer and more marginalized.

But some countries not supporting the resolution said that although some nations did not benefit from globalization, it did not necessarily mean that human rights were being violated.  The representative of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union was not convinced that the global phenomenon affected all human rights.  The interdependence of all human rights did not mean that violation of one meant that all rights were being violated.  The right to be free from torture, for example, had nothing to do with globalization.  It was unfortunate the draft only spoke of the negatives of globalization.  Globalization was not the source of all evils.

The Committee also approved this morning, a draft resolution on the right to development by a vote of 116 in favour to three against (Israel, Japan and United States), with 42 abstentions (Annex I).

The delegate of Algeria said the right to development was more important than ever now that it was recognized that economic, social and cultural rights were considered equal with civil and political rights.  It was necessary to establish a permanent mechanism to help with the universal recognition of the right to development.

But the delegate of Canada, explaining his country's abstention, said several central issues regarding the right to development needed to be addressed.  The issue of a permanent mechanism was unnecessary because there was already a working group on the issue.

                                    (page 1b follows)

The Committee, on matters related to human rights questions including alternative approaches for the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, also adopted without a vote texts on the subregional center for human rights and democracy in Central Africa and on the protection of migrants.

On the advancement of women, the Committee approved two draft texts, both without votes, on the improvement of the status of women in the United Nations system, and on follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly, respectively.

The Committee will reconvene this afternoon at 3 p.m. when it will take action on all remaining draft resolutions and decisions under consideration for its 2001 substantive session.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this morning to take action on a host of draft resolutions on matters related to the advancement of women, human rights questions, including alternative approaches for the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives.

On the advancement of women, delegations had before them two drafts.

Under a text on the Improvement of the Status of Women in the United Nations System (A/C.3/56/L.22), the Assembly would strongly encourage the Secretary-General to renew his efforts to appoint more women as special representatives and envoys to pursue good offices on his behalf, especially in matters related to peacekeeping, peace-building, preventative diplomacy and economic and social development, as well as in operational activities, including appointment as resident coordinators, and to appoint more women to other high-level positions.

A text on follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly (document A/C.3/56/L.80) would have the Assembly reaffirm the goals and objectives contained in the Declaration and Platform as well as the “Political Declaration” and “further actions and initiatives” adopted at “Women 2000” last June.

It would further have the Assembly strongly encourage Governments to continue to support the role of civil society, in particular non-governmental organizations (NGOs), in the implementation of the Declarations and Platform.  It would also request the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to further intensify its efforts at ensuring that gender mainstreaming is an integral part of all United Nations activities.

On matters related to human rights questions including alternative approaches for the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms the Committee had before it four draft resolutions.

By a draft resolution on The right to development (document A/C.3/56/L.43/Rev.1), the Assembly would reaffirm the need for States to cooperate with each other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development and would recognize the importance of the international community in promoting effective international cooperation for realizing the right to development.

By a draft on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all

human rights (document A/C.3/L.64), the Assembly, realizing that globalization affected all countries differently and makes them more exposed to external developments –- positive as well as negative -– including in the field of human rights, would affirm that the international community should strive to respond to the challenges and opportunities posed by globalization in a manner that ensures respect for the cultural diversity of all.

By a resolution on the Sub-regional center for human rights and democracy in Central Africa (document A/C.3/56/L.69 and programme budget implications contained in L.81), the Assembly would welcome the creation of the Sub-regional center for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa at Yaounde and would invite the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to take all necessary measures to ensure its smooth functioning.

A draft on the protection of migrants (document A/C.3/56/L.71) would have the Assembly call upon all States to protect the human rights of migrant children, in particular unaccompanied migrant children, ensuring that the best interests of the children are the paramount consideration.  It would also encourage the relevant United Nations bodies, within the framework of their respective mandates, to pay special attention to the conditions of migrant children in all States and, where necessary, to put forward recommendations for strengthening their protection.

On matters related to human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives, the Committee would take up two draft texts.

Under a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran (document A/C.3/56/L.50), the Assembly, expressing concern at continuing violations of human rights in Iran and at the fact that no invitation had been extended by the Government to the Special Representative to visit the country since 1996, would call upon the Government to abide by its freely undertaken obligations under the International Covenants on Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. 

It would further call upon the Government to continue to its efforts to

consolidate respect for human rights and the rule of law as well as to eliminate all forms of discrimination based on religious grounds or against persons belonging to minorities.  The Assembly would also call upon the Government to, among other things, ensure full respect for freedom of expression, to end the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by persons under 18, and to ensure that the capital punishment would only be imposed for the most serious crimes.

A draft on the situation of human rights in Sudan (document A/C.3/56/L/58/Rev.1), would have the Assembly express its firm belief that progress towards a peaceful settlement of the conflict in southern Sudan within the context of the peace initiative of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development will contribute greatly to the creation of a better living environment and respect for human rights in Sudan.

Further by the text, the Assembly would also express deep concern at the impact of the ongoing conflict on the situation of human rights and its adverse effects on the civilian population, particularly women and children, and the continuing serious violations of human rights by all parties to the conflict, including the occurrence of cases of extrajudicial summary or arbitrary execution resulting form armed conflict, the use of civilian premises for military purposes by the Sudanese army and the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army/Movement, and the forced displacement of populations, in particular in areas around the oilfields.

Action on Drafts

This morning, the Committee took action on several draft resolutions on matters related to the advancement of women, human rights questions, including alternative approaches for the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives.

On the advancement of women, delegations had before them two drafts.

First before the Committee was a text on the Improvement of the Status of Women in the United Nations System (A/C.3/56/L.22).  The draft was adopted, as orally amended, without a vote.

The next text was on follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly (document A/C.3/56/L.80).  It was adopted, as orally amended, without a vote.

On matters related to human rights questions including alternative approaches for the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms the Committee had before it four draft resolutions.

The first proposal considered under this agenda item was a draft resolution on The Right to Development (document A/C.3/56/L.43/Rev.1).

Explaining his delegation's position before the vote, the delegate of Algeria said the right to development was more important than ever now that it was recognized that economic, social and cultural rights were given equality with civil and political rights.  It was necessary for a permanent mechanism to recognize the right to development.  It was hoped that consensus could be reached on the right to development.

The delegate of Egypt asked who asked for a recorded vote.

The Chairman said the United States asked for a vote.

Explaining his delegation's position before the vote, the delegate of Canada, speaking on behalf of Australia and New Zealand as well, said Canada strongly supported the right to development.  Canada supported the opportunity to continue the dialogue on the right to development.  It was pleased that the resolution contained strong language on the need for good governance and the role of women.  However, Canada said while there may have been progress on the right to development, there was no progress on the central issues.  Several paragraphs raised concerns.  Operative Paragraph 10, which referred to a permanent mechanism, was unnecessary.  There was already a working group.  Canada would abstain on this resolution.

Explaining the European Union's position before the vote, the delegate from Belgium said the European Union assigned great importance to the right to development.  The European Union was actively engaged in the negotiations.  However, given the work of the working group which would take place next February, a resolution should avoid prejudging the work of that group.  The European Union was concerned that negotiations were taken on a non-consensual base.  The European Union would work toward the right to development, but it was not going to support the present resolution.

By a recorded vote of 116 in favour, three (Israel, Japan, and the United States) against with 42 abstaining, the resolution was adopted (Annex I).

Explaining his delegation's position after the vote, the United States said shortly after the working group convened in September 2000, it became clear there was no consensus concerning the definition of the right to development.  The resolution included many of the working groups' conclusions, which had not reached consensus.  For those reasons, the United States had no choice but to vote against the draft resolution.

Making a general statement, the representative of Egypt said it was regrettable that the right to development did not reach consensus.  The right to development was a basic human right, and without it, others could not be enjoyed,

Making a general statement, the delegate of Benin lamented the resolution was not adopted by consensus.  Benin would have liked have seen a vote on the paragraphs that posed a problem, rather than the entire resolution.

The next draft was on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/C.3/156/L.64).

The delegate of Egypt asked who requested a vote.

The Chairman said Belgium requested the vote.

Explaining the position of the European Union before the vote, the delegate of Belgium said it was willing to take part in a constructive dialogue on globalization and its impact on human rights.  Globalization was a central topic at the United Nations.  The European Union had proposed a series of amendments to make the draft more balanced, and it was prepared to support it.  The European Union participated fairly and in a positive spirit.  Unfortunately, it was noted that none of the proposals were taken into account.

The European Union was not convinced that the global phenomenon affected all human rights, he said.  The interdependence of all human rights did not mean that violation of one meant that all rights were being violated.  The right to be free from torture, for example, had nothing to do with globalization.  Unfortunately, the sponsors did not agree with the changes.  It was unfortunate the draft only spoke of the evils of globalization.  Globalization was not the source of all evils.

The European Union had hoped to go beyond the traditional sterile debate that linked globalization and the growth of poverty, he said.  The Union did not see that link.  Between 1987 and 1998, as noted by the Secretary-General, extreme poverty had been reduced, in nominal terms as well as in terms related to the world population.  The true actors of globalization were not only governments, but hundreds and thousands of transnational corporations.  The world had become a global village, which was open with immediate communication.  It was unfortunate the sponsors did not see this.

By a recorded vote of 109 in favour, 44 against and 10 abstaining (Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Guatemala, Micronesia, Panama, Peru, Republic of Korea, Singapore, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), the resolution was adopted (Annex II).

The representative of Canada, explaining his delegation's position after the vote, and speaking on behalf of Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, said the delegations welcomed the global economic growth that globalization brought, but it also hoped the distribution of its growth could be more equitable.  The delegations agreed that putting the right policies forward was the key challenge for the international community in the 21^st century.  But the resolution did not recognize the complexities of globalization, and did not recognize the benefits globalization could bring.  It did not realize the importance of domestic measures that needed to be in place in order to enjoy the benefits of globalization.

Explaining his delegation's position after the vote, the delegate of the United States said it did not accept the premise that the net effect of globalization was poverty, and it negatively affected the enjoyment of human rights.  The benefits of globalization allowed the international community to shine a light on the human rights abuses around the world.  It benefited the nations that embraced democracy and participated in the global economy.  The developing countries with the fastest growth rates were the countries that were most involved in the global economy.  Failure to recognize this would lead to further economic stagnation and marginalization.

The delegate of Egypt, making a general statement, said the resolution was not about indicting or praising globalization.  It simply made sure that globalization was a fair force for all countries.  Next year countries should work harder toward consensus, and informal consultations on next year's draft would begin after this meeting.  The co-sponsors did not agree with the assertion that they did not understand globalization.

The delegate of Benin, making a general statement, said the issue of globalization had been discussed for several years.  There was no full agreement on the negative impact on globalization.  All agreed with the positive impact.  It was a regrettable situation.  It was hoped through dialogue agreement could be reached.

The delegate of Libya, making a general statement, said Libya agreed with Egypt, that the European Union was wrong in saying that developing countries did not understand the benefits of globalization.  Those who lived in ivory towers should understand better the situation of those who lived in developing countries.

The delegate of Sudan, making a general statement, said she agreed with the comments of Egypt.  Sudan understood the benefits of globalization very well.  It was apparent and evident in the extreme poverty, the spread of disease, and the lack of food that affected the developing countries of the world.

The next resolution was on the Sub-regional center for human rights and democracy in Central Africa (document A/C.3/56/L.69 and programme budget implications contained in document A/C.3/56/L.81).  It was adopted without a vote.

Following was a draft on the protection of migrants (document A/C.3/56/L.71).

The representative of Mexico, the sponsor of the draft, orally introduced technical amendments to the draft.

The resolution was adopted, as orally amended, without a vote.

The representative of Singapore, explaining her delegation's position after the decision, said Singapore took the welfare of migrants very seriously.  It was Singapore's desire to assist migrants to adjust comfortably and happily to the country’s social structure.  At the same time, immigration policies were inevitably conditioned by each country's particular circumstances.  The policies took into account that Singapore was a small and densely-populated country with no natural resources and a heterogeneous population of four million living in an entirely urban environment.  The policies reflected a careful balancing of the disparate needs and interests of the different elements of the population. 

Singapore believed that immigration policies fell within each State's sovereign jurisdiction, the representative said.  Despite its concerns over provisions in the resolution, Singapore was willing to acquiesce to the consensus this year.  However, it reserved the right to reconsider its position in future sessions.

On matters related to human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives, the Committee took up several draft texts.

Under this item, the first draft resolution was on the situation of human rights in Iran (document A/C.3/56/L.50).

The delegate of Yemen, making a general statement, said Yemen considered that human rights were indivisible.  This was based on its commitment to the human rights treaties.  Yemen condemned the violation of human rights wherever they might take place.  The politicization of the human rights issue, and the interference within the internal affairs of nations, was something Yemen rejected.  That methodology was a great danger to human rights.  Yemen would abstain from the resolution.

The delegate of Suriname, making a general statement, said Suriname embraced the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter.  Suriname had seen the brutal violations of human rights in its own country and was profoundly committed to the respect of all human rights.

Iran had handled its responsibility as Chairman of the Group of 77 very well the delegate said.  Suriname had said it would vote in general, without co-sponsorship, so it was withdrawing its co-sponsorship of the resolution.    Suriname said the resolution recognized there was improvement in the human rights situation in Iran.  There was, however, room for concern.  There would be a recorded vote, and Suriname would vote in accordance with its instruction.  In general, the international community should be very glad when there were improvements in countries.

The delegate of Iran, making a general statement, said the realization of human rights was a collective responsibility, as well as a common concern, of members of the international community.  The United Nations had assumed a great role in the promotion and protection of human rights and was trying to ensure that human rights were respected throughout the world.  No region was free from human rights violations.  It behooved everyone to contribute to a fair and constructive engagement in the United Nations human rights activities.

He said the resolution in question had involved itself in finger-pointing.  Under the current agenda item, the European Union had pointed out a number of human rights violations, all in developing countries, while turning a blind eye to the human rights violations of developed countries.  They had a political agenda.  Was this the beginning of a new pattern of assaulting developing countries worldwide?  Iran had been targeted for 20 years.  There were groundless accusations made about the human rights situation there.  The Iranian delegation provided the Committee with the latest statistics on various aspects of human rights.  It was hoped that would lead to a constructive dialogue.

The draft sponsors, however, did not consider that information, and did not recognize the progress or the real situation on the  ground in Iran, he said.  The sponsors did not even realize that Iran had ratified International Labour Organization Convention 182 on the elimination of the worst forms of child labour.  It was only through the principles of impartiality and non-selectivity could the United Nations make a meaningful effort on the promotion and protection of human rights.  It was hoped delegations would vote against the unwarranted draft resolution.

Explaining his delegation's position before the vote, the delegate from Libya said once again the United Nations found itself before a political draft, characterized by a bias against Iran.  Iran had found itself targeted year after year, making it difficult to make progress on human rights.  Instead of encouraging Iran and helping the country implement positive legislation, the international community had moved in the opposite direction, giving negative momentum.  It was hoped delegations would support Iran, giving them help and encouragement.  It was not clear what the sponsors of the draft wanted.

Explaining his delegation's position before the vote, the delegate from China said Iran had made efforts to promote and protect human rights.  The Committee should recognize those efforts.  The draft resolution did not reflect the efforts of Iran, and the resolution should not be supported.

By a recorded vote of 71 in favour, 53 against with 41 abstaining, the resolution was adopted (Annex III).

Explaining her delegation's vote after the vote, the representative of Chile said it had abstained for the second year in a row.  For a long time, Chile experienced human rights violations, and it was not indifferent to the importance of human rights protection.  Chile was concerned that the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights could not visit Iran, and it was hoped Iran would let him visit soon.  It was important, however, to recognize the progress made in Iran.  Chile appreciated the total condemnation made by the President of Iran against terrorism.  That was of paramount importance.  Chile hoped Iran would have a situation where there was a full rule of human rights in its territory.

Explaining her delegation's vote after the vote, the delegate of the Philippines said the Government believed the language in the resolution was a marked improvement.  It was no longer negatively drafted.  The Philippines had abstained.  Her Government encouraged the Government of Iran to continue making progress on human rights.

Explaining her delegation's position after the vote, the delegate of the Bahamas said the Bahamas voted in favour of the text of Iran, and it would do so on the texts on Iran and Sudan.  The Bahamas believed these texts encouraged nations to move towards a fuller respect of human rights.

Explaining his delegation's position after the vote, the delegate of Brazil said it had abstained, as it was encouraged about the progress made.  But his Government had taken note of the position of the Special Rapporteur.  There were questions about the treatment of religious minorities.  Brazil's vote should be construed as an incentive for Iran to continue on the path towards full respect for human rights.

The representative of St. Vincent and the Grenadines said it had intended to vote for the resolution.  Its vote against was unintentional.

Explaining her delegation's position after the vote, the representative of Suriname said the delegation's vote had nothing to do with political pressure.

The next draft was a proposal on the situation of human rights in Sudan (document A/C.3/56/L.58/Rev.1).

The delegate of Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union, asked which delegation asked for the vote.

The Chairman said the vote was requested by the United States and Sudan.

Explaining his delegation's position before the vote, the delegate of the United States said evidence showed the tragic situation of human rights in Sudan.  The resolution called for action to end abductions of women and children.  The United States made it clear to Sudan that ending slavery was imperative to find a peaceful end to the civil war.  The United States believed the resolution did not describe the true tragic position of the human rights situation in Sudan.  Thus, the United States would abstain.

Explaining his delegation's position before the vote, the representative of Sudan said he reserved his right to make a general statement in plenary.  He went on to say the European Union should be thanked for negotiating the resolution.  Sudan demonstrated a considerable flexibility on the draft, despite clear-cut reservations about paragraphs, and inaccuracies in more than one paragraph.  The resolution this year was marked by complexity, and the delving into details.  The resolution was nine pages long -- last year, the resolution was not more than six pages.  Sudan hoped to downsize the resolution to avoid confusion and distortion.  Regrettably, that proposal was not taken into consideration.  On the substantive side, Sudan believed the resolution was prejudiced against the Sudanese Government, and was scandalously biased in favour of the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA).  It compromised the sovereignty of the country.  One paragraph contained references that the utilization of oil led to coercive displacements.  That was a fallacy and the situation had been verified by international observers who had visited the region.  Sudan had every right to utilize the natural resources of its country.

He said the SPLA was known for its terrorist activities.  It carried out bombings; had killed humanitarian workers; and took innocent civilians as human shields.  That was reflected in the records of the United Nations.  The SPLA wanted to prolong the conflict and it was regrettable the draft resolution blessed the activities of that terrorist movement.

The resolution continually invoked the use of the death penalty, he continued.  The international community itself was not of a single opinion on this matter.  The draft resolution showed flagrant selectivity.  Sudan did not claim it was infallible in the field of human rights.  No State was.  If there was progress in human rights, there should be progress in the resolution.  Sudan believed the main reasons for the failure to reach consensus was that the resolution was not objective.  It was drafted in a way which the sponsors knew Sudan could not accepted.  The resolution should not be accepted.

Explaining his delegation's position before the vote, the delegate of China said Sudan had made efforts to promote and protect human rights.  Sudan should be commended for this.  Therefore, China would vote against the resolution.

Explaining her delegation's position before the vote, the delegate of Egypt said the debate on human rights should not be politicized, and human rights should not be used to interfere with the internal affairs of States.  There were different cultures, and the plurality of cultures had to be respected.  Each State had a sovereign right to adopt its own domestic laws.  Egypt would vote against the draft.

Explaining his delegation's position before the vote, the delegate of Libya said Libya wished human rights were not exploited in a political way.  The negotiations and consultations between the European Union and Sudan should have resulted in an agreement.  That not being the case, however, Libya felt the resolution was not neutral or politically-balanced.  It was not a reflection of the facts. 

Explaining his delegation's position before the vote, the delegate of Cuba said human rights should be impartial.  This draft was not partial.  It did not show any of the progress that had been made in Sudan.  It also infringed on the sovereignty of States.  Cuba could not support the resolution.

By a recorded vote of 82 in favour, 34 against with 45 abstaining, the resolution was adopted (Annex IV).

Following the vote, the representative of Suriname said that her delegation had abstained in acknowledgement of the current improvement in the situation of human rights in Sudan and to encourage the country to continue those positive efforts.

The representative of the Bahamas said that her country fully supported the protection and promotion of human rights, and for that reason the delegation had voted in favour of the draft.  International action outlined in the resolution genuinely sought to improve the situation of human rights in the Sudan.  While the Bahamas supported the draft, it did so without prejudice to its own belief that decisions on the death penalty should be left to States.

The representative of Canada said his delegation had co-sponsored the resolution because of its concern at the continued violation of human rights in the Sudan, including the indiscriminate bombing of civilians and denial of humanitarian access.  At the same time, Canada believed that the draft should have emphasized the need for the parties to the conflict to seek peace through the framework of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development peace process.

The situation in the Sudan proved that unilateral peace agreements were ineffective, and therefore language ‘welcoming’ or ‘recognizing’ such commitments was empty, he said.  Canada also remained deeply concerned by restrictions on freedom of association and the right to demonstrate in Sudan.  He urged the Government to ensure that the country’s policies on those rights conformed to Sudan’s international obligations.

On a point of order, the representative of Sudan asked if the co-sponsor of a draft could make a statement in explanation of vote after the vote.

The Chairman, Fuad Mubarak Al-Hinai, said it was his understanding that Canada had made a general statement on the draft.

(annexes follow)

ANNEX I

Vote on Right to Development

The draft resolution on the right to development (document A/C.3/56/l.43/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Japan, United States), with 42 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, Japan, United States.

Abstaining:  Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

Absent:  Albania, Burundi, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Grenada, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Globalization’s Impact on Human Rights

The draft resolution on globalization and its impact on human rights (document A/C.3/56/L.64) was approved by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 44 against, with 10 abstentions, as follows:

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

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

Abstaining:  Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Federated States of Micronesia, Guatemala, Panama, Peru, Republic of Korea, Singapore, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Absent:  Albania, Burundi, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on Human Rights in Iran

The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran (document A/C.3/56/L.50) was adopted by a recorded vote of 71 in favour to 53 against, with 41 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Monaco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu, Yugoslavia.

Against:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

Abstaining:  Angola, Argentina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Guinea, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Singapore, South Africa, Swaziland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Zambia.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cambodia, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Mongolia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Tonga, Turkey, Yemen.

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on human rights in Sudan

The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Sudan (document A/C.3/56/L.58/Rev.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 82 in favour to 34 against, with 45 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Algeria, Bahrain, Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Viet Nam.

Abstaining:  Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Philippines, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Zambia.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Kiribati, Nauru, Palau, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Yemen.

* *** *