Fifty-seventh General Assembly

Third Committee

59^th Meeting (AM)

THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES DRAFT RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EFFECTIVE ACTION

TO ELIMINATE EXTRAJUDICIAL, SUMMARY OR ARBITRARY EXECUTIONS

Draft Approval by Vote of 125 in Favour to None against,

With 30 abstentions; Seven Other Votes Held on Particular Paragraphs of Text

Dismayed that in a number of countries, impunity prevailed and was often the main reason that extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions continued to occur, the General Assembly would express the need for effective action to combat and eliminate those abhorrent practices, and demand that all Governments take effective action to eliminate them, under the terms of a draft resolution, approved today by a vote of 112 in favour to none against with 48 abstentions (Annex VIII).

That action was taken after the Committee held a series of seven separate votes on specific paragraphs -- bringing to fourteen the total number of votes taken on the text since last Friday, 22 November -- including its final approval today.  One of today's actions involved a call by the United States for a joint vote on two paragraphs of the text which would have the Assembly acknowledge the significance of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).  That language was retained by a vote of 125 in favour to two against (United States, Israel), with 30 abstentions (Annex VII).

The other requests for roll-call votes closely mirrored a set of six amendments to specific paragraphs that had been tabled last week by Egypt, as well as the Sudan, on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).  Those amendments, which, among other changes, would have modified language in the text pertaining to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur and the death penalty and would have deleted a list of investigative priorities for Governments -- including "all cases of killings in the name of passion or in the name of honour, and all killings for any discriminatory reason including sexual orientation" -- were all rejected last Friday. 

In the debate this morning, some representatives reaffirmed their beliefs that one of the contested paragraphs was not about extrajudicial executions, which was the focus of the text, stating that the exchange of the word "execution" with "killing" changed the focus of the resolution.  Others felt that references to sexual orientation were "controversial" and reflected the perspective of certain countries concerning a "social phenomenon", which might be viewed totally

differently by others.  Several said that inclusion of that term and other categories listed in the text was beyond the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.

Specific references to the Special Rapporteur's mandate and her interim report were the focus of three of the recorded votes.  The language was retained in operative paragraphs 11, 12 and 22 of the text (See Annexes III, IV and VI). Several delegations felt that the Rapporteur had exceeded the mandate given to her by the Commission, particularly through a perceived selectivity in her examination of extrajudicial execution in relation to the death penalty.  Others, however, stressed the importance of ensuring safeguards in countries where the death penalty had not been abolished, particularly with regard to pregnant women, recent mothers and mentally retarded persons, and welcomed her initiatives in that field. References to the death penalty were retained in operative paragraph 18, by a vote of 77 in favor and 34 against, with 39 abstentions (Annex V).

Also this morning, the Committee took note of a number of reports and notes transmitting the reports of special rapproteurs and special representatives of the Commission on Human Rights, recommending that the Assembly do the same. 

The Committee is scheduled to reconvene at 3:30 p.m., to complete its work for the 2002 substantive session.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this morning to take action on remaining draft resolutions on human rights questions.

Before the Committee there was a draft on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1), which would have the Assembly express its dismay that, in a number of countries, impunity continues to prevail and often remains the main cause of continuing occurrences of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.  The Assembly would, therefore, demand that all governments ensure that those practices be brought to an end, and that they take effective action to combat and eliminate the phenomenon in all its forms.

The Committee voted on several different paragraphs of L.56/Rev.1 during the meeting.  Votes were requested on the third preambular paragraph and operative paragraphs 6, 11, 12, 18, and 22, as well as the seventh preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 3.

The third preambular paragraph reads:  “mindful of General Assembly resolutions on the subject of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, of which the latest was resolution 55/111 of 4 December 2000, and resolutions on the subject by the Commission on Human Rights, and taking note of its latest resolution 2002/36 of 22 April 2002.”

Operative paragraph 6 reads:  “reaffirms the obligation of governments to ensure the protection of the right to life of all persons under their jurisdiction, and calls upon governments concerned to investigate promptly and thoroughly all cases of killings committed in the name of passion or in the name of honour, all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation, racially motivated violence leading to the death of the victim, killing of persons for reasons related to their peaceful activities as human rights defenders or as journalists, as well as other cases where a person’s right to life had been violated, and to bring those responsible to justice before a competent, independent and impartial judiciary and ensure that such killings, including killings committed by security forces, paramilitary groups or private forces, are neither condoned nor sanctioned by government officials or personnel.”

Operative paragraph 11 reads:  “takes not of the interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights to the General Assembly and recommendations therein”.

Operative paragraph 12 reads:  “recalls that the Commission on Human Rights, in its resolution 2001/45, requested the Special Rapporteur, in carrying out her mandate, to continue to examine situations of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions...”

Operative paragraph 18 reads:  “calls upon the governments of all States in which the death penalty had not been abolished to comply with their obligations under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments, keeping in mind the safeguards and guarantees set out in Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 and 1989/64”.

Operative paragraph 22 reads:  “requests the Special Rapporteur to submit an interim report to the General Assembly at its fifty-ninth session on the situation worldwide in regard to extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and her recommendation for more effective action to combat that phenomenon”.  

There will also be a requested joint vote for the seventh preambular paragraph and operative paragraph 3. 

The seventh preambular paragraph reads:  “acknowledging the entry into force on 1 July 2002 of the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court, thereby contributing to ensuring the prosecution and the prevention of impunity concerning extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions”.

Operative paragraph 3 reads:  “acknowledges the historic significance of the establishment of the International Criminal Court on 1 July 2002, and the fact that a significant number of States have already signed, ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute, and calls upon all other States to consider becoming parties to the Statute”. 

Action on Drafts

The Committee had before it a draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document L/56/Rev.1).  A separate vote was requested on the third preambular paragraph, and operative paragraphs 6, 11, 12, 18 and 22.

Regarding the third preambular paragraph, the representative of Finland made a general statement, saying that he regretted that this paragraph would be put to the vote.  It was common practice to refer to previous resolutions, and it made perfect sense to refer to previous resolutions of the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.

Explaining his vote before the vote, the representative of Egypt said his delegation had been among the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) delegations that had voted against the relevant resolution of the Commission on Human Rights, and he would therefore vote against this paragraph.

The representative of Pakistan said his delegation had called for a vote in Geneva due to the reference to sexual orientation.  To be consistent with this position, as well as due to the overstepping of the Special Rapporteur, Pakistan would vote against it.

In a recorded vote, the third preambular paragraph was retained by a vote of 87 in favour to 24 against, with 35 abstentions (Annex I).

The Committee then considered operative paragraph 6, and the representative Finland said that Egypt had not voted against anything in Geneva, since Egypt was not a member of the Commission on Human Rights.  He added that if this paragraph was deleted, the very spirit of the resolution would be removed.  In this paragraph, all Governments were urged to look into all killings, including killings that were racially motivated, honour killings, and killings of people of different sexual orientation.

The representative of New Zealand expressed appreciation for the work of the Special Rapporteur and her important work on extrajudicial killings.  Her valuable contribution in highlighting ongoing violations of human rights and issues which had not until now been debated in the Assembly was commended.  New Zealand would vote in favour of this paragraph.

The representative of Canada said that operative paragraph 6 called upon all States to investigate all killings committed.  Every State must be able to agree to investigate and prosecute any such killing, including killings of people of different sexual orientation.  If the paragraph was deleted, it would remove previously agreed consensus language, as well as new important elements.

The representative of Egypt said his country was a member of the OIC and had been part of the decision to vote against this resolution.  It was not only sexual orientation that had been added to the new resolution.  Killings were mixed with extrajudicial executions in the paragraph, he said.

The representative of Pakistan said the paragraph was not about extrajudicial executions, which was the focus of the resolution.  The exchange of the word execution with killings had totally changed the focus of the resolution.  The resolution must remain within the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.  Pakistan would vote against the resolution.

The representative of Syria said his delegation supported the position of the OIC and would vote against the paragraph.

The representative of the Sudan said the language of this paragraph had included many new elements, including sexual orientation as well as the confusion between extrajudicial executions and killings.

The representative of Malaysia was not in favour of the listing found in paragraph 6 leading to the weakening of an otherwise very important resolution.  Consistent with Malaysia’s position in the Commission on Human Rights, she would vote against this paragraph.

The representative of Iran said the branding of the sexual orientation was based on one perspective of certain countries concerning a social phenomenon.  Such a phenomenon might be viewed totally differently by other countries, and the inclusion of this term in the resolution only increased suspicion and mistrust between countries.  The listing in this paragraph did not go within the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, and Iran would vote against this paragraph.

The representative of Libya said Libya could not accept operative paragraph 6 and would vote against it.

The representative of Lebanon added that he too would vote against the paragraph.

In a recorded vote on operative paragraph 6, the Committee decided to retain the paragraph in a vote of 92 in favour and 34 against with 28 abstentions (Annex II).

The Committee then took up operative paragraph 11 of the draft.

Before the vote, the representative of Finland said that the wording in operative paragraph 11 was very neutral, and his delegation regretted that a vote had to be taken.  Finland would vote in favour of its retention.

The representative of Egypt said debate of this very issue had caused the Committee to lose a month of negotiations and had been under debate for some five days now.  Egypt had been prepared to take note of the report merely with the qualifier that further reporting take place "within her mandate".

The paragraph was retained by a vote of 91 in favour to 28 against, with   33 abstentions (Annex III).

Following that action, the representative of the United States said that her delegation would emphasize the importance of the Special Rapporteur adhering scrupulously to the terms of her mandate.

The representative of Iran said it was his delegation's belief that the Special Rapporteur should not address crimes which did not fall under the rubric of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.  By the same token any resolution adopted should also follow the guidelines of that mandate.  During discussions of the Special Rapporteurs report, she had admitted that there were inconsistencies in that report concerning her mandate.  That statement should serve to address his delegation's concern for operative paragraph 12.

The Committee then turned to operative paragraph 12.

The representative of Finland said it was difficult to understand the logic behind the request for a vote on the paragraph.  After all it had been lifted directly from a resolution adopted by the Commission on Human Rights.

The representative of Malaysia said it was regrettable that the main sponsor had been unable to accommodate the concerns of those wishing to modify the text.  Those proposed changes would have strengthened the text by exhaustively listing the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, as well as the parameters within which she would have carried out her mandate.  Malaysia would vote against the paragraph. 

The representative of Egypt concurred.

The representative of Pakistan said that retaining the unclear elements in operative paragraph 12 would be a vote to retain the very issues that had made the draft so contentious.  Pakistan would vote against such retention.

The representative of the Sudan reiterated the importance of the Special Rapporteur remaining within her mandate.

The representative of Syria said that since the co-sponsors had not been receptive to calls for amendments; since confusion would continue; and since the Special Rapporteur had gone beyond her mandate, Syria would vote against the text.

The paragraph was retained by a vote of 89 in favour and 33 against, with  31 abstentions.

The Committee then turned to operative paragraph 18, and in a general statement the representative of Finland said that in operative paragraph 18, co-sponsors had already gone back to agreed language, which now was being questioned.  All this paragraph did was to call on countries that had the death penalty to ensure the protection of pregnant mothers and mentally retarded persons.  It was not a comment on the death penalty itself.

The representative of Malaysia, in explaining her vote before the vote, said Governments of all States had obligations which they had assumed did not violate the rights to life.  All States, equally, must bear this responsibility.  Only singling out countries who had the death penalty would send the wrong message.

The representatives of Egypt and Pakistan associated themselves with the statement made by Malaysia and would oppose the retention of this paragraph.

The representative of Iran said the resolution addressed only some Governments even though countries who did not have the death penalty could also face extrajudicial executions.  The singling out of States with the death penalty was unacceptable.

The representative of Syria said the resolution showed selectivity, and Syria would oppose the retention of this paragraph.

The representative of the Sudan said her delegation had always refused selectivity in dealing with human rights.  The paragraph was selective and only called upon a certain number of States.  Therefore, her delegation would vote against this paragraph.

The representative of Indonesia emphasized that the title was on extrajudicial executions, not legal executions.  This paragraph therefore had no value and he would vote against its retention.

The representative of Lebanon said the inclusion of this paragraph sent a strange message; however, Lebanon would abstain given the importance of the paragraph.

The representative of Libya said the question of the death penalty was a complex issue which did not belong in the paragraph.

In a recorded vote, the Committee decided to retain the paragraph with a vote of 77 in favour to 34 against, with 39 abstentions (Annex V).

After the vote, the representative of Iran said Iran had not asked for the deletion of this paragraph but its improvement.

The Committee then turned to operative paragraph 22, and in a general statement, the representative of Finland said the request of an interim report of the Special Rapporteur in two years time was important and must be retained.

The representative of Egypt said that his delegation would vote against this paragraph since there was no agreement on what constituted an extrajudicial execution.

In a recorded vote, the Committee retained operative paragraph 22 by a vote of 97 in favour to 23 against, with 34 abstentions (Annex VI).

A joint vote was called concerning paragraphs which would have the Assembly acknowledge the significance of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal

Court (ICC); the seventh preambular paragraph and operative paragraph

3, respectively.

Before action was taken, the representative of Finland said the link between the Rome Statute and eradicating summary executions were obvious.  Indeed, that Statute referred to such practices as crimes against humanity and war crimes.  Finland would vote for the paragraphs.

The representative of Liechtenstein said the focus of the draft fell under the rubric of the Rome Statute.  Further, the language in the present draft had been agreed to in other forums.  The formulation was already a compromise by delegations like his own, which would have preferred even stronger references to the Court and its importance.  The delegations of Chile, France, Switzerland, Costa Rica, and Denmark, on behalf of the European Union, all concurred with this statement.

The representative of Canada deeply regretted that the United States had again called for a vote on language referring to the ICC in an important human rights resolution.  The reference in the text acknowledges the "historic significance" of the ICC and merely called on States to sign and ratify the Rome Statute, leaving that decision up to States themselves.  The position of the United States was well known, but if that country believed its position was that important, perhaps it should consider putting it on record, rather than calling for votes on this important issue.

The representative of Norway associated her delegation's statement with that made by Finland and Canada, as did New Zealand.

The representative of the United States was committed to the struggle against impunity and extrajudicial or summary executions.  The United States had called for a vote based on what it believed were inappropriate references to the ICC.  The United States’ position on the Rome Statute was well known and there was no need to restate it today.  Still, it would reiterate that it did not seek to undermine the Court and respected the rights of States to become party to the Statute.  At the same time, the United States would request that the same respect be granted to its position on the matter.  She added that her delegation had requested that the language be redrafted to reflect facts rather than "characterizations" of facts.

The representative of Egypt said that his delegation usually supported references to the ICC, but, as this text stressed the link between ICC and extrajudicial executions, and since the resolution had blurred the difference between such practices and "killings", Egypt could not support those paragraphs.

The paragraphs were retained by a vote of 125 in favour to 2 against (United States and Israel), with 30 abstentions (Annex VII).

The Committee then took up the draft as a whole.

The representative of Egypt said this was perhaps the first time the Committee had taken up a resolution that had required so many separate votes.  He invoked Rule 89 of the General Assembly, which required a vote on the text.  He added to that a request for a vote.

The representative of Suriname said her country had gained its independence 27 years ago today.  The colours of its flag and coat of arms reflected its diverse population and the struggle of all its ethnic and indigenous groups to live together in peace.  Suriname would strongly support the draft, as it was still suffering the effects of serious violations of human rights, most pertinently the violence sparked in 1982, in which many citizens had been subjected to summary or arbitrary executions.  Suriname had not participated in any voting on the draft, as it was still memorializing that event.

The representative of Chile, one of the draft's sponsors, said he hoped the Committee would adopt it by consensus.

The representative of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the European Union, had supported the initial draft and concurred with all statements made by Finland and others in favour of approving the resolution as revised.  All the issues the text addressed were of utmost importance to the European Union, particularly the importance of the role of the Special Rapporteur, and the historic significance of the establishment of the ICC.  The European Union had voted against all attempts to amend the draft, and would vote in favour of its current formulation.

In explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Pakistan said that all the voting was reflective of the split feelings of the Committee on the resolution.  He joined Egypt in calling for a vote.

The representative of Malaysia said that what could have otherwise been a strong resolution had been turned into a contentious one.  Her delegation regretted that the opportunity had been squandered, and would join the call for a vote.

The representative of Algeria said the current draft contained controversial elements and no consensus had been formed.  His delegation would abstain from the vote.

The representative of Lebanon said his delegation would have indeed preferred that the text would have been approved by consensus.  What was clear was that the Special Rapporteur had gone beyond her mandate and had broken the consensus in the Committee.  Lebanon would abstain, but looked forward to a day when extrajudicial or summary executions were totally eradicated.

The representative of Morocco said the Special Rapporteur did not adhere to her mandate, and he would hope that further texts on the matter would include a clearer explanation of that mandate.  Morocco would abstain.

The representative of the Sudan, while stressing the necessity of eradicating the practice of all forms of summary or arbitrary executions, expressed concern that the resolution had not been approved by consensus.  She hoped that in future negotiations on the text, the concerns of all delegations could be included.  She believed that consensus had been at hand, but due to inflexibility on the part of the co-sponsors, broad agreement had not been reached.  She added that the Committee had reached consensus on other, perhaps even more difficult issues, and she could, therefore, not understand why negotiations had broken down.  The Sudan would abstain from the vote.

The representative of Libya still had some concerns, particularly that the text had been drafted with close consideration of the report of the Special Rapporteur, who had gone beyond her mandate and had addressed several controversial issues, such as sexual orientation, the death penalty and the ICC.  Indeed, such controversial issues, particularly those that did not respect cultural diversity, could have been left out of the draft.  Libya would abstain.

The representative of Syria would abstain from the vote, due to the disputed elements it contained.  She hoped that in the future, such elements would be left out of the draft.

The resolution was approved by a vote of 112 in favour to none against, with 48 abstentions (Annex VIII).

After the vote, the representative of Mali said his country attached special importance to combating extrajudicial executions; however, Mali had been forced to abstain during the vote as a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), as well as a result of disagreement with the language contained in operative paragraph 17.

The representative of Singapore said he had abstained in the vote, due to the importance of Special Rapporteurs' maintaining and staying within their mandates.  It was disturbing that some countries were encouraging this trend, which ultimately would weaken the Office of the High Commissioner. 

The representative of United Republic of Tanzania said she had voted in favour of the resolution, but stressed that in no way must the death penalty be viewed or compared to killings.  Each State had the right to determine its legal system.

The representative of Senegal had supported the resolution as a whole.  He stressed that it was not the OIC that had asked for the vote.  One single Member State had called for the vote. 

The representative of Benin said her delegation was proud to say that its country was in the lead when it came to human rights and had, therefore, been happy to support the resolution as a whole.  She briefly commented on operative paragraph 6 and 18.  It was hoped that every effort would be made so that in the future it would be adopted by consensus. 

The representative of Suriname said, regarding the execution of the duties of Special Rapporteurs, that Suriname had had several good experiences.  As for the current Special Rapporteur, Suriname was very satisfied with her and her work. 

The representative of Pakistan said a very important resolution had just been adopted, despite serious concerns of Member States.  His delegation had abstained on the vote on the whole resolution.  Regrettably, the Committee had taken action on this resolution, with a total of 14 votes on separate paragraphs.  He had hoped that the co-sponsors would have made more of an effort to ensure a consensus text for the elimination of those horrible crimes. 

The representative of Egypt said the delegate from Senegal had been mistaken in his statement.  Some delegations had recalled what the OIC believed in Geneva  -- the OIC had not called for a vote.  Only the Sudan could speak on behalf of the OIC.  Why had there been so many votes on this resolution?  Egypt had made its concerns known a long time ago -- the rejection of cultural diversity.  However, the co-sponsors had not taken those concerns into consideration. 

The representative of Malaysia said it was regrettable that consensus had not been found.  Member States had been ready to negotiate; however, their concerns had not been reflected.  Efforts to strengthen the resolution had been rejected. 

The representative of Indonesia said the draft resolution was one of the most controversial resolutions.  There was no delegation here that condoned arbitrary, summary or extrajudicial execution.  The controversy had begun when co-sponsors had added other issues, such as the International Criminal Court, sexual orientation and the death penalty.  More understanding between Member States and respect for Member States’ concerns was needed.

The representative of Finland thanked all delegations for the interest they had showed in this subject during the last few weeks.  The resolution contained various aspects of extrajudicial executions, it was stronger than ever, and had more co-sponsors than ever. 

The representative of Madagascar said that her country had not been able to co-sponsor the resolution this year.  Nevertheless, Madagascar had always supported the resolution.

The representative of Senegal said that the Egyptian delegate must have misunderstood him.  He had only made some clarifications, and had not made the mistakes that the Egyptian delegate had claimed.  He wanted an apology.

The representative of the Sudan, on behalf of the OIC, stressed the importance of human rights to the OIC, and hoped that in two years time a consensus could be found through cooperation and understanding.  She congratulated Finland and other co-sponsors for the adoption of the resolution. 

The representative of Egypt said his delegation had reacted to the English interpretation.  Maybe the representative of Senegal was owed an apology -- not by the delegate of Egypt -- but by the interpreter.

The Committee then took note of a number of documents, including reports of the Secretary-General on the protection of migrants (document A/57/134); on the role and achievement of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in assisting the Government and people of Cambodia in the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/57/277); on human rights and cultural diversity (document A/57/311); on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (A/57/371); on the strengthening of the United Nations in the field of human rights through the promotion of international cooperation and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity (document A/57/385); and on the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa (document A/57/394) 

The Committee also took note of notes by the Secretary-General transmitting reports by the following, and recommended that the Assembly do the same:  the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/57/138); the Special Representative on human rights defenders (document A/57/182); and the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities (document A/57/357). 

(annexes follow)

ANNEX I

Vote on Extrajudicial Executions –- Preambular Paragraph 3

Preambular paragraph 3 of the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 87 in favour to 24 against, with 35 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.

Against:  Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Abstaining:  Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Belize, Benin, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Congo, Dominica, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, South Africa, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Bahamas, Botswana, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote On Extra Judicial Executions, Operative Paragraph 6

Operative paragraph 6 of the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 92 in favour to 34 against, with 28 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.

Against:  Algeria, Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Abstaining:  Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Haiti, India, Israel, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Namibia, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Turkey, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on Extrajudicial Executions, Operative Paragraph 11

Operative paragraph 11 of the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 91 in favour to 28 against, with 33 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.

Against:  Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States, Yemen.

Abstaining:  Bahamas, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Ghana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Namibia, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Swaziland, Turkey, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on Extrajudicial Executions, Operative Paragraph 12

Operative paragraph 12 of the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 89 in favour to 33 against, with 31 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.

Against:  Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei Darussalam, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Abstaining: Azerbaijan, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Haiti, India, Israel, Jordan, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Turkey, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Mauritania, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

ANNEX V

Vote on Extrajudicial Executions

Operative paragraph 18 of the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 77 in favour to 34 against, with 39 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.

Against:  Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Gambia, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Abstaining:  Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Congo, Dominica, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Haiti, India, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, South Africa, Swaziland, Thailand, Tunisia, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Mali, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

(END OF ANNEX V)

ANNEX VI

Vote on Extrajudicial Executions, Operative Paragraph 22

Operative paragraph 22 of the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to 23 against, with 34 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Bahrain, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States, Yemen.

Abstaining:  Algeria, Bangladesh, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Haiti, Indonesia, Israel, Lebanon, Lesotho, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Nigeria, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Swaziland, Tunisia, United Republic of Tanzania.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Mali, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

(END OF ANNEX VI)

ANNEX VII

Vote On Extrajudicial Executions

Preambular paragraph 7 and operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1) were adopted by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 2 against, with 30 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, United States.

Abstaining:  Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, China, Comoros, Cuba, Egypt, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

(END OF ANNEX VII)

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Extrajudicial Executions (Whole)

The draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/57/L.56/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 112 in favour to none against, with 48 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstaining:  Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Iraq, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Niger, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

* *** *