COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS 10 RESOLUTIONS AND DECISION ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS 10 RESOLUTIONS AND DECISION

ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

Renews Mandates of Independent Expert on Structural

Adjustment Policies, Special Rapporteurs on Right to Food, Adequate Housing

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 22 April (UN Information Service) -- The Commission on Human Rights this afternoon adopted 10 resolutions and a decision under its agenda item on economic, social and cultural rights.  Among other measures, it renewed for three years the mandates of the Independent Expert on structural adjustment policies and foreign debt, the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, and the Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing.

In a resolution on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, adopted in a roll-call vote of 38 in favour and 13 against, with 2 abstentions, the Commission categorically condemned such dumping and reaffirmed that such illicit traffic and dumping constituted a serious threat to the human rights to life and the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical health.
It urged all Governments to ban the export of toxic and dangerous products that were banned or severely restricted in their own countries, and urged the Special Rapporteur to continue consultations on a global, multidisciplinary study of existing problems and solutions to such trafficking and dumping of dangerous products.  Representatives of Japan, Ireland on behalf of the European Union, and Syria took the floor to speak about this resolution.

Concerning the effects of structural adjustment policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, the Commission adopted a resolution in a roll-call vote of 29 in favour and 14 against, with 10 abstentions, in which it said that it was fully aware that structural adjustment reform programmes gave inadequate attention to the provision of social services and that only a few countries managed to achieve sustainable higher growth under these programmes.  The Commission decided to renew the mandate of the Independent Expert on structural adjustment policies and foreign debt for another three years.  Representatives of Guatemala and Ireland on behalf of the European Union made statements on this resolution.

With regards to women's equal ownership, access to and control over land and the equal rights to own property and to adequate housing, the Commission adopted a

resolution in which it reaffirmed women's rights to an adequate standard of living, including housing.  The Commission requested the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing to submit a report to the Commission at its sixty-first session containing a study on women and adequate housing.  The United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico and Germany spoke at the Commission on this resolution.

In a resolution on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 38 in favour, 15 against, with no abstentions, the Commission requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in the analytical study requested of him on the principle of non-discrimination in the context of globalization, to focus particularly on the need for clarification of the human rights principle of non-discrimination as it related to the trade rules of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture.  It underlined that, in the absence of a framework based on the fundamental principles which underpinned the corpus of human rights, globalization would continue on its inherently asymmetrical course.  Representatives of Japan and Ireland on behalf of the European Union took the floor on this resolution. 

Concerning a resolution on human rights and extreme poverty, adopted without a vote, the Commission reaffirmed that extreme poverty and exclusion from society constituted a violation of human dignity and that urgent national and international action was required to eliminate them.  It called upon the United Nations to strengthen poverty eradication as a priority throughout the United Nations system; and urged States and encouraged the private sector and international financial and development institutions, such as the World Bank and regional development banks, to promote participation of individuals and groups who were victims of racism, racial discrimination, and related intolerance in economic, cultural, and social decisions-making at all stages.

With regards to the right to food, the Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 51 in favour and 1 against, with 1 abstention, a resolution in which it encouraged all States to take steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right to food.  It decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for a further three years and recommended that the Economic and Social Council endorse this decision.  Representatives of the United States and Canada made statements on this resolution.

In a resolution on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, the Commission took note of the report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing and decided to renew his mandate for a period of three years.  It requested the Special Rapporteur to submit a report to the Commission at its sixtieth session.  Cuba and the United States made statements on this resolution.

In a measure (decision 3) on the Social Forum, the Commission decided, by a vote of 36 in favour, one against with 16 abstentions, to recommend to the Economic and Social Council that it authorize the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to convene in Geneva an annual intersessional forum on economic, social and cultural rights, to be known as the Social Forum, for two days on dates that would permit the possible participation of 10 members of the Sub-Commission.  Cuba, Chile and Algeria took the floor on this measure.

The Commission also adopted resolutions on the promotion of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone and respect for different cultural identities; the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; and access to medication in the context of pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.  Representatives of the following countries made statements on these resolutions:  United States, Guatemala, Ireland, Canada, Argentina, India, South Africa, and Syria.

Statements by Cuba and the United States were made on draft resolution L.4 on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination.  Because of time constraints, the Commission postponed taking action on the draft until Wednesday, 23 April.

The Commission will hold an extended meeting on Wednesday, 23 April, from
9 a.m. to 6 p.m., with a one-hour break for lunch, during which it will continue to take action on remaining draft resolutions.

Action on Draft Resolutions on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

In a resolution on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights, (E/CN.4/2003/ L.19), adopted in a roll-call vote of 38 in favour and 13 against, with 2 abstentions, the Commission categorically condemned such dumping; reaffirmed that such illicit traffic and dumping constituted a serious threat to the human rights to life and the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical health; urged all Governments to take appropriate legislative and other measures to prevent such trafficking and dumping and the transfer of polluting industries and industrial activities and technologies which generated hazardous wastes from developed to developing countries; invited relevant organizations to continue to intensify cooperation and coordination and technical assistance on the environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes, including the question of their transboundary movement; and requested the Governments of developed countries, together with international financial institutions, to provide financial assistance to African countries for the implementation of the Programme of Action adopted at the First Continental Conference for Africa on the Environmentally Sound Management of Unwanted Stocks of Hazardous Wastes and Their Prevention.

The Commission urged all Governments to ban the export of toxic and dangerous products that were banned or severely restricted in their own countries; and urged the Special Rapporteur to continue consultations on a global, multidisciplinary study of existing problems and solutions to such trafficking and dumping of dangerous products.

The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (38):  Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.

Against (13):  Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States.

Abstentions (2): Armenia, and Ukraine.

A Representative of Japan said his delegation shared concerns expressed by the co-sponsors of draft resolution L.19 and reiterated its position that the illicit dumping of toxic waste had adverse affects on human rights.  However, Japan was doubtful whether the Commission was the appropriate forum to address the matter.  Japan believed that the issue should be addressed by bodies that had more expertise and adequate resources.  Consequently, Japan would vote against L.19.

A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of countries of the European Union and countries acceding and associated to it, said that the present draft resolution dealt with an issue of the environment and not human rights.  Issues of the environment had been treated in the past in other fora.  It had been suggested that the issue would be discussed between the African group and other concerned parties before the end of the year.  The text did not reflect the essential elements that the European Union was requiring.  The European Union would vote against the text.

A Representative of Syria thanked the African Group for the excellent preparation of the draft.  Considering the serious impact and adverse effects of such materials on the environment, including in areas such as the Syrian Golan as a result of Israeli activities, his delegation would vote in favour of the draft resolution. 

In a resolution on the effects of structural adjustment policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, (E/CN.4/2003/L.23), adopted in a recorded vote of 29 in favour and 14 against, with 10 abstentions, the Commission said that it was fully aware that structural adjustment reform programmes gave inadequate attention to the provision of social services and that only a few countries managed to achieve sustainable higher growth under these programmes; acknowledged that debt indicators for developing countries showed a slight improvement from 2000 to 2001, but was concerned because many countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, still carried very high external debt burdens relative to their gross national products; and acknowledged that a number of creditor countries were offering debt relief on a bilateral basis in addition to the debt relief extended in the framework of the Paris Club and had continued to write off official debt of several low-income countries, partly on a scale beyond the commitments made within the framework of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, although much progress remained to be made towards the achievement of a lasting solution to the debt problems of developing countries, in particular the least developed countries.

The Commission noted that in several low- and middle-income countries unsustainable levels of external debt continued to create a considerable barrier to sustainable development and increased the risk that the Millennium goals regarding development and poverty would not be attained; and recognized that debt relief could play a key role in liberating resources that should be directed towards activities consistent with sustainable growth and development.

The Commission recalled the call on industrialized countries, as expressed in the Millennium Declaration, to implement the enhanced programme of debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries without further delay and to agree to cancel all official bilateral debts of those countries in return for their making demonstrable commitments to poverty reduction; called upon the international community, including the United Nations system, and invited the Bretton Woods institutions, as well as the private sector, to take appropriate measures and actions for the implementation of the agreements of major United Nations summits in relation to the question of the external debt problems of developing countries; to implement speedily and effectively the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative; to encourage exploring innovative mechanisms to comprehensively address the debt problems of developing countries; stressed the need for economic programmes arising from foreign debt to be country-driven and for their macroeconomic and financial policy issues to be integrated on an equal footing with the realization of broader social development goals; and affirmed that the exercise of the basic rights of the people of debtor countries to food, housing, clothing, employment, education, health services and a healthy environment could not be subordinated to the implementation of structural adjustment policies.

The Commission decided to renew the mandate of the Independent Expert on structural adjustment policies and foreign debt for another three years.

The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (29):  Algeria, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.

Against (14):  Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States.

Abstentions (10):  Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Chile, Costa Rica, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Saudi Arabia, and Ukraine.

A Representative of Guatemala said that the developed world could not assume the entire responsibility for the problems afflicting developing countries, though it could certainly do more to alleviate them. 

A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union member States of the Commission, as well as Poland, said that the European Union was of the view that the adoption of such a resolution was beyond the competence and expertise of the Commission and should be dealt with by other bodies.  As on previous occasions, the European Union would like to underline that it remained opposed to the mandate of the Working Group on structural adjustment, and it was against any further sessions of that Working Group.  The European Union would vote against L. 23.

A Representative of Guatemala said that this important issue required revision and must not be ignored by the international community.  The Commission was also warned about internal elites that took advantage of external financing, a dangerous trend that many countries, including Guatemala, had been a victim of.  Guatemala must therefore support the draft resolution and would vote in favour of it.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.24) on women's equal ownership, access to and control over land and the equal rights to own property and to adequate housing, adopted without a vote, the Commission reaffirmed women's rights to an adequate standard to living, including housing; affirmed that discrimination in law against women with respect to such rights constituted a violation of women's human right to protection against discrimination; encouraged Governments to support the transformation of customs and traditions that discriminated against women in matters of housing and land ownership; reaffirmed the obligation of States to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women by any person, organization or enterprise and recommended that Governments encourage financial lending institutions to ensure that their policies and practices did not discriminate against women; urged Governments to address the issue of forced relocation and forced evictions from home and land, and to eliminate their disproportionate impact on women; recommended that financial institutions at all levels and other credit facilities promoted the participation of women and take into account their views in order to remove discriminatory policies and practices; encouraged the United Nations Housing Rights Programme to take into account the content of the present resolution; and requested the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing to submit a report to the Commission at its sixty-first session containing a study on women and adequate housing.

The Commission rejected a proposed amendment to L.24 by a roll-call vote of 3 in favour, 36 against, with 14 abstentions.  The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (3):  Australia, United Kingdom and United States.

Against (36):  Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, India, Japan, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (14):  Bahrain, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Gabon, Germany, Ireland, Kenya, Poland, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sweden and Ukraine

A Representative of the United States said his delegation strongly supported the goals of the draft resolution.  However, the delegation did not agree on certain terminology on adequate housing, which was included in the text.  Other options could have been discussed.  The phrase "adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living" should be used instead of the current phrasing of "right to adequate housing".  The words "right to" before "adequate housing" should be deleted.

       A Representative of the United Kingdom said that her delegation strongly supported draft resolution L. 24 but believed that it would be more consistent with article 11 of the Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights to refer to adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living.

A Representative of Mexico said that her delegation could not accept the amendment suggested by the United States as it intended to ignore adequate housing as a right.  Her delegation did not understand the intention of the United States to confuse this important issue.  Last year this resolution had been adopted by consensus showing the feelings of the member States of the Commission.  Mexico would call for a vote on the amendment and would vote against it. 

A Representative of Germany said that his delegation would abstain from voting on the amendment presented by the United States delegation.  There was no consensus on the issue of the "right to adequate housing" as opposed to "adequate housing as component of the right to an adequate standard of living".

      In a resolution (E7CN.4/2003/L.25) on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 38 in favour,
15 against, with no abstentions, the Commission recognized that while globalization, by its impact on, inter alia, the role of the State, could affect human rights, the promotion and protection of human rights was first and foremost the responsibility of the State; reaffirmed that, in addition to States' separate responsibilities to their individual societies, they had a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality, and equity at the global level; and also reaffirmed the commitment to create an environment that was conducive to development and to the elimination of poverty through, inter alia, good governance within each country and at the international level, transparency in the financial, monetary and trading systems and the commitment to an open, equitable, rule-based, predictable and non-discriminatory multilateral trading and financial system.

The Commission reaffirmed that the right to development was an inalienable human right; requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to bring to the attention of the World Trade Organization and the World Commission on Social Dimensions of Globalization of the International Labour Organization the report of the High Commissioner titled "Globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of human rights", which focused on the liberalization of agricultural trade and its impact on the realization of the right to development, including the right to food; requested the High Commissioner, in the analytical study requested of him on the principle of non-discrimination in the context of globalization, to focus particularly on the need for clarification of the human rights principle of
non-discrimination as it related to the trade rules of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture; and underlined that, in the absence of a framework based on the fundamental principles which underpinned the corpus of human rights, globalization would continue on its inherently asymmetrical course.

The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (38):  Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

Against (15):  Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

A Representative of Japan said that globalization had a tremendous impact on people everywhere.  Everywhere, people enjoyed the positive impact of globalization.  While Japan did not ignore the negative impacts of globalization, the positive impacts far outweighed the negative ones in developed and developing countries alike.  The draft resolution did not reflect the enormous potential of globalization and it was therefore unbalanced and biased.  In addition, Japan felt that it would be inappropriate of the Commission to act on purely economic issues, which would be better addressed in other fora.  The delegation of Japan therefore called for a recorded vote of the draft resolution. 

A representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the issue of globalization was not new to the Commission.  While not ignoring the fact that globalization could have positive and negative effects on human rights, the European Union found it difficult to address globalization as a separate and specific issue.  Furthermore, the Commission did not have the competence and expertise to address this issue.  Consequently, the European Union saw no other option but to vote against L.25 

In a resolution on human rights and extreme poverty (E7CN.4/2003/L.26), adopted without a vote, the Commission reaffirmed that extreme poverty and exclusion from society constituted a violation of human dignity and that urgent national and international action was required to eliminate them; that the right to life included within it existence in human dignity with the minimum necessities of life; that the existence of widespread absolute poverty inhibited the full and effective enjoyment of human rights; that political commitment, social justice and equal access to social services were conditions sine qua non for the eradication of poverty; that it was essential for States to foster participation by the poorest people in the decision-making process in the societies in which they lived; and that special attention must be given to the plights of women, particularly older women and women alone at home, and children, who often bore the greatest burden of extreme poverty.

The Commission recognized the efforts of developing countries, in particular the commitment and determination of African leaders, to seriously address the challenges of poverty, underdevelopment, marginalization, social exclusion, economic disparities, instability and insecurity, through such initiatives as the New Partnership for Africa's Development and other innovative mechanisms, such as the World Solidarity Fund for the Eradication of Poverty, and called upon the developed countries, the United Nations and its specialized agencies, as well as the international financial institutions, to provide new and additional financial resources to support these initiatives; called upon the United Nations to strengthen poverty eradication as a priority throughout the United Nations system; and urged States and encouraged the private sector and international financial and development institutions, such as the World Bank and regional development banks, to promote participation of individuals and groups who were victims of racism, racial discrimination, and related intolerance in economic, cultural, and social decisions-making at all stages, particularly in the development and implementation of poverty-alleviation strategies, development projects, and trade and market assistance programmes.

      In a resolution on the right to food (E/CN.4/2003/L.27), adopted in a
roll-call vote of 51 in favour and 1 against, with 1 abstention, the Commission encouraged all States to take steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right to food, including steps to promote the conditions for everyone to be free from hunger and as soon as possible enjoy fully the right to food, as well as to elaborate and adopt national plans to combat hunger; and took note with interest the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food.

The Commission decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for a further three years; requested the High Commissioner to provide all necessary human and financial resources for the effective fulfilment of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur; requested the Special Rapporteur to submit a report to the General Assembly at its fifty-eighth session and to report to the Commission at its sixtieth session on the implementation of the present resolution; and recommended that the Economic and Social Council endorse its decision to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food for a further three years.

The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (51):  Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

Against (1):  United States.

Abstention (1):  Australia.

A Representative of the United States said his delegation could not support the resolution on the right to food.  His Government was the largest donor of food aid in the world.  His Government's commitment to provide food and end hunger was unquestionable.  His Government could not in any way endorse the work of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler.  Instead, he should be reprimanded for his irresponsible statements and for abusing his mandate.  His delegation would request for recorded vote and would vote against the text.

A Representative of Canada said it supported the progressive realization of the right to food and was therefore in a position to support the draft resolution.  With regards to the right to water, the Government of Canada accepted that Governments had the responsibility to provide clean water, however, Canada did not accept the notion that there was a right to water, particularly between States.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.28) on the promotion of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone and respect for different cultural identities, adopted without a vote, the Commission stressed that, in the face of current imbalances in flows and exchanges of cultural goods and services at the global level, it was necessary to reinforce international cooperation and solidarity aimed at enabling all countries, especially developing countries and countries in transition, to establish cultural industries that were viable and competitive at the national and international level; underlined that market forces alone could not guarantee the preservation and promotion of cultural diversity, which was the key to sustainable human development; called upon States and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to take appropriate measures and actions for the implementation of the present resolution; and requested once again the High Commissioner for Human Rights to consult States and intergovernmental organizations on the possibility of appointing a Special Rapporteur on the basis of whose mandate would be the comprehensive implementation of the present resolution; and decided to continue its consideration of this matter at its sixtieth session. 

A Representative of the United States said that the United States supported the preservation of cultural diversity within all nations of the world.  However, it was important to remember that any process aimed at enabling countries to establish viable cultural industries must not impede the international circulation of cultural goods and services.  In the view of the United States, cultural diversity embodied the freedom of cultural expression, both within and across a state’s borders.  The United States firmly believed that market forces led to the preservation and promotion of cultural diversity and interpreted the resolution as protecting cultural diversity by encouraging the free flow of cultural goods and services within and between nations. 

A Representative of Guatemala said that his country attached great importance and interest to the draft resolution L.28 on the issue of cultural rights and cultural diversity as reflected in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the text.  However, there was a lack of clarity in some of the paragraphs.  Education was one of the instruments in perpetuating cultural diversity.  Guatemala was a multicultural, multi-ethnic and pluri-lingual country which had ratified the ILO Convention on the rights of indigenous peoples and had recognized the cultural diversity of the nation at the constitutional level.  It had also invested much on the recognition of the cultural identity of its indigenous people.  For that reasons, his delegation would vote in favour of the text.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.30/Rev.1) on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, the Commission took note of the report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing; welcomed the efforts undertaken by the Special Rapporteur to bring the issue of adequate housing to the attention of relevant UN conferences and summits; requested the Special Rapporteur, in the fulfilment of his mandate, to give particular emphasis to practical solutions with regards to the implementation of the rights relevant to his mandate; decided to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a period of three years and requested the Special Rapporteur to submit a report to the Commission at its sixtieth session.

A Representative of Cuba welcomed the draft resolution and said that unfortunately Cuba had not been able to be a co-sponsor since the standard established in the resolution was too low.  Cuba would have preferred a more progressive resolution acknowledging the “right to adequate housing”.  However, as in previous years, the Cuban delegation would join the consensus, and if the draft was put to a vote, would vote in favour of the draft resolution. 

A Representative of the United States said that this resolution allowed for an enabling approach to the provision of housing.  Unlike many of the other resolutions dealing with economic rights, this resolution did not assume that a State must directly provide housing to all its populace.  Rather, this resolution called upon all countries to take steps to progressively realize the right of everyone to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of themselves and their families, including housing.  In order for States to progressively realize adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, it would be essential for States to have good governance within their countries, democratic institutions, the rule of law, anti-corruption measures, gender equality and an enabling environment for investment.  The United States therefore regretted that these concepts could not be included in the resolution, as had been proposed by some delegations.

In a resolution on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (E/CN.4/2003/32), adopted in a roll-call vote of 39 in favour and 1 against, with 13 abstentions, the Commission called upon States to guarantee that the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health would be exercised without discrimination of any kind; recommended that the Economic and Social Council recommend that the General Assembly declare 2007 the United Nations Year for Violence Prevention; took note with interest of the preliminary report of the Special Rapporteur; invited the Special Rapporteur to pay particular attention to the linkages between poverty reduction strategies and the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur; and called on Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur in the implementation of the mandate.

The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (39):  Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guatemala, Japan, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

Against (1):  United States.

Abstentions (13):  Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

A Representative of the United States said that his delegation had strong conceptual difficulties with the focus of much of the resolution, which appeared to be taking an entitlement approach rather than an enabling progressive approach to the issue of access to health care.  Some of the paragraphs suggested that there could be a legally enforceable entitlement of all persons to having all aspects of health care provided by the State.  All countries should take steps to progressively realize the right of everyone to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of themselves and their families.  The United States delegation would vote against the text.

A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union believed in all economic, social and cultural rights including the right to the highest attainable standard available of physical and mental health.  The resolution had been adopted by consensus last year and the European Union had hoped to support it this year.  This year the negotiation process had been characterized by cooperation.  It was therefore regrettable that the co-sponsors of the draft had decided to keep the problematic operative paragraphs number 8 to 12 to do with violence, despite the concerns raised by members of all regional groups.  The European Union believed that these operative paragraphs considerably changed the meaning of the draft.  The European Union would therefore abstain in a vote on the draft. 

A Representative of Canada said that Canada supported the progressive realization of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.  However, Canada had concerns regarding the focus of the resolution on violence prevention.  Although Canada did not dispute the relationship between health and the prevention of violence, it believed that it was inappropriate for this issue to be the main focus of a general resolution on the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.  Given its concern on this issue, Canada would abstain on this resolution.

A Representative of Argentina said that her delegation would support the text and would vote yes.  The delegation particularly welcomed the virus prevention issue in the text.  However, it should not be seen that abortion was acceptable to all.

A Representative of India said that in the past, India had been a co-sponsor of this resolution as the right to the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health was critical.  However, the delegation of India had serious difficulties with this year’s resolution in both its preambular and operative paragraphs.  Some of the issues raised would be better dealt with in other resolutions on other items.  India would, therefore, be forced to abstain in a vote. 

A Representative of South Africa said that South Africa would vote in favour, but would like to withdraw its co-sponsorship of the resolution.

A Representative of Syria said that the draft was rich and aimed at ensuring the right to health of everyone.

In a resolution on access to medication in the context of pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (E/CN.4/2003/33), adopted without a vote, the Commission called upon States to establish or strengthen national health and social infrastructures and health-care systems, with the assistance of the international community as necessary, for the effective delivery of prevention, treatment, care and support to respond to pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria; called upon States at the national level to refrain from taking measures which would deny or limit equal access for all persons to preventive, curative or palliative pharmaceutical products; and called on the international community, the developed countries in particular, to continue to assist the developing countries in the fight against pandemics such as HIV/AIDS.  The Commission decided to continue its consideration of this matter at its sixtieth session.

There was a roll-call vote on the proposed amendment by the United States to remove two paragraphs from the text.  The proposal was rejected.

A Representative of the United States said that his delegation supported the overall goals of the resolution; nonetheless, it had a problem with preambular paragraphs 1 and 2 and called for a vote on these two paragraphs.  The United States did not agree with some of the wording in the first paragraph or the implications of the language in paragraph 2.  As for the remainder of the resolutions, the United States still had concerns about operative paragraphs 9 and 10. 

In a measure (decision 3) on the Social Forum, the Commission decided, by a vote of 36 in favour, one against, and with 16 abstentions, to recommend to the Economic and Social Council that it authorize the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to convene in Geneva an annual intersessional forum on economic, social and cultural rights, to be known as the Social Forum, for two days on dates that would permit the possible participation of 10 members of the Sub-Commission.

The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (36):  Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.

Against (1):  United States.

Abstentions (16):  Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Ukraine, and United Kingdom.

A proposed amendment was rejected by 17 in favour, 32 against, with 4 abstentions.  The results of the vote on the amendment were as follows:

In favour (17):  Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Against (32): Algeria, Argentina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (4):  Armenia, Brazil, Senegal and Sierra Leone.

A Representative of Cuba said that his delegation did not accept the amendment proposed by the United Kingdom.  The proposal put forward by the United Kingdom was aimed at reducing the time available to the Sub-Commission.  If the amendment was approved it would also mean a reduction in the importance and scope of the Social Forum.  Consequently, Cuba called for a recorded vote and indicated that it would vote against the amendment by the United Kingdom and called on all other developing countries to do the same.

A Representative of Chile said his delegation opposed the amendments presented by the United Kingdom's delegation.  The draft decision, in its original form, would be an opportunity to discuss topics of higher importance through the Social Forum. 

A Representative of Algeria said that, frankly, it would be a good idea of the sponsors of the amendment to withdraw it.  The Sub-Commission had already taken into account to carry out its work in a more appropriate timeframe.  This

amendment could be seen as counterproductive.  If the co-sponsors did not withdraw the amendment, Algeria would vote against it. 

A Representative of Chile said that his delegation supported L. 15 despite the fact that it was of the view that one could not argue that globalization was a phenomenon that affected human rights.  Chile believed that this phenomenon should be addressed by other fora.

Action on L.4 on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and all forms of discrimination was postponed until tomorrow.

A Representative of Cuba said that his delegation supported the text and thanked the members of the African Group for the accommodation they made this year in tabling the resolution.  He requested all delegations to vote in favour of the text.

A Representative of the United States said that regrettably, the African Group had just deleted a paragraph of vital importance to the fight against racism on anti-Semitism.  The delegation of the United States suggested that this paragraph be reinserted as operative paragraph 49.  It was agreed language in General Assembly resolutions.  There could be no doubt of the anti-Semitism in the world and it was difficult to understand why the co-sponsors had chosen to remove this important paragraph. 

A Representative of Cuba said that Cuba condemned anti-Semitism and discrimination against all other religions and race.  However, the amendment proposed by the United States was a cynical proposal.  The United States withdrew from the Durban Conference and did not accept any of the mechanisms set up as a follow-up on the Durban Conference. 

* *** *