COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS 10 RESOLUTIONS ON RACISM, CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS 10 RESOLUTIONS

ON RACISM, CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

Commission Extends Mandate of Working

Group on Arbitrary Detention for Three Years

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 23 April (UN Information Service) -- The Commission on Human Rights this morning adopted 10 resolutions under its agenda items on racism and racial discrimination, and civil and political rights.  Among other measures, the Commission extended for three years the mandate of the Working Group on arbitrary detention.

Concerning the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 38 in favour, one against, with 13 abstentions, a resolution in which it decided that the Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action would convene its future sessions for an initial period of three years; and decided that the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent shall reconvene for an initial period of three years.

Representatives of South Africa on behalf of the African Group, Cuba, Syria, Ireland on behalf of the European Union, Canada, India, Guatemala and the United States addressed the Commission on this resolution.

On the question of arbitrary detention, the Commission in a resolution encouraged Governments concerned to implement the recommendations of the Working Group on arbitrary detention concerning persons mentioned in its report who had been detained for a number of years.  It decided to extend for three years the mandate of the Working Group.

Concerning torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Commission stressed that all allegations of torture or cruel treatment or punishment should be promptly and impartially examined by a competent national authority, and those responsible must be severely punished.  Representatives of Sierra Leone and Algeria took the floor on this resolution.

In response to a statement by the Representative of Algeria who said that the Special Rapporteur on torture, Theo van Boven, was a member of

non-governmental organizations, Bertrand Ramcharan, the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that Mr. van Boven was indeed a member of some
non-governmental organizations but did not receive a penny from them and he was not a member of any of their boards.  As everyone knew, Special Rapporteurs served without any honoraria and Theo van Boven was a person of impeccable integrity.
To all those who knew him, he was a man of integrity and conscience.  

In a resolution on the interdependence between democracy and human rights,the Commission reaffirmed its conviction that democracy, development and respect for human rights were interdependent and mutually reinforcing.  It called upon the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize a second expert seminar, in 2004, to examine further the interdependence between democracy and human rights, with the topic of "democracy and the rule of law", to be funded by voluntary contributions.

Representatives of Peru, Malaysia, Algeria, Libya, Syria, China, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Viet Nam, Ireland, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and Cuba made statements on this resolution.

With regards to human rights and terrorism, the Commission adopted a resolution in which it reiterated its unequivocal condemnation of terrorism in all its acts and forms, and urged States to enhance cooperation at the regional and international levels in the fight against terrorism.

The Russian Federation, Ireland speaking on behalf of the European Union, the United States, Chile, Argentina, and Syria spoke on the resolution.

The Commission also adopted resolutions on human rights and forensic science; the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms; strengthening of popular participation, equity, social justice and non-discrimination as essential foundations of democracy; the question of enforced or involuntary disappearances; and the integrity of the judicial system.

The Commission is holding an extended meeting today from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., with a break for lunch from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.  When it reconvenes, the Commission will continue to take action on draft resolutions.

Action on Resolution on Racism, Racial

Discrimination, Xenophobia and All Forms of Discrimination

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.4) on the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by a vote of 38 in favour, one against, with 13 abstentions, the Commission stressed that States and international organizations had a responsibility to ensure that measures taken in the struggle against terrorism did not discriminate on grounds of race, colour, descent or ethnic origin; urged all States to review and, when necessary, revise their immigration laws, policies and practices so that they were free of racial discrimination; condemned political platforms and organizations based on racism, xenophobia or doctrines of racial discrimination; and noted that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had held that the prohibition of the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or racial hatred was compatible with the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

The Commission requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to submit an analytical report to the next session of the Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action assessing the effectiveness of current regional and international standards and instruments to combat racism; decided that the Working Group would convene its future sessions for an initial period of three years; requested the Working Group to convene its second session of 10 working days and to focus on poverty, education and complementary standards; decided that the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent shall reconvene for an initial period of three years; emphasized that the basic responsibility for combating racism lay with States; and noted with great concern that the objectives of the Programme of Action for the Third Decade to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination had largely not been achieved.

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, Guatemala, India, Japan, 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 (1):  United States.

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

A Representative of South Africa, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that considering all the views on paragraph 49 which the group had moved to remove, and the United States had proposed to reinsert, the African Group formally requested that a no-action motion be taken on the proposal by the United States.

      A Representative of Cuba said it was an opportunity for the Commission to express solidarity with the decision of the African Group not to take any action on the United States proposal to retain paragraph 49.  Cuba was against any form of discrimination, including anti-Semitism.  The United States, although it proposed the keeping of the paragraph, had withdrawn from the Durban Conference.  Cuba did not accept the proposal of the United States to retain paragraph 49
of L.4.

A Representative of Syria said that his delegation was opposed to the draft amendment submitted by the United States since the declaration of Durban and Plan of Action had translated the concerns of the delegation of the United States and this was reflected in numerous paragraphs in this draft.  The true cause for the amendment proposed by the United States was to cause the draft to fail.  The United States wished to paralyze the work of the Commission by encouraging sterile and politicized discussions. Consequently, Syria associated itself with the draft and amendment submitted by the African Group.

      A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union regretted the deletion of this paragraph, since it would have strengthened the resolution.  The European Union therefore seriously regretted the proposal of a no-action motion.  There had already been several
no-action motions and in every case the European Union had opposed them in principle.  No-action motions implied that there was no consensus and undermined the work of the Commission.  The European Union would therefore vote against this proposal.

A Representative of Canada said his delegation was in favour of retaining the paragraph and was opposed to the no-motion action forwarded by the Representative of South Africa, on behalf of the African Group.

A Representative of India said that India was concerned about the rise in Islamophobia and anti-Semitism.  However, India believed that negative stereotyping and violent attacks were not problems confined only to a select number of religions.  All religions, including those not mentioned in operative paragraph 49 of L.4, faced these problems in one form or the other.  Further, the trends referred to in operative paragraph 49 fell under the rubric of either religious intolerance or attempts to offend public sentiments of religious groups.  Both were best addressed under the agenda item on civil and political rights and not under the item on racism.  There was now a proposal for the reinstatement of operative paragraph 49 in L.4.  India had no option but to vote in favour of the no-action motion on the amendment which proposed the reinstatement of operative paragraph 49 in L.4.

A Representative of Guatemala said she deplored acts of discrimination based on religion, including attacks against Christians who were not mentioned in paragraph 49.  Guatemala believed that there were other items under which this paragraph would be more appropriate.  Guatemala would vote against the no-action motion on a point of principle.

      The Commission, in a recorded vote of 26 in favor and 24 against, with
two abstentions, adopted a no-action motion on operative paragraph 49 of L.4.

The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (26):  Algeria, Armenia, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.

Against (24):  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.

Abstentions (2):  Uruguay, and Venezuela.

A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the European Union had repeatedly stressed that international follow-up to Durban should be agreed upon by consensus.  Negotiations had been conducted in a spirit of constructive dialogue and cooperation among delegations of all regional groups.  The European Union continued to have difficulties with some of the mandates set out in Commission resolution 2002/68.  The European Union reiterated its firm will to cooperate with all delegations in combating racism and racial discrimination.  The European Union would not support the draft resolution.  However, in recognition of the efforts accomplished by all parties towards better cooperation on a major issue, the European Union would abstain in the vote.

A Representative of Canada said that Canada was strongly committed to the eradication of racism, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance which was often based on language and religion.  Although Canada had strong reservations about specific Middle-East-related aspects of the World Conference against Racism, it supported most of the strategies compiled and consolidated in the Durban Conference and Plan of Action.  It was important to follow up on the particular situations and issues facing people of African descent.  The very nature of racism meant that action to deal with it must be inclusive and that global frameworks for combating discrimination must be built on a base of wide, cross regional support.  Sadly this was not the case with this resolution.  Consequently, Canada would abstain on the resolution.

A Representative of the United States said that by now it was well known that the United States had not participated in the Durban Conference.  Unfortunately, many of the United States reservations remained.  The Commission should make no mistake about the importance attached by the United States and its Government to the fight against racism.  However, the United States felt that Durban did not effectively contribute to the fight against racism.  The United States would therefore call for a vote and oppose the resolution. 

A Representative of South Africa, speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that resorting to a no-action motion was not done by instinct concerning the paragraph in question.  The African Group believed that Durban would remain one of the most important means in the fight against racism and racial discrimination, including in the United States.

Action on Resolutions on Civil and Political Rights

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.40) on the question of arbitrary detention, adopted without a vote, the Commission encouraged Governments concerned to implement the recommendations of the Working Group on arbitrary detention concerning persons mentioned in its report who had been detained for a number of years; to take appropriate measures in order to ensure that their legislation, regulations and practices in these fields were in conformity with the relevant international standards; and to pay special attention, during states of emergency, to the exercise of those rights that ensured protection against arbitrary detention.  The Commission encouraged all Governments to invite the Working Group to visit their countries so that it might carry out its mandate even more effectively; and took note with satisfaction of the fact that the Working Group had been informed of the release of some of the individuals whose situation had been brought to its attention, while deploring the many cases which had not yet been resolved.  The Commission decided to extend for three years the mandate of the Working Group and requested it to submit to the Commission, at its sixtieth session, a report on its activities and on the implementation of the present resolution.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.42) on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, adopted without a vote, the Commission condemned all such acts; condemned in particular any action or attempt by States or public officials to legalize or authorize torture under any circumstances; urged all Governments to take effective measures to provide redress and to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; reminded Governments that corporal punishment, including of children, could amount to such treatment; reminded Governments that intimidation and coercion, including serious and credible threats, as well as death threats, could amount to such treatment; stressed that under article 4 of the Convention against Torture, torture must be made an offense under domestic criminal law; stressed in particular that all allegations of torture or cruel treatment or punishment should be promptly and impartially examined by a competent national authority, and those responsible must be severely punished; stressed that States must not punish personnel for not obeying orders to commit acts amounting to torture or cruel treatment; that legal systems should ensure that victims obtained redress and were awarded fair and adequate compensation and received socio-medical rehabilitation; called upon all Governments to take effective measures to prevent and prohibit the production, trade, export and use of equipment specifically designed for torture; reminded all States that prolonged incommunicado detention could facilitate the perpetration of torture; and urged all States to consider becoming parties to the Convention against Torture and to consider signing and ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention.

A Representative of Sierra Leone said that not all kinds of corporal punishments were cruel.  In certain societies, children should be subjected to slight corporal beatings as disciplinary measures.  In some cases for instance, yelling could damage the hearing of a child compared to the slight beating of the child.

      A Representative of Algeria said that it was satisfied with the text which contained elements of substance and rational elements to eradicate torture.  However, Algeria noted that eight paragraphs were devoted to the actions of the Special Rapporteur and could not subscribe to the extraordinary praise about the actions taken by the Special Rapporteur.  Algeria had many comments to make on the quality of his work, including the formulation of baseless allegations.  Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur was an affiliate and a member of several
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from which he received remuneration.  There was incompatibility between his task as a Special Rapporteur and the fact that he was a member of several NGOs.

      BERTRAND RAMCHARAN, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that he was responding to the statement made by the Representative of Algeria during the debate on torture within the context of resolution L.42.  The Deputy High Commissioner stressed the need to provide some clarification.  The Representative of Algeria had made reference to the Special Rapporteur Theo van Boven being a member of non-governmental organizations.  Having personally spoken to him, the Deputy High Commissioner had been asked to inform the Commission that
Mr. van Boven was indeed a member of some non-governmental organizations but did not receive a penny from them and he was not a member of any of their boards.  As everyone knew, Special Rapporteurs served without any honoraria and Theo van Boven was a person of impeccable integrity.  To all those who knew him, he was a man of integrity and conscience.  

A Representative of Algeria said the Special Rapporteur was a member of two non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and Mr. Ramcharan had just confirmed this.  Algeria was waiting for the Special Rapporteur to resign from these NGOs.  Since it had raised the topic, Algeria would circulate a list of all Special Rapporteurs who were members of NGOs.  He had held a discussion with the Special Rapporteur on his activities and had asked the Special Rapporteur whether he had thoroughly read the work of a European general who had openly boasted that during the liberation struggle in Algeria he had tortured people, and if the Special Rapporteur would make reference to this in his report.  But the Special Rapporteur had not seemed interested.  The World Organization against Torture, of which the Special Rapporteur was a member, also had received communications from Algeria on this subject, and had never replied.  Algeria asked Mr. van Boven to resign from the NGOs of which he was a member, or to resign as Special Rapporteur.

      BERTRAND RAMCHARAN, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the Special Rapporteurs served in the Commission as independent experts and reiterated that the Special Rapporteur on torture did not receive remuneration from any
non-governmental organizations.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.43) on human rights and forensic science, adopted without a vote, the Commission welcomed the increased use of forensic investigations in situations where grave violations of human rights had occurred, and encouraged further coordination concerning, among other things, the planning and realization of such investigations, as well as the protection of forensic and related experts; recommended that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights encourage forensic experts to coordinate further and to produce additional manuals; recommended that the Office encourage the dissemination and use of manuals already developed and the setting up of courses aimed at providing training in relevant forensic activities; recommended that the Secretary-General establish procedures to evaluate the use of forensic expertise and the results of those efforts; and encouraged Governments to establish thorough, prompt and impartial investigation and documentation procedures.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/ L. 44) on the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, adopted without a vote, the Commission called upon the international community to give due attention to the right to a remedy and, in particular, in appropriate cases, to receive restitution, compensation, and rehabilitation; requested the Secretary-General to circulate the draft "Basic principles and guidelines" on the subject; requested the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the consultative meeting held on the guidelines, in consultation with the relevant independent experts, to prepare a revised version; and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to hold a second consultative meeting with a view to finalizing the "Basic principles and guidelines".

A Representative of the United States said the United States was prepared to join in consensus on the resolution on the right to restitution.  There were, however, some continuing concerns felt about the consultative process underlying the resolution.  In particular, the United States believed that the process to elaborate a text on this subject had relied too heavily to date on academic experts at the expense of Governmental experts.  The United States did not accept any one text as the sole basis for discussion at the next consultative meeting.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.47) on the strengthening of popular participation, equity, social justice and non-discrimination as essential foundations of democracy, adopted by a vote of 29 in favour, 12 against, and with 12 abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed that democracy was based on the freely expressed will of the people; that while all democracies shared common features, there was no one model of democracy, and therefore States must not seek to export any particular model of democracy; that the consolidation of democracy required the promotion and protection of all human rights for everyone; that the right to development was a crucial area of public affairs and required free, active and meaningful popular participation; declared that full popular participation was only feasible if societies had democratic political and electoral systems which guaranteed to all their citizens the possibility of effective participation in Government; and reaffirmed that the will of the people should be the basis of the authority of Government, and that this should be expressed in periodic and genuine elections by universal and equal suffrage, held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

The results were as follows:

In favour (29):  Algeria, Bahrain, 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, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.

Against (12):  Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.

Abstentions (12):  Argentina, Armenia, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Uruguay.

A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the Union regretted the tabling again this year of the draft resolution contained in L.47.  The text did not serve the cause of advancing human rights and democracy; the European Union would request a roll-call vote on the draft resolution and would vote against it.

A Representative of Guatemala said that democratic institutions were the material expression of the inherent right of humans.  However, some democracies had been weakened, leading to extreme institutional crises.  Their discredit had resulted in a low level of participation of the population in elections.  Democracy could be strengthened only through participatory democracy; Guatemala supported the resolution and called for other members to support it as well.

A Representative of Brazil said Brazil would vote in favour of L.47; it attached great importance to strengthening democracy.  It also believed that this resolution complemented the draft resolution on the interrelatedness between human rights and democracy.

In a resolution on the interdependence between democracy and human rights (E/CN.4/2003/L.49), adopted by a roll-call vote of 36 in favour and none opposed, with 17 abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed its conviction that democracy, development and respect for human rights were interdependent and mutually reinforcing; stressed the need for equal opportunities for men and women to participate in political and public life; acknowledged that democracy was an always perfectible process; took note that there was a constant need to protect, promote and consolidate democracy; underlined the need to further clarify the basic concepts that defined democracy and were of universal relevance and use; requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a compilation of documents or texts adopted and used by organizations to promote and consolidate democracy; and called upon the Office to organize a second expert seminar, in 2004, to examine further the interdependence between democracy and human rights, with the topic of "democracy and the rule of law", to be funded by voluntary contributions.

The results of the vote were as follows:

In favour (36):  Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (17):  Algeria, Burkina Faso, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Togo, Uganda, and Viet Nam.

An amendment proposed by Cuba to add a preambular paragraph recognizing that all persons had the right to self-determination was rejected by a roll-call vote of 23 in favour and 28 opposed, with 2 abstentions.

The results of the vote on the proposed amendment were as follows:

In favour (23):  Algeria, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Togo, Uganda, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.

Against (28):  Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Abstentions (2):  Senegal, and Sri Lanka.

A Representative of Peru said that with regard to the amendments put forward by Cuba, Peru and all the co-sponsors of the resolution understood very well the interdependence of the different categories of human rights.  This resolution focused on the interdependence of democracy and human rights; the amendments proposed by Cuba departed from the main focus of the resolution.  They were not relevant.  The language proposed by Cuba would perhaps be appropriate in a different resolution.  Peru urged members of the Commission to vote against the amendments.

A Representative of Malaysia said that his delegation would abstain from voting.  His delegation did not endorse the outcome of the two conferences. 

A Representative of Algeria said that his delegation supported the substance of the resolution.  However, Algeria could not understand the reluctance of Peru and Romania to include Cuba's amendment since it helped to reaffirm the historic aspects of democracy and recalled the Vienna consensus.  This was currently lacking in the draft and it was important to reaffirm the universality of all human rights.  The delegate of Peru was asked to be flexible in this regard in order to achieve consensus. 

A Representative of Libya said the draft resolution on democracy and human rights was nothing new.  The previous measure had not obtained complete support, as it had taken the side of one political system; the co-sponsors of the draft should not seek to export only one model of democracy.  Also the draft referred to a meeting that would not be held until June.  Libya thus would abstain in the vote on resolution L.49.

A Representative of Syria said that the text of the draft included some regional conferences and symposia, which were not attended by many people.  Another inconvenience was that Israel had also been indicated as a co-sponsor, although it was its right to do so.  Syria would support the draft and would vote in favour.

A Representative of China said his delegation believed that the promotion of democracy and the protection of human rights were the common endeavor of all Governments in the world.  However, in today's world there were different forms of democracy and all people had the right to chose a system that was in accordance with their national reality and culture.  If a system in a particular country was described as universal and then imposed on others – human rights and democracy were violated.  China therefore supported the amendments proposed by Cuba.  All Governments had the right to hold symposiums on national issues, as well as the right to invite some countries and not others.  However, in a meeting of the Commission, there must not be such exclusive situations and references to the documents of such meetings.  Given this situation, China would abstain during the vote on L.49. 

A Representative of Pakistan said the draft dealt with an extremely important topic -– the fundamental principles of Government.  It also underscored the need for as broad a consensus on the text as possible.  Pakistan had been actively engaged in informal consultations on the measure, trying to establish concepts and norms that would move it towards universal acceptance.  However, some of the elements Pakistan had favoured had not been accepted by the co-sponsors.  Cuba had proposed some extremely useful amendments that would add essential and crucial elements and would complete the resolution.  Pakistan supported the single amendment Cuba had insisted on, noting that Cuba would not insist on the other two proposed amendments.  Also, there were references in the resolution to conferences and meetings that had excluded a number of countries.  That also was a matter that should be addressed to ensure full consensus on the draft resolution.

A Representative of Sierra Leone said that his delegation supported the Cuban amendment to L.49.

      A Representative of Viet Nam said his delegation supported the resolution but had difficulty with why the amendment made by Cuba could not be inserted in the draft resolution since it touched upon the important question of
self-determination.  Delegations who were reluctant to accept the amendment were urged to act in good faith.  Viet Nam also had difficulties with preambular paragraph 4 and would therefore abstain in the voting.

A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union member States that were members of the Commission, and on behalf of acceding Union member Poland, also a member of the Commission, said the European Union was founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.  The European Union believed there was a fundamental connection between democracy, human rights, and development, as cogently expressed by the resolution.  For that reason, the European Union did not believe the amendment proposed was necessary.  The European Union would vote against this and other amendments if Cuba proposed them.

A Representative of Algeria said that his delegation would support the Cuban amendment.  Since economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights were the basis for human rights and democracy, he wondered why some members wanted to vote against this proposal.

A Representative of Libya said the Cuban amendment was at the heart of the matter of the right of all people to self-determination and in choosing their own political, civil, economic, social and cultural systems.  This was the key of human rights and the delegation of Libya could not understand delegations that wanted to vote against the amendment since all human rights emanated from its contents. 

A Representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said the Democratic Republic of the Congo believed there was a link between democracy and human rights; each State should work towards democracy.  But what was democracy, and who determined its form?  It was the people who had the last word and the sovereign right on this, but the text proposed under L.49 did not say that.  The text of the amendments proposed by Cuba filled that gap.  The original text was incomplete and somewhat biased.

A Representative of Sudan said that the Cuban addition was an important contribution to the main text.  The amendment rather filled the omission in the draft text.

      A Representative of Cuba regretted the lack of flexibility of the
co-sponsors on the need to supplement the resolution by the Cuban proposals.  Since there was no remedy, the proposals would have to be put to a vote.  Cuba called on friendly countries and believers of true democracy to vote in favor of the amendment. 

A Representative of Pakistan said it was distressing that the Commission was asked to vote on a principle enshrined in the United Nations Charter.  Consequently, Pakistan would vote in favour of the amendment.

A Representative of Algeria said Algeria had done everything it could to achieve consensus on the draft resolution on democracy and human rights.  Given the way things had turned out, Algeria was very sad to note that one of the basic pillars of the United Nations Charter had been violated.  This would inevitably mean regression, regression from multilateralism and from the rights acquired through national liberation struggles and through efforts to achieve economic, social and cultural progress.  Algeria would abstain in the vote on L.49, and would abstain sadly.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/ L.51) on human rights and terrorism, adopted by a roll-call vote of 30 in favour and 12 opposed, with 11 abstentions, the Commission reiterated its unequivocal condemnation of terrorism in all its acts and forms; strongly condemned violations of the right to life, liberty and security; condemned incitement of ethnic hatred, violence and terrorism; urged States to prevent, combat and eliminate terrorism; strongly condemned all terrorist acts on individual property, national monuments and historical relics; urged States to enhance cooperation at the regional and international levels in the fight against terrorism, in accordance with relevant international human rights obligations; and called upon States to take appropriate measures before granting refugee status to ensure that an asylum-seeker had not been involved in terrorist acts.

The results were as follows:

In favour (30):  Algeria, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, India, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.

Against (12):  Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom, and United States.

Abstentions (11):  Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, Chile, Guatemala, Japan, Paraguay, Republic of Korea, Syria, Ukraine, and Uruguay.

A Representative of the Russian Federation said his delegation fully endorsed the resolution and was a co-sponsor.  The Commission was informed about the initiative of the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation on drafting a code on human rights and terrorism.  This code of conduct had already been drafted and circulated and focused on the huge violations of human rights committed by terrorists; strengthening legislation on combating terrorism; cutting financing of terrorist networks; and compensating victims of terrorism.  The Russian Federation therefore hoped that the resolution would be adopted without a vote.  

A Representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of European Union member States of the Commission, Poland and associated countries, said that that the Union reaffirmed its condemnation of terrorism.  The fight against terrorism had been and continued to be a priority of the Union, which believed that efforts to combat terrorist acts must at all times be carried out with full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and that the fight against terrorism had to be carried out in accordance with international human rights law.  However, the European Union could not subscribe to the assertion that terrorist acts as such constituted human rights violations.  The European Union held the view that acts of terrorism, which were well-defined criminal acts, seriously affected the enjoyment of human rights.  However, a distinction must be made between individual criminal acts and acts which were attributable to States.  States were legally responsible for protecting human rights under international law. The European Union also had doubts about the appropriateness of making a reference in this resolution to discussions and decisions taken in the framework of a forum outside the United Nations system.

A Representative of United States said the United States knew all too well the pain and suffering that terrorists inflicted.  The United States was strongly committed to combating the evils of terrorism.  It regretted, therefore, that it was obliged to call for a vote and to vote no on this resolution.  The reason was that the resolution contained language objectionable to many countries in the room.  The draft also included language that granted terrorists and terrorist organizations a measure of legitimacy by equating their conduct with that of States.  The United States would vote no on the resolution, and called for other members to do the same.

A Representative of Chile said his country had systematically and unequivocally condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.  The struggle to try, capture and punish those responsible for these crimes must be done in accordance with human rights in order to maintain the rule of law.  Terrorism could be seen as a violation of human rights.  Chile, however, had difficulties with the language and implications of preambular paragraph 23, and would therefore abstain in the vote.

A Representative of Argentina reaffirmed Argentina's unequivocal condemnation of terrorism.  Argentina had supported all recent resolutions of the General Assembly to eliminate international terrorism.  However, it would abstain on L.51 since it contained controversial elements which would undermine efforts to eliminate all terrorist acts.

      A Representative of Syria said Syria had hoped the draft resolution would have included operative paragraph 15 of the aforementioned resolution, which stipulated that nothing in the resolution would prejudice the right to
self-determination, or to the right of peoples to self-determination when they were subjected to foreign occupation.  Measures to combat terrorism had to be clearly distinguished from just struggles for self-determination.  Syria thus would abstain in the vote on L.51.

       In a resolution on the question of enforced or involuntary disappearances (E/CN.4/2003/L.53/Rev.1), adopted without a vote, the Commission deplored the fact that some Governments had never provided substantive replies concerning the cases of enforced disappearance in their countries or acted on the recommendations concerning them made in the reports of the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances; urged the Governments concerned to cooperate with the Working Group; to continue efforts to shed light on the fate of individuals in situations where there were many long-unresolved cases of disappearances and to set appropriate settlement machinery in train with the families of those individuals; to make provisions in their legal systems for machinery for victims or their families to seek fair and adequate reparation; reminded Governments that as proclaimed in article 2 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, no State shall practice, permit or tolerate enforced disappearances; acknowledged with great concern the difficulties encountered by the Working Group in the accomplishment of its mandate and requested the Secretary-General to ensure that the Group received all the assistance and resources it required; and requested the intersessional open-ended Working Group with the mandate to elaborate a draft legally binding normative instrument for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance to meet for a period of
10 working days before the sixtieth session of the Commission.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2003/L.54) on the integrity of the judicial system, adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 in favour and 1 opposed, with 21 abstentions, the Commission reiterated that every person was entitled, in full equality, to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his/her rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him/her; that everyone had the right to be tried by ordinary courts or tribunals using established legal procedures; stressed the importance that everyone charged with a penal offense had the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty; urged States to guarantee that all persons brought to trial before courts or tribunals had the right to be tried in their presence and to defend themselves in person; and called upon States that had military courts for trying criminal offenders to ensure that such courts were an integral part of the general judicial system and used the duly established legal proceedings.

The results were as follows:

In favour (31):  Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guatemala, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.

Against (1):  United States.

Abstentions (21):  Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Croatia, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Japan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

A Representative of the United States said that it supported most provisions of the resolution reflecting civil and political rights and obligations of the government towards the governed in a civil society.  However, it also addressed matters concerning the international law of armed conflict that were beyond its competence.  In asserting the right for everyone to be tried by ordinary courts or tribunals, and in calling for military courts to be an integral part of the general judicial system, the draft ignored the Third Geneva Protocol.  Trial by military courts in times of armed conflict was a common and well-established practice under international law.  For these reasons, the United States called for a vote and told the Commission it would vote no.

* *** *