COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS RESOLUTION ON SITUATION IN IRAQ; CONCLUDES SUBSTANTIVE WORK

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS RESOLUTION ON SITUATION IN IRAQ;

CONCLUDES SUBSTANTIVE WORK

Also Approves Measures on Right to Development, Rights of Child, Indigenous Issues

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 25 April (UN Information Service) -- The Commission on Human Rights concluded consideration this afternoon of draft resolutions and decisions for its 2003 annual session, adopting among other things a measure on the situation in Iraq in which it requested all parties to the current conflict in Iraq to abide strictly by their obligations under international humanitarian law; called upon the international community to address the major humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq; and called upon it to assist in the development of free and democratic institutions in the country.

Through the resolution, the Commission also extended for one year the mandate of its Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iraq.

Also adopted were measures on the right to development, the rights of the child, and indigenous issues.

In a resolution on the right to development, adopted by a roll-call vote of 47 in favour and 3 against, with 3 abstentions, the Commission, among other things, requested the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to prepare a concept document establishing options and their feasibility for the implementation of the right to development, among other things, through an international legal standard of a binding nature; and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to convene a two-day high-level seminar to review and identify effective strategies for mainstreaming the right to development into the polices and operational activities of the major international organizations.  The Commission extended the mandate of its Working Group on the right to development for a further year.

In an omnibus resolution on the rights of the child, the Commission, among other things, called on all States to ensure that children were entitled to their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights without discrimination of any kind; to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by girls of all human rights; to take all necessary measures to ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights by children with disabilities and by children working and/or living in the street, refugee and internally displaced children, and children alleged to have or recognized as having infringed on penal law; and called upon all States to take

all appropriate measures to prevent and eradicate the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

In a resolution on the abduction of children in Africa, adopted without a vote, the Commission condemned in the strongest terms the abduction and recruitment of children for armed conflicts; the abduction of children from refugee camps by armed groups, as distinct from the armed forces of States, and their subjection of children to forced conscription, torture, killing and rape; and demanded the immediate demobilization and disarmament of all child soldiers.

In a measure under its agenda item on indigenous issues, the Commission recommended to the Economic and Social Council that it request the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize, before the end of the Decade, a seminar on treaties, agreements, and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous peoples.

The Commission decided, in a recorded vote of 24 in favour and 17 against, with 10 abstentions, to postpone consideration of the draft resolution on human rights and sexual orientation until its sixtieth session. 

As in previous years, the Commission adopted its report ad referendum under the understanding that the Rapporteur would finalize it with the assistance of the Secretariat.

In concluding statements, Sergio Vieira de Mello, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the Commission had accomplished much in the fifty-ninth session.  The high-level segment had been extremely successful.  The interactive dialogue had provided a remarkable forum for both Rapporteurs and governments.  The Commission had negotiated and passed an impressive set of resolutions, particularly of a thematic kind.  Conversely, the Commission had had its setbacks, and it must strive for greater unity on how to deal with human rights.

Najat Al-Hajjaji, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, said that despite the heavy and intensive work of the Commission, as well as the tension that had sometimes prevailed, it was still sad to see the end of this session.  This session had been held at a time of international turmoil, and some had been concerned that the work would not be concluded and that accusations would go beyond control.  She had attempted to deal with these concerns with patience, professionalism and wisdom. 

The sixtieth session of the Commission on Human Rights will take place from 15 March to 23 April 2004 at the Palais des Nations in Geneva.

Action on Resolution on Right to Development

In a resolution on the right to development (document E/CN.4/2003/L.14/Rev.1), adopted by a roll-call vote of 47 in favour and 3 against, with 3 abstentions, the Commission requested the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to prepare a concept document establishing options and their feasibility for the implementation of the right to development, inter alia, an international legal standard of a binding nature, guidelines on the implementation of the right to development and principles for development partnership, based on the Declaration on the Right to Development; requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to assist the Sub-Commission in its work in the preparation of the concept document by providing studies on existing bilateral and multilateral programmes and policies, with a view to identifying lessons learned, best practices and the role that could be played by relevant actors.  The Commission requested the High Commissioner to convene a two-day high-level seminar immediately prior to the next session of the Working Group on the right to development, inviting all relevant actors to review and identify effective strategies for mainstreaming the right to development into the polices and operational activities of the major international organizations, as well as a contribution to the Subcommission's work on the proposed concept document.  The Commission decided to renew the mandate of the Working Group on the right to development for one year and to convene its fifth session before the sixtieth session of the Commission, for a period of ten working days, to consider the outcome of the seminar and further initiatives in accordance with its mandate.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour(47):  Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.

Against(3):  Australia, Japan, and United States.

Abstentions(3):  Canada, Republic of Korea, and Sweden.

In a separate vote on operative paragraph 2, requested by the United States, the Commission decided, by a roll-call vote of 42 in favour and 5 against, with

6 abstentions, to retain the paragraph.

The result of the vote on operative paragraph 2 was as follows:

In favour(42):  Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, India, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.

Against(5):  Australia, Canada, Japan, Sweden, and United States.

Abstentions(6):  Brazil, Croatia, Ireland, Mexico, Poland, and Republic of Korea.

A representative of the United States said the United States remained very concerned that operational paragraph 2 contained the statement " to prepare a concept document establishing options for the implementation of the right to development and their feasibility, inter alia, an international legal standard of a binding nature".  The United States maintained that this subject was never discussed during the two-week Working Group.  As a result, the United States regrettably found itself in the position of requesting a recorded vote on operational paragraph 2 of resolution L.14.

A representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union was firmly committed to the realization of the right to development, but believed it was essential to work on a consensus basis.   In the draft of L.14, the Subcommission had been asked to create a concept document.  The European Union believed that the work of the Subcommission should build on relevant existing documents and should not duplicate existing work.  Concerning the two-day high-level seminar, the European Union believed that this could contribute to the realization of the right to development. 

A representative of Japan said Japan was committed to the realization of the right to development and was a significant contributor to the formulation of the concept of the right to development.  The right to development was the right of each and every individual to pursue the development of his potential.  It should not be misunderstood as the right of a group or a State.  A State was not a right holder.  International cooperation was important for achieving development, but interest in development cooperation would evaporate if it became a legal obligation.  For these reasons, a legally binding document would prove self-defeating.  For this reason, Japan was left with no choice but to vote "no" on the resolution.

A representative of Sweden said Sweden had a long-standing commitment to poverty eradication, and for over 50 years it had worked to assist developing countries in the process of development.  In fact, Sweden was one of the only countries living up to the goal of providing 0.7 per cent in gross domestic product (GDP)for official development assistance (ODA).  Sweden had been actively involved with the Working Group and the issue of a legally binding document had never been discussed within the Working Group.  There was definitely time for stock-taking before a binding document could be addressed.  Sweden consequently objected to the request to the Subcommission to provide a legally binding document as stated in operative paragraph 2 and would vote against the paragraph. 

A representative of India said there was no reference to a legally binding instrument in L.14/Rev 1.  The language used was aimed at creating an international environment that would further the realization of the right to development. 

A representative of Pakistan said the outcome of the draft was a result of negotiations and it was a vision or a process in which other members were asked to accompany the sponsors.  There were divisions -- this was why the Subcommission had been asked to deal with the situation.  The resolution was about enabling social, economic and financial environments to be created which would lead to development.  Guidelines on the right to development provided enough space for all delegations to promote the right to development. 

A representative of South Africa said South Africa agreed with the statement by Ireland.  South Africa also endorsed the statement by India and called on the United States to re-examine operative paragraph 2 and withdraw its request for a vote on that paragraph.

A representative of Algeria said that since the adoption of the Declaration of the Right to Development, the international community had made several steps forward.  Ten years later, it was totally reasonable to call for an improvement in respect to the right to development. 

A representative of the United States said the key factor affecting whether or not nations developed was the extent to which they enjoyed good governance which permitted individuals to develop their talents and their intellects to the maximum extent, which allowed them to speak and associate freely with one another, and which allowed them to regularly choose their representatives in government.  Moreover, the United States opposed the call in the resolution for extensive studies and resources so that the Subcommission could prepare a concept document for a legally binding instrument.  The devotion of scarce resources for such an effort was unwarranted in view of the fact that any such legally binding instrument was unlikely to ever garner significant support.  The United States could not support the call to make progress on realizing the right to development.  There was no internationally accepted definition of such a right, making such a call premature and irrelevant.

A representative of India said Member States had the right to ask for a vote, however the statement made by the United States had again referred to a legally binding instrument, a phrase that had been removed from resolution L.14 in L.14/Rev.1.  All the Subcommission would do in L.14/Rev.1 was create a concept document of options, not a legally binding document. 

Action on Resolution on Human Rights in Iraq

In a resolution (document E/CN.4/2003/L.6/Rev.1) on the situation of human rights in Iraq, adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 in favour and 3 opposed, with  12 abstentions, the Commission reiterated its strong condemnation of the systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq over many years, which had resulted in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror; requested all parties to the current conflict in Iraq to abide strictly by their obligations under international humanitarian law; called upon the international community, including all parties to the current conflict, to address as a matter of urgency the major humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq; called upon the international community to assist in the development of free and democratic institutions in Iraq that respected and ensured the rights of all individuals in accordance with the international human rights treaties; and decided to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iraq for a further year.

The results were as follows:

In favour(31):  Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Thailand, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, and Uruguay.

Against(3):  Cuba, Malaysia, and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions(12):  Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, India, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal, Swaziland, Syria, Togo, Venezuela, and Viet Nam.

A representative of Pakistan said Pakistan had carefully studied L.6 and the amendment proposed and considered that it was backward-looking and failed to address the current situation and the future of Iraq.  Furthermore, the resolution did not include references to the right to self-determination, the right to sovereignty, and the right over national resources.  For these reasons, Pakistan would abstain in the vote on resolution L.6/Rev.1. 

A representative of Cuba said that in the face of the consciousness of the international community with regard to the actual situation in Iraq, the draft resolution was a shame.  The text should be presented before the decolonization Committee of the United Nations.  The sovereignty of the Iraqi public and their natural resources had already been aggressed.  The world had ignored what had happened in March 2003 when the sovereignty of Iraq had been violated and the country had been invaded.  It really was a shame to submit such a draft resolution on the human rights situation in Iraq at this moment when the country was living under occupation.  If the text was put to a vote, Cuba would vote against it.

A representative of Algeria said that yesterday the Secretary-General had recalled that the war in Iraq had taken place without a United Nations decision.  In violation of the spirit of cooperation, this draft had been prepared without organized consultations.  The text was an anachronism.  What should have been mentioned in the draft was the need to respect the indivisibility of Iraqi territory and the right to self-determination of the Iraqi people; the fact that any occupation power had obligations and no rights; and that the mandate of the Special Rapporteur must cover all human rights violations, including responsibility for the theft and destruction of Iraq's cultural history.  This draft belonged to item 5 and not item 9 of the agenda.  Since the draft was not legitimate, Algeria would not support it. 

A representative of Malaysia said Malaysia was concerned about the current situation in Iraq.  For this reason, Malaysia had co-sponsored the proposal to convene a special sitting to address the human rights and humanitarian situation in Iraq as a consequence of the war launched by the United States and its allies.  Unfortunately, the Commission had voted to reject the proposal.  The draft resolution L.6 did not reflect the current situation in Iraq arising from the unilateral military action by the United States and its allies and the fact stood that there was no effective or functioning government in the country.  The United States and its allies, as the occupying powers, were responsible under the Geneva Conventions for the maintenance of law and order in Baghdad and other places in Iraq where looting and lawlessness had prevailed since the occupying powers took control.  

A representative of India said the Commission had considered on 27 March a special sitting on the situation in Iraq.  India had abstained from voting on the decision to hold the special sitting. With the evolution of the situation, the Government of India had pledged millions of US dollars to go towards humanitarian activities in Iraq.  The High Commissioner should also ensure technical cooperation and advisory services in Iraq to improve the situation.

A representative of Syria said the draft before the Commission was unbalanced.  When referring to "parties of the conflict", Syria understood this to mean the occupying coalition, since there were no other parties involved.  Human rights had been flagrantly violated in Iraq, including the destruction of its infrastructure and attacks on journalists, as had been witnessed by a number of international organizations.  Most serious was perhaps the coalition having prevented access to humanitarian aid.  Syria supported the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur based on the understanding that he would investigate current human rights violations.  Syria would not support this resolution. 

A representative of China said China was concerned about the human rights and humanitarian situation in Iraq.  China believed that the occupying powers had the responsibility to stabilize the situation in Iraq, protect human rights and alleviate the humanitarian crisis there.  The draft resolution, even after amendment, contained several points which were difficult to understand. The Iraqi Government did not exist any more. The question now was how to prevent the emergence of a situation in which human rights were seriously violated.  It was not clear what the situation in the country was.  At present, the Chinese Embassy, which had been looted twice, was closed.  It was not known what would happen until a new government was elected.  If China adopted a position now, that would be irresponsible.  Consequently, if the draft resolution was submitted to a vote, China would not participate in the vote.

A representative of South Africa said the delegation was explaining its vote with a heavy heart due to the situation in Iraq.  The language of the draft was confusing and referred to a Government that no longer existed.  The text was being imposed on the Commission, and no sufficient consultation had been carried out.  The resolution would not gather consensus due to its artificiality.

A representative of Libya said the draft resolution on Iraq had not been considered in open and transparent consultations.  The consultations between the co-sponsors had been restricted, a practice totally outside the rules of the Commission.  The sponsors were the same as those who had refused to consider the humanitarian impact suffered by the Iraqi people as a result of the occupation four weeks ago.  The resolution also confused issues to do with the current leadership or lack thereof, which confused the issue of who this resolution was directed at.  Libya would not join the consensus.

A representative of the Sudan said the draft resolution lacked balance. It did not reflect facts on the ground and did not deal with violations of human rights as a result of the invasion. Nor did it address the responsibilities of the occupying powers.  Furthermore, it restricted the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, confining it to the study of human rights violations in the past, without giving the Special Rapporteur the right to speak of the abuses and violations currently being committed.

Explanations of Votes under Agenda Item on Question of Violation

of Human Rights in Any Part of World

A representative of Brazil said Brazil had abstained from voting on resolution L.2, on the human rights situation in Cuba.  Brazil felt that human rights considerations should not be acts of isolation, selectivity and economic embargo.  Brazil had voted in favour of resolution L.13 on the human rights situation in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation, hoping that the situation there would improve further.  The trend had been towards an improvement in the situation of human rights.  It was also expected that the High Commissioner for Human Rights would visit the region following the invitation by the Russian authorities.  Brazil had also voted in favour of resolution L.36 on the human rights situation in the Sudan.

A representative of the United States said the delegation had voted in favour of L.35 on the situation in the Sudan, even though the resolution had not passed.  Although there had been progress in the Sudan, the Government continued to pursue policies that undermined human rights for its citizens.  The United States believed it was important to realistically describe the human rights situation in the Sudan and appreciated the efforts of the sponsors of the resolution.  However, the United States remained concerned about what had been omitted from the resolution, including repression of religious freedom, enslavement of women and children, and attacks on civilians.  The Commission was increasingly shielding governments which were violating human rights or downplaying them altogether. 

A representative of Argentina said that Argentina had abstained in the vote on L.38, on the situation of human rights in Belarus, because it was the first time that a resolution on Belarus had been submitted to the Commission and Argentina did not have sufficient information on the issue.

A representative of Syria said Syria had abstained on resolution L.6 on the human rights situation in Iraq.  The delegation felt the text was unbalanced.  However, the preambular paragraphs contained important points concerning missing Kuwaitis, and it was hoped that the situation of those missing would be elucidated by the occupying Power.

Action on Resolutions on Rights of Child

In a resolution on the abduction of children in Africa (document E/CN.4/2003/L.46), adopted without a vote, the Commission condemned in the strongest terms the abduction and recruitment of children for armed conflicts; the abduction of children from refugee camps by armed groups, as distinct from the armed forces of States, and their subjection of children to forced conscription, torture, killing and rape; demanded the immediate demobilization and disarmament of all child soldiers; called for the immediate and unconditional release and safe return of all abducted children; called upon States to pay particular attention to the protection of refugee children, especially unaccompanied refugee minors and internally displaced children who were exposed to the risk of abduction or of becoming involved in armed conflicts; to take extra measures to protect refugee children, particularly girls, from being abducted by guerrilla groups; to increase and enhance cooperation to combat networks for abduction and child trafficking; to take measures to prevent abduction and recruitment by armed groups, as distinct from armed forces of States, through, inter alia, the adoption of legal measures to criminalize such practices; encouraged all States to integrate the rights of the child into all peace processes; welcomed the progress achieved in the eradication of the abduction of children by some national mechanisms; and called upon the donor community to provide generous financial assistance to such mechanisms.

In a resolution on the rights of the child (document E/CN.4/2003/L.105), adopted without a vote, the Commission urged States that had not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child to do so and States that had not ratified the Optional Protocols to the Convention to consider doing so; called upon States parties to the Convention to implement the Convention fully; called upon all States to take all necessary steps to protect and promote the rights of the child; to cooperate, support and participate in global efforts for poverty eradication; to ensure that children were entitled to their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights without discrimination of any kind; to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by girls of all human rights; to take all necessary measures to ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights by children with disabilities and by children working and/or living in the street, refugee and internally displaced children, and children alleged to have or recognized as having infringed on penal law; called upon all States to take all appropriate measures to prevent and eradicate the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography; stressed the continued importance of the Plan of Action on Children Affected by Armed Conflict of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement; called upon States to end the recruitment of children and their use in armed conflicts; and recommended that, whenever sanctions were imposed, in particular in the context of armed conflict, that their impact on children be assessed and monitored, and that sanctions be child-focused and formulated with clear guidelines to address possible adverse effects on children.

Before the adoption of the resolution, there was a separate vote on preambular paragraph 1 and operative paragraph 35 (a) requested by the United States.  The Commission decided, in a recorded vote of 51 in favour and 1 against, to retain the paragraphs.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour(51):  Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, 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, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.

Against(1):  United States.

A representative of the United States said the United States appreciated the efforts of all those States who had worked in a spirit of cooperation to achieve a document that met each delegation's objectives and concerns.  Unfortunately, with regard to preambular paragraph 1, the United States regretted that the co-sponsors had not accepted its amendment.  The United States could not accept the overemphasis given to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the assertion that primarily the Convention was the standard on children.  With regard to operative paragraph 35(a), the United States flatly rejected the call for the abolition of the death penalty for juvenile offenders.  The United States requested a vote on these paragraphs.

A representative of Argentina said the delegation supported resolution L.105, which was of utmost importance, and recalled that Argentina had stated its position on the issue during the general debate on item 13.

A representative of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union regretted that voting was demanded on the draft resolution on child rights.  The deletion of preambular paragraph 1 and operative paragraph 35 (a) was not acceptable.

A representative of Uruguay, speaking on behalf of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), said GRULAC supported the statement made by the European Union.  Consensus on this issue would be a message on its own and Uruguay, therefore, regretted that there had been a call for a vote.  In addition, it was stressed that the Convention on the Rights of the Child was the standard for the promotion and protection of the rights of the child.  With regard to the administration of the death penalty to minors, Uruguay believed such practices were against the norms of international society. 

A representative of Syria said the draft resolution was extremely important for promoting the rights of children. Syria would vote in favour of the draft and would not support any amendment.  Syria supported the statement made by the European Union that the resolution should be adopted by consensus.

A representative of the United States said the United States Government was constructively and generously engaged in a wide variety of multilateral and bilateral activities that benefited children around the world.  The United States respected and appreciated the interests and contributions of other nations and organizations to promote and protect the rights of children, and to enhance the quality of their lives in direct ways.  The United States believed that there were improvements in this text over its predecessors.  However, the delegation could not agree with all of the provisions incorporated into the resolution.  The United States disagreed with the language in preambular paragraph 1, as well as in operative paragraphs 35 (a).  Operative paragraph 22 included capital punishment, and the United States found that paragraph unacceptable.

Action on Measure on Indigenous Issues

In a measure (decision 6) on the International Decade of the World's Indigenous People, the Commission decided, without a vote, to recommend to the Economic and Social Council that it request the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize, before the end of the Decade, a seminar on treaties, agreements, and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous peoples, based on the recommendation of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

A representative of the United States said the Subcommission had undertaken to provide additional information to the Commission regarding a seminar on treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous peoples.  However, this information had not been provided to date.  In the absence of a report by Alfonso Martinez, the Commission did not have at this time sufficient information to take action on Subcommission draft decision 6 as it now stood.

A representative of Cuba said the delegation appreciated the flexibility expressed by other delegations.  The report of Mr. Martinez would be available as soon as possible and would be submitted to the Economic and Social Council.

A representative of Australia said Australia entirely associated itself with the statement made by the delegation of the United States.

A representative of Pakistan said the delegation supported the statement by Cuba.

Postponement of Draft Resolution on Human Rights and Sexual Orientation

The Commission decided, in a recorded vote of 24 in favour and 17 against, with 10 abstentions, to postpone consideration of draft resolution (document E/CN.4/2003/L.92) on human rights and sexual orientation until its sixtieth session.  The draft resolution would have the Commission express deep concern at the occurrence of violations of human rights in the world against persons on the grounds of their sexual orientation; stress that human rights and fundamental freedoms were the birthright of all human beings, and that the universal nature of these rights and freedoms was beyond question; and call upon all States to promote and protect the human rights of all persons regardless of their sexual orientation.

The results were as follows:

In favour(24):  Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, India, Kenya, Libya, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe.

Against(17):  Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Abstentions(10):  Armenia, Australia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ireland, Paraguay, Peru, Russian Federation, South Africa, and United States.

Concluding Statements

SERGIO VIEIRA DE MELLO, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, began his statement by thanking Najat Al-Hajjaji for her work chairing this Commission and managing its difficult, at times slippery agenda.  She was a consummate professional, with dignity and evenness of temperament.  The High Commissioner also thanked the staff of the secretariat, who he said were exemplary international civil servants. 

Mr. Vieira de Mello said that the Commission had accomplished much in the fifty-ninth session.  The high-level segment had been extremely successful.  The number of dignitaries, including many at the ministerial level, attending the Commission had reached past seventy.  The interactive dialogue provided a remarkable forum for both Rapporteurs and governments.  The Commission had negotiated and passed an impressive set of resolutions, particularly of a thematic kind.  The Commission had passed encouraging resolutions on, for example, human rights defenders; women's equal right to land and housing; good governance; impunity; and torture.  The rule of law had been strengthened by its adoption of a resolution on independence of the judiciary.  Item 9 once again proved its usefulness by giving the Commission a way to urge improvements by individual States.

Conversely, the Commission had had its setbacks, Mr. Vieira de Mello said.  The Commission must strive for greater unity on how to deal with human rights.  Experience showed that the better resolutions were prepared, the better they were. Members of the Commission should consider having more discussions, however informal, before the meeting. By the same token, there needed to be improved follow-up on Commission resolutions after the session was done.  A cause for concern at the Commission was, in the view of the High Commissioner, a lack of directness and openness.  The High Commissioner suggested that the word  "politicization" and its variants should be retired from active service; most people in the Commission worked for governments or sought to affect the actions of governments.  That was politics.  For some to accuse others of being political was a bit like fish criticizing one another for being wet.  The accusation hardly meant anything anymore.  It had become a way to express disapproval without saying what was really on our mind.  The Commission could use plainer speaking.  This, rather than charges of politicization, would truly help the Commission get beyond politics to the strengthening of human rights in all countries.  Some language ought to be abandoned entirely; those words that served no purpose other than to shock and offend and which should have no place in the Commission.  The Commission should also take a harder look at repetitive language: those various paragraphs that recurred each year because no one could be mobilized to retire them.  This could give the impression, to people observing the proceedings of the Commission from a distance, that the Commission was, at least on some issues, stuck in an earlier time.

Mr. Vieira de Mello said that the Commission had not succeeded in finding consensus language.  The Commission had often seen one side floating a resolution and the other side sinking it.  On occasion, this had become close to making a virtue out of the failure to reach consensus.  There was also the question of balance, or fairness.  The problems of this year's Commission were surmountable.  Pessimism was abdication.  It confirmed the opinion of those who sought to discredit multilateralism and international law.  At the end of the day, the problems facing the Commission were not structural.  The structures were sound.  Results were improving.  Acceptance of the importance of human rights continued to grow.  Human rights instruments gained ever more acceptance and the responsibility to protect human rights was increasingly seen as a central aspect of the rule of law. 

NAJAT AL-HAJJAJI, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, said it was the end of the session of the Commission.  During the last six weeks, delegates had spent more time at the Commission than they had with their families.  The Expanded Bureau would resume its work during the intersessional period to take stock of the achievements of the Commission.  Despite the heavy and intensive work of the Commission, as well as the tension that sometimes prevailed, it was still sad to see the end of this session.   She thanked the members of the Commission who had honored her and her country by entrusting her with the position of Chairperson for the session.  This session had been held at a time of international turmoil, and some had been concerned that the work would not be

concluded and that accusations would go beyond control.  She had attempted to deal with these concerns with patience, professionalism and wisdom.  Reference was also made to the successful high-level segment and the interactive dialogues with Special Rapporteurs.  In conclusion, she thanked the High Commissioner, the Deputy High Commissioner, members of the expanded Bureau, members of the Secretariat and all staff members, interpreters, press officers, conference officers and security guards and officers for everyone's important contribution and dedication to the work of the Commission and the United Nations. 

* *** *