Third Committee approves draft resolutions on extrajudicial

executions, elimination of religious intolerance

 

Nine Recorded Votes Taken Related to Two Texts

Moving into the second week of meetings devoted to action on the wide range of issues before it, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) today adopted two draft resolutions -- related to extrajudicial, summary arbitrary executions and elimination of religious intolerance respectively -- within its consideration of human rights.

Having adopted the text on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions by a recorded vote of 130 in favour to none against, with 45 abstentions (See annex VI), the Committee would have the General Assembly strongly condemn all such executions throughout the world and demand that all governments ensure that their practice was brought to an end.

Noting with grave concern that such practices could result in genocide or crimes against humanity, and that impunity continued to be a major cause of the perpetuation of violations of human rights –- including such executions -- the text would have the world body reiterate the obligation of all governments to conduct exhaustive and impartial investigations into all suspected cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

The text would also have the Assembly call upon all States in which the death penalty had not been abolished to comply with their obligations under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments.

Making a general statement on the draft was the representative of Finland, while the representatives of Colombia, Egypt, Cuba and the United States spoke in explanation after the vote.

The second draft, adopted by a recorded vote of 177 in favour to none against, with no abstentions (See annex IX), addressed the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance and would have the General Assembly urge States to ensure that their constitutional and legal systems provided effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief.

Urging States to ensure that no one within their jurisdiction was deprived of their right to life, liberty and security of person, the right to freedom of expression, the right not to be subjected to torture and the right not to be arbitrarily arrested and detained because of their religion or belief, the text would urge them to combat hatred, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance.

The text would also have the Assembly call upon all States to recognize the right of all persons to worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief, and express grave concern at all attacks upon religious places, sites and shrines.

Making a general statement before the vote on the draft was the representative of the Netherlands (on behalf of the European Union), while the representatives of Indonesia, Niger, Israel and Malaysia spoke in explanation of position after the vote.

Prior to the adoption of both draft resolutions, the Committee rejected, by recorded votes, a number of proposals put forward to amend the texts.  Addressing the Committee with respect to the proposed amendments were the representatives of Finland, Sweden, Senegal, Czech Republic, United Kingdom, United States, Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Mali, Cameroon, Malaysia, and the Sudan.

The Third Committee will reconvene at 10 a.m. on 23 November, to continue taking action on draft resolutions related to the wide range of issues before it.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to continue taking action on draft resolutions related to the wide range of issues before it, including on issues related to extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, elimination of all forms of religious intolerance and the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Action on Drafts

The first text before the Committee this morning, related to Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/59/L.57/Rev.1), would have the General Assembly strongly condemn all extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions that continued to take place throughout the world and demand that all governments ensure that the practice of such executions was brought to an end.  Noting with grave concern that the practice of such executions could result in genocide or crimes against humanity, and that impunity continued to be a major cause of the perpetuation of violations of human rights, it would reiterate the obligation of all governments to conduct exhaustive and impartial investigations into all suspected cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

All States in which the death penalty had not been abolished would be called upon to comply with their obligations under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments.  Moreover, the Assembly would urge all governments to undertake all necessary measures to prevent the occurrence of such executions and to investigate promptly and thoroughly all killings.

Taking note of the interim report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Assembly would urge him to continue to bring to attention situations of such executions that were of particularly serious concern or where early action might prevent further deterioration.  All governments would be urged to respond to communications and requests for information from the Special Rapporteur.

Making a general statement as the draft’s main sponsor, the representative of Finland said the revised text represented the outcome of a second round of informal consultations held over the previous week.  The changes to the draft addressed the main concerns that had been raised during those negotiations, particularly issues related to genocide, deaths in custody, references to past resolutions and the report of the Special Rapporteur.  Based on bilateral consultations, the co-sponsors had agreed to some final amendments to the text, which she read out.

A related text, proposed to amend the draft on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/59/L.80), would have the words “in order to prevent extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions” replace the phrase “in which the death penalty has not been abolished” in operative paragraph 7 of the original text.  Furthermore, operative paragraph 8(c) would be replaced with a paragraph reaffirming the obligation of governments to ensure the protection of the right to life of all persons under their jurisdiction and calling upon governments concerned to investigate promptly and thoroughly all cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, including for any discriminatory reasons, to bring those responsible to justice before a competent, independent and impartial judiciary and to ensure that such executions were neither condoned nor sanctioned by government officials or personnel.

The Committee thus proceeded to take action first on the proposed amendments to the draft on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, contained in document A/C.3/59/L.80.

The representative of Finland said that, given the long and intensive negotiations that had been undertaken, it was with regret that she must announce that the proposed amendments were not acceptable to the co-sponsors.  She requested separate recorded votes on each of the two amendments.

The Committee would, thus, vote first on the amendment to operative paragraph 7 of the text on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

In explanation before the vote, the representative of Finland said it had become clear from the first that there had been a divergence of opinion on this paragraph.  Throughout the negotiations, all had agreed on the core idea contained in operative paragraph 7 –- that when the death penalty was carried out, it must be done in compliance with relevant restrictions and safeguards.  The co-sponsors of the original text had proposed various alternatives to the original paragraph in an attempt to make it acceptable to all delegations.  It was to be hoped that, in future negotiations, the co-sponsors would find a means of expressing the consensus shared by all on this issue.

In explanation vote on the first amendment, the representative of Sweden agreed with that of Finland that the difficulty with the paragraph was not a substantial one.  The proposed amendment, he said, might give a false impression of the relation of the resolution to legality and illegality of the death penalty.

The proposed amendment to operative paragraph 7 was rejected by a recorded vote of 60 in favour to 74 against, with 26 abstentions.  (See annex I.)

After the vote, the representative of Senegal explained that she had abstained because her country’s Council of Ministers had just passed legislation against capital punishment.

The Committee then turned to the proposed amendment to operative paragraph 8(c), which was rejected by a recorded vote of 52 in favour to 75 against, with
32 abstentions.  (See annex II.)

Returning to the original text on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/59/L.57/Rev.1), the Committee was informed that recorded votes had been requested on operative paragraph 7 and operative paragraph 8(c) of the text.

Making a general statement before the vote on operative paragraph 7, the representative of Finland said her delegation would vote in favour of operative paragraph 7 of the text, and urged all other delegations to do the same.

Speaking in explanation before the vote, the representative of Senegal said her delegation would abstain for reasons explained above.

Operative paragraph 7 was then approved by a recorded vote of 84 in favour to 41 against, with 39 abstentions.  (See annex III.)

Subsequently, the Committee turned to operative paragraph 8(c), on which a recorded vote had been requested on the three words “including sexual orientation” contained in the ninth line of the paragraph.

In a general statement on paragraph 8(c), the representative of Finland recalled the recent history of the paragraph and said that it was important to note that the wording in the paragraph did not contain any value judgement concerning the sexual orientation of a victim.  It merely urged States to prevent extrajudicial executions when they were committed due to the victim’s sexual orientation.  For that reason, she opposed its omission.

The representative of the CzechRepublic said that taking out one of the listings in the resolution would not be in line with the rest of the Committee’s work.

Also making a general statement on operative paragraph 8(c), the representative of the United Kingdom noted that the paragraph provided a list of grounds on the basis of which such killings were perpetrated.  While no list could be exhaustive, some groups required special protection.  The list noted killings that were racially motivated; killings of members of national, ethnic or linguistic minorities; killings of migrants and children; and killings on the basis of sexual orientation.  Often, the motivations for such killings were difficult to ascertain, and they often remained underreported.  Thus, it was right that affected groups be highlighted as requiring additional protection.  His delegation would be voting in favour of the paragraph and urged all other delegations to do likewise.

The Committee then approved retention of the words “including sexual orientation” in operative paragraph 8(c) by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to
42 against, with 29 abstentions.  (See annex IV.)

The representative of the United States then proposed an amendment to operative paragraph 6 to read “noting that extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions are a crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court”.

Speaking in explanation before the vote, the representative of Finland said the amendment proposed by the United States was not acceptable to the co-sponsors.  The proposed formulation failed to address the issue of ratification of the Rome Statute.  The reference to the International Criminal Court was particularly relevant in the present text, given its subject matter.  She thus requested a recorded vote and said her delegation would vote against it.

The Committee then rejected the amendment to operative paragraph 6 by a recorded vote of 4 in favour (India, Palau, Nicaragua, and the United States) to
117 against, with 41 abstentions.  (See annex V.)

Making a general statement on the text as a whole, Finland’s representative expressed a hope for consensus on the resolution in the near future.  The core of the resolution, the elimination of extrajudicial executions, should be agreeable to all delegations.

The Committee then approved the resolution, as orally amended, by a recorded vote of 130 in favour to none against, with 45 abstentions.  (See annex VI.)

Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of Colombia, explaining his abstention, expressed regret that the text referred to reports, which his country had rejected.  Next year, he hoped there would be accurate, objective reports on the situation in his country.

Egypt’s representative explained he had abstained because the resolution was overloaded.  His delegation had worked hard to negotiate consensus language, but unfortunately it had not succeeded.

Speaking in explanation after the vote, the representative of Cuba noted that his delegation had voted in favour of the draft resolution.  However, Cuba continued to have reservations with regard to the report of the outgoing Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.  With regard to his country, the report had not been impartial and had been based entirely on erroneous information.  It was to be hoped that future reports would provide an accurate reflection of the reality in Cuba.

The representative of the United States noted that he had been compelled to request the amendment to paragraph 6 on the International Criminal Court, as his country continued to have concerns in that regard.  However, the United States felt that the international community should use all appropriate regional and international mechanisms to address the phenomenon of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and to hold those responsible for such acts accountable.  Thus, the United States had voted in favour of the draft for that reason.

The Committee then turned to a text on Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance (document A/C.3/59/L.59), which would have the General Assembly urge States to ensure that their constitutional and legal systems provide effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief.  Also urging States to ensure that no one within their jurisdiction is deprived of their right to life, liberty and security of person, the right to freedom of expression, the right not to be subjected to torture and the right not to be arbitrarily arrested and detained because of their religion or belief, the Assembly would urge States to combat hatred, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance.

Calling upon all States to recognize the right of all persons to worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief, the Assembly would express grave concern at all attacks upon religious places, sites and shrines.  The text would invite States, religious bodies and civil society to undertake dialogue at all levels to promote greater tolerance, respect and understanding of freedom or religion or belief, and to promote those values through the educational system.

The representative of the Netherlands, on behalf of the European Union, introduced revisions to the text.

An Amendment to that text was then proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), who said he wished to make the text more consistent
with the Durban Declaration.  In that regard, he proposed changing operative paragraph 9 to include “and other” before “communities” and to add the words “Christianophobia, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism” after the words “including cases motivated by” so as not to suggest that any particular group was more vulnerable than the rest.

In explanation of vote, the representative of the Netherlands said that the European Union opposed the amendment because it would skew the paragraph, as it was intended to counter religious intolerance only.  As for paragraph 9, the new order made no sense.

The representative of Mali then announced the withdrawal of his delegation’s sponsorship of the resolution on elimination of religious intolerance.

The representative of Cameroon also announced the withdrawal of his delegation’s sponsorship.

Making a general statement on the proposed amendment to the draft on religious intolerance, the representative of Malaysia said her delegation would vote in favour of the amendment, on the understanding that it was the European Union that had called for the vote.

The representative of the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union, reiterated his call for all delegations to vote against the proposed amendment.

The proposed amendment to the draft on religious intolerance was then rejected by a recorded vote of 45 in favour to 85 against, with 29 abstentions.  (See annex VII.)

The Committee was then informed that a recorded vote on operative
paragraph 9 of the text on religious intolerance had been requested.

Speaking in explanation before the vote, the representative of Malaysia said that her delegation would be voting against the paragraph, as a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

The representative of the Sudan also noted that her delegation would vote against operative paragraph 9.

Operative paragraph 9 was then approved for retention by a recorded vote of 99 in favour to 33 against, with 22 abstentions.  (See annex VIII.)

Before the vote on the resolution itself, the representative of the Netherlands expressed regret over the need to vote on the resolution, saying that the lack of consensus defeated its very purpose.

The draft resolution was approved, as revised, by a recorded vote of 177 in favour to none against, with no abstentions.  (See annex IX.)

The representative of Indonesia affirmed his vote in favour.

The representative of Niger said he voted for the text, but he would have preferred that the amendment of the OIC had been accepted.

Israel’s representative said that, in order to fight against religious intolerance, one could not engage in platitudes and could not be silent in the

face of emerging threats.  She was pleased to support the resolution; this year’s text took into account the resurgence of anti-Semitism, a phrase that was
coined to refer to hatred of people of the Jewish faith.  The motives to revise paragraph 9 were transparent and themselves shown the need for strong condemnation of anti-Semitism.  She recalled the Secretary-General’s words that supported such condemnation.

The representative of Malaysia said that elements relating to racial discrimination did not fit in the resolution, since the text concerned religious discrimination.  “Anti-Semitism” related to race, she said.  It was in that context that she had voted in favour of the resolution.

(annexes follow)

ANNEX I

Vote on Amendment to Draft Resolution on Execution

The amendment to preambular paragraph 1 of the draft resolution on extrajudicial executions (document A/C.3/59/L.80) was rejected by a recorded vote of 60 in favour to 74 against, with 26 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Colombia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Abstain:  Angola, Azerbaijan, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Congo, Ghana, Honduras, India, Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, United States.

Absent:  Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zambia.

(annex II follows)

ANNEX II

Vote on Amendment to Draft Resolution on Executions

The amendment to preambular paragraph 2 of the draft resolution on extrajudicial executions (document A/C.3/59/L.80) was rejected by a recorded vote of 52 in favour to 75 against, with 32 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Abstain:  Angola, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guyana, Honduras, India, Israel, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tajikistan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago.

Absent:  Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Guinea,
Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

(annex III follows)

ANNEX III

Vote on Paragraph 7 of Draft Resolution on Executions

Paragraph 7 of the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/59/L.57/Rev.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 84 in favour to 41 against, with 39 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Bahamas, Belarus, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, India, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Palau, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, United States.

Absent:  Angola, Chad, Comoros, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Gambia, Georgia, Guinea, Haiti, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Liberia, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zambia.

(annex IV follows)

ANNEX IV

Vote on Retention of “Sexual Orientation” in Draft Resolution on Executions

The retention of “sexual orientation” in operative paragraph 8(c) of the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/59/L.57/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to
42 against, with 29 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ghana, Iraq, Jamaica, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Suriname, Tajikistan, Togo, Tunisia.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Cuba, Dominica, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Myanmar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

(annex V follows)

ANNEX V

Vote on Amendment to Paragraph 6 of Draft on Executions

The proposed amendment of operative paragraph 6 of the draft resolution on extrajudicial executions (document A/C.3/59/L.57/Rev.1) was rejected by a recorded vote of 4 in favour to 117 against, with 41 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  India, Nicaragua, Palau, United States.

Against:  Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bolivia, BruneiDarussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, China, Colombia, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Honduras, Indonesia, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Eritrea, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia , Maldives, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

(annex VI follows)

ANNEX VI

Vote on Draft Resolution on Executions

The draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/59/L.57/rev.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 130 in favour to none against, with 45 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Colombia, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Chad, Dominica, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Liberia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.

(annex VII follows)

ANNEX VII

Vote on Amendment to Draft Resolution on Religious Intolerance

The amendment proposed by Pakistan (OIC) to operative paragraph 9 of the draft resolution on the elimination of religious intolerance (document A/C.3/59/L.59) was rejected by a recorded vote of 45 in favour to 85 against, with 29 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Abstain:  Angola, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Guyana, Honduras, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Botswana, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Jordan, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zambia.

(annex VIII follows)

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Paragraph 9 of Draft on Religious Intolerance

Operative paragraph 9 of the draft resolution on elimination of religious intolerance (document A/C.3/59/L.59) was adopted by a recorded vote of 99 in favour to 33 against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against:  Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Angola, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Iraq, Jamaica, Malawi, Mongolia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Togo.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Mozambique, Myanmar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Tonga, Tunisia, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zambia.

(annex XI follows)

ANNEX IX

Vote on Draft on Religious Intolerance

The draft resolution on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance (document A/C.3/59/L.59) was adopted by a recorded vote of 177 in favour to none against, with no abstentions as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  None.

Absent:  Chad, Dominica, Fiji, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.

* *** *