COMMISSION ADOPTS MEASURES ON SITUATIONS IN CUBA, BELARUS, TURKMENISTAN, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA

COMMISSION ADOPTS MEASURES ON SITUATIONS IN CUBA, BELARUS,

TURKMENISTAN, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Approves Special Rapporteurs for Belarus and Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea; Rejects Draft Resolutions on Chechnya, Zimbabwe, China

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 15 April (UN Information Service) -- The Commission on Human Rights acted on a series of draft resolutions on country-specific situations this afternoon, approving by roll-call vote measures criticizing human rights matters in Cuba, Turkmenistan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and Belarus.

Through the resolutions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Belarus, it decided to appoint Special Rapporteurs to investigate human rights issues in those countries.

Draft measures on situations in the ChechenRepublic of the Russian Federation, Zimbabwe, and China were defeated, the last two on no-action motions.

In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Cuba, adopted by a roll-call vote of 22 in favour and 21 opposed, with 10 abstentions, the Commission considered that the Government of Cuba should refrain from adopting measures which could jeopardize the fundamental rights, the freedom of expression and the right to due process of its citizens, and, in that regard, deplored the events which occurred last year in Cuba involving verdicts against certain political dissidents and journalists, as reported internationally; and expressed the hope that the Government of Cuba would continue its efforts to boost religious freedom and would initiate measures designed to facilitate the transition towards the establishment of a fruitful dialogue with all schools of thought and organized political groups in Cuban society.

A Representative of Cuba termed the measure a new episode in the farce that the United States Government had been forcing through the Commission for more than a decade, and said Cuba steadfastly refused such a spurious attempt to condemn the country.

In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Turkmenistan, adopted by a roll-call vote of 25 in favour and 11 opposed, with 17 abstentions, the Commission, among other things, expressed grave concern at the persistence of a governmental policy based on the repression of all political opposition activities; the abuse of the legal system through arbitrary detention, imprisonment and surveillance of persons who tried to exercise their freedoms of thought, expression, assembly and association; restrictions on the freedoms of information and expression; and discrimination by the Government against ethnic Russian, Uzbek and other minorities.

In a resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, adopted by a roll-call vote of 29 in favour and 8 opposed, with 16 abstentions, the Commission, among other things, expressed deep concern about continuing reports of systemic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including torture, public executions, extrajudicial and arbitrary detention, imposition of the death penalty for political reasons, the existence of a large number of prison camps and the extensive use of forced labour; all-pervasive and severe restrictions on the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association; and continued violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of women.  Through the measure, the Commission also requested its Chairperson to appoint a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

A Representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said the draft resolution had no value for discussion at all, but its nature should be highlighted as it was a product of politicisation and selectivity that had nothing to do with human rights.

In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Belarus, adopted by a roll-call vote of 23 in favour and 13 opposed, with 17 abstentions, the Commission expressed deep concern at reports from credible sources implicating senior officials of the Government of Belarus in the forced disappearance and/or summary execution of three political opponents of the incumbent authorities and of a journalist; about the electoral process and legislative framework in Belarus, which remained fundamentally flawed; about continued reports of arbitrary arrests and detentions; about persistent reports of harassment and closure of non-governmental organizations, national minority organizations, independent media outlets, opposition political parties, and independent trade unions; and about increased restrictions on the activities of religious organizations.  The Commission decided to appoint a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus.

A Representative of Belarus said the attempt to appoint a Special Rapporteur was a mere attempt to divert the Commission from the consideration of true mass violations of human rights such as were occurring in Iraq; and that the Commission once again found itself being used as the tool of the political interests of certain Member States.

The Commission rejected, by a roll-call vote of 12 in favour and 23 opposed, with 18 abstentions, a resolution on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation.

By a roll-call vote of 27 in favour and 24 opposed, with 2 abstentions, it passed a no-action motion on a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Zimbabwe, thus ending consideration of the matter.

And by a roll-call vote of 28 in favour and 16 opposed, with 9 abstentions, the Commission approved a no-action motion on a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in China, thus ending consideration of the matter.

In a resolution on cooperation with United Nations human rights bodies, adopted by consensus, the Commission urged governments to refrain from all acts of intimidation or reprisal against those who cooperated with Representatives of United Nations human rights bodies, or who provided testimony or information to them.

The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Friday, 16 April, to continue with the general debate under its agenda item on the promotion and protection of human rights.  Later in the morning it is expected to consider draft resolutions and decisions tabled under its agenda item on economic, social and cultural rights.

Action on Texts on Violation of Human Rights around World

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.13) on the situation of human rights in Cuba, adopted by a roll-call vote of 22 in favour and 21 opposed, with 10 abstentions, the Commission considered that the Government of Cuba, like those of all other sovereign States, irrespective of the current exceptional international circumstances which had obliged many States to set up security measures, should refrain from adopting measures which could jeopardize the fundamental rights, the freedom of expression and the right to due process of its citizens, and, in that regard, deplored the events which occurred last year in Cuba involving verdicts against certain political dissidents and journalists, as reported internationally; expressed the hope that the Government of Cuba would continue its efforts to boost religious freedom and would initiate measures designed to facilitate the transition towards the establishment of a fruitful dialogue with all schools of thought and organized political groups in Cuban society, notwithstanding the delicate international environment, with the aim of fostering the all-round development of democratic institutions and civil liberties; and urged the Government of Cuba, within the context of the full exercise of its sovereignty, to cooperate with the Personal Representative of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation in Cuba by facilitating the discharge of her mandate.

The vote was as follows:

In favour (22): Armenia, Australia, Austria, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Peru, Republic of Korea, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States.

Against (21): Bahrain, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (10): Argentina, Bhutan, Brazil, Eritrea, Gabon, Mauritania, Nepal, Paraguay, Sri Lanka and Uganda.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the Union wished to express its grave concern at the human rights situation in Cuba.  The Union would support the draft resolution contained in L. 13.  The Union reiterated that its objective in its relations with Cuba was to encourage a process of transition to a pluralistic democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as a sustainable recovery and an improvement in the living standards of the Cuban people.  The Union recognized the efforts of Cuba to give effect to the social rights of its population despite the negative consequences of economic isolation.  The Union called for the liberation of political prisoners without delay.  It also urged the Cuban Government to restore its moratorium on the death penalty.

SHA ZUKANG (China) said the draft resolution on Cuba was not unfamiliar.  It had been notorious for many years.  This year it had been introduced by Honduras, but off the stage it was supported by the United States, the real boss behind the resolution.  For many years, driven by its domestic political needs, the United States had insulted and denigrated Cuba through this resolution, and the measure was typical of the hegemonic power politics of the United States.  Despite economic sanctions and military threats, the Cuban people had made tireless efforts towards economic and social development.  Cuba had carried out international human rights efforts with many countries and had provided developing countries with medical and educational assistance.  The human rights of the Cuban people were being violated by none other than the United States.  This draft resolution was a politicised product that confused the truth, and the Commission was abused and tarnished by it.  All justice-upholding countries should vote against it. 

RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON (United States) said a little over a year ago, the Cuban Government had carried out a brutal crackdown on independent journalists, economists, trade unionists and human rights activists.  It had been one of the worst acts of political repression against advocates of peaceful change in that country’s 45-year dictatorship.  This was a time of decision.  Members of the Commission should rise above artificial barriers of regional loyalty and narrow political considerations.  Fidel Castro’s regime oppressed the Cuban people, and the Cuban Government violated the human rights of its people.  The Commission should support this resolution and send a message to the brave political prisoners and to the oppressed Cuban people that they were not forgotten.

YURI BOICHENKO (Russian Federation) said Russia could not support the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Cuba and would vote against it.  Ideal countries, in terms of human rights standards, simply did not exist and the situation in Cuba did not warrant a Commission resolution of any kind.  The path to progress lay in a constructive dialogue without outside pressure.

CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe) said Zimbabwe was against country specific resolutions, and for that reason it opposed the draft resolution against Cuba.  Over the last 40 years, Cuba had been doing its best in all aspects of development.  The achievements of the Cuban Government were of great importance.  Cuba should be left alone to design its own future.  A no-action motion should be used against this draft.

ROGER JULIEN MENGA (Congo) said nobody was perfect in the promotion and protection of human rights.  Cuba had experienced incredible recovery and had compiled a positive record in human rights for its population.  It provided its population with medicine, education and culture.  Many other countries had benefited from Cuban cooperation in these matters.  Passage of this resolution would be counter-productive and Congo would vote against it.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba), speaking as a concerned country, said the resolution was a new episode in the farce that the United States Government had been forcing through the Commission for more than a decade.  Inebriated by the hegemonic power that was now exercised by the fascist group that had usurped power fraudulently in the United States, the United States thought of neither ways nor measures to attain its goals.  That explained the gross and disrespectful fashion in which it acted to bend and break wills.  Cuba felt outrage at the shameful role of the Government of Honduras in introducing this resolution, and pity for that country.  The heart of Cuba ached from anger and outrage in the face of the Empire that had always shown disrespect for the peoples of Morazan, Marti, and Bolivar.

But different winds were blowing nowadays across Latin America.  The true story of the genesis and presentation of resolution L.13 was well known.  There was no reason or moral explanation that the Government of Honduras could give to justify any alleged concern over human rights in Cuba:  Honduras was simply acting under orders from the United States, and all delegations knew it very well.  A very well articulated destabilization and subversion plan against Cuba was under way, against the backdrop of the most recent belligerent adventures of the Empire.  In the face of such double standards, hypocrisy, fear and complicity, one could only feel scorn.  Cuba steadfastly rejected this spurious attempt to condemn the country, knowing that it was defending the right of respect of sovereignty and self-determination for itself and all countries of the world.  Cuba would continue to fight; would not give up; its voice would not go silent on any rostrum; and it would not renounce its sacred duty of giving solidarity to those who needed it most.  Cuba would always be beside those who did not resign or flag in the face of difficulties, those who bet on the value of ideas and principles, those who did not renounce the possible dream of a world where all human rights for all were realized.

ROLAND Y. KPOTSRA (Togo) said Togo had carefully studied the draft text, and had noted that it had nothing to do with human rights.  It was incapable of improving the situation in Cuba.  Second, cooperation with Cuba was a must and should properly be the concern of the international community.  Third, lifting the blockade was a necessity to assist the development of the Cuban people, but there was no window open to such an opportunity.  Togo would vote against the text.

ILHAM SHANTER (Sudan) said Sudan had stated in the past that there was a dangerous tendency in the Commission to target developing countries without objectivity.  Cuba continued to provide assistance to developing countries, particularly in Africa.  The economic sanction against Cuba was a violation of human rights.  Sudan would vote against the text.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said the Commission in 2003 had welcomed the appointment of the Personal Representative of the High Commissioner and had urged the Cuban Government to allow her to perform her functions, but Cuba had said it did not recognize her mandate.  However, the Personal Representative had made her report detailing various human rights abuses, including arbitrary arrests and executions.  She had also noted positive aspects, including Cuba’s performance in providing education and health services, and she had cited problems linked to the embargo against Cuba.  The construction of equality and social justice could only be achieved through full respect for democracy, freedom and the rule of law.  Chile therefore would vote in favour of the resolution.  The embargo against Cuba lacked justification and was an impairment of the rights of the Cuban people.  The situation in Guantanamo also was of concern and should be remedied.

In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Turkmenistan (E/CN.4/2004/L.20), adopted by a roll-call vote of 25 in favour and 11 opposed, with 17 abstentions, the Commission expressed grave concern at the persistence of a governmental policy based on the repression of all political opposition activities; the abuse of the legal system through arbitrary detention, imprisonment and surveillance of persons who tried to exercise their freedoms of thought, expression, assembly and association, and harassment of their families; restrictions on the freedoms of information and expression, including through the suppression of independent media; discrimination by the Government against ethnic Russian, Uzbek and other minorities in the fields of education and employment; and the poor conditions in prisons in Turkmenistan.

The Commission’s resolution expressed grave concern at the continuing failure of the Government to respond to the criticisms identified in the Rapporteur of the Moscow Mechanism of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe as regards the investigation, trial and detention procedures following the reported assassination attempt against President Niyazov in November 2002, as well as the failure of the Turkmen authorities to allow appropriate independent bodies, family members and lawyers access to those convicted, or to provide any kind of evidence to dispel rumours that some of the latter had now died in detention; called upon the Government of Turkmenistan to ensure full respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular the freedoms of expression, religion, association and assembly, the right to a fair trial, and the protection of the rights of minorities, and to stop imprisoning conscientious objectors; to grant immediate access by appropriate independent bodies to detained persons; to put an end to forced displacement and guarantee freedom of movement inside the country; to fulfil its responsibility to ensure that those responsible for human rights violations were brought to justice; to remove the new restrictions on the activities of public organizations; to implement fully the recommendations outlined in the report of the Rapporteur of the Moscow Mechanism; and to develop further a constructive dialogue with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and her Office.

The Commission also urged the Government to release immediately and unconditionally all prisoners of conscience; and requested the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, as well as the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Representative of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders to consider visiting Turkmenistan during 2004-2005.

The vote was as follows:

In favour (25): Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States.

Against (11): Bahrain, China, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (17): Armenia, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Togo and Uganda.

LI BAODONG (China) said China, as a developing country, understood the Turkmenistan Government’s concern with promoting the economic development and the civil and political rights of its citizens.  The Government had made much progress, including in terms of ratification of international human rights instruments.  These steps reflected its full determination to cooperate with the international community.  The President of Turkmenistan had signed a decree guaranteeing religious freedom and announcing the Government’s determination to conduct a dialogue on the subject.  The international community should respond with understanding and tolerance.  It would more helpful to provide helpful comments than blind criticism.  The terms of the resolution also made references which fell completely outside the mandate of the Commission.  The Chinese delegation would therefore vote against the draft.

In a resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (E/CN.4/2004/L.21), adopted by a roll-call vote of 29 in favour and 8 opposed, with 16 abstentions, the Commission expressed deep concern about continuing reports of systemic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including torture, public executions, extrajudicial and arbitrary detention, imposition of the death penalty for political reasons, the existence of a large number of prison camps and the extensive use of forced labour, and lack of respect for the rights of persons deprived of their liberty; sanctions on citizens of the country who had been repatriated from abroad; all-pervasive and severe restrictions on the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association and on access of everyone to information, and limitations imposed on every person who wished to move freely within the country and travel abroad; and continued violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of women, in particular the trafficking of women for prostitution or forced marriage, and ethnically motivated forced abortions and infanticide by repatriated mothers.

The Commission noted with regret that the authorities of the country had not created the necessary conditions to permit the international community to examine these reports in an independent manner; called upon the Government to address these reports and concerns in an open and constructive manner by providing all pertinent information concerning the above-mentioned issues and removing restrictions on access to the country by the international community; by ratifying the human rights instruments to which the country was not yet a party; by adhering to internationally recognized labour standards; by implementing the recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; by refraining from sanctioning citizens who had moved to other countries; by cooperating with the United Nations system in the field of human rights; by developing a constructive dialogue with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and her Office; by resolving all unresolved questions relating to the abduction of foreigners; and by cooperating with neighbouring Governments to bring an end to the trafficking of women.

The Commission urged the authorities of the country to ensure that humanitarian organizations had full, free, safe, and unimpeded access to all parts of the country; requested the Chairman of the Commission to appoint a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; called upon the Government of the country to extend its full cooperation to the Special Rapporteur; requested all relevant Special Rapporteurs and Special Representatives to examine the situation in the country and to report to the Commission at its sixty-first session; and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to engage in a comprehensive dialogue with authorities of the country with a view to establishing a technical cooperation programme in the field of human rights.

The vote was as follows:

In favour (29): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bhutan, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Against (8): China, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (16): Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Mauritania, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Togo and Uganda.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea did not correspond to true respect for human rights.  It would only create a situation of confrontation.  Cuba would vote against the text.

LI BAODONG (China) said that factors such as natural disasters, among other things, had had a negative effect upon the economy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, but the Government had made great efforts to mitigate them.  It had also made progress in terms of respect for human rights and had invited the Special Rapporteur on women to visit the country.  The international community should encourage such efforts, not subject the country to condemnation and pressure.  Such a policy would only make the situation worse.  The Chinese delegation would vote against the text.

RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON (United States) said the resolution would raise international awareness of the terrible plight of the North Korean people and would highlight the brutality and repressiveness of the regime, which denied its people basic freedoms.  The resolution expressed the international community’s deep concern over the egregious violations of human rights committed in North Korea, where people were arrested for reading a foreign newspaper, where prisoners were brutally punished and where other violations occurred.  The Commission should act; it should shine the light of scrutiny on the Government’s brutal abuses.  The resolution on this topic last year had called upon the Government of North Korea to cooperate with the international community, but the Government had ignored the request.  It was to be hoped that one day the people of North Korea would live in freedom.

SHOTARO OSHIMA (Japan) said the resolution passed last year by the Commission with regard to the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had called for a dialogue with international mechanisms, but the Government of the country had not reacted to that request, particularly on the issue of abduction of persons.

JONG SONG IL (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), speaking as a concerned country, said although the draft resolution had no value for discussion at all, its nature should be highlighted, as it was a product of politicisation and selectivity that had nothing to do with human rights.  First, it pursued impure political objectives.  Second, there was scepticism as to whether the European Union deserved the right to talk about human rights protection -- all forms of violation of the right to subsistence and the right to life such as xenophobia and discrimination were prevalent in many European Union Member States.  The Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which was guided by human-centred Juche idea in all its activities, maintained an invariable policy of assuming responsibility for and constantly ensuring the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by all citizens.  Politicisation, selectivity and double-standards were prevailing over the principle of genuine human rights protection in the Commission.  This stark reality was only increasing suspicions about the need to remain any further in the Commission: the European Union had already jeopardized the credibility of the Commission by submitting the resolution.  Now it was driving the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the door of no return.

HYUCK CHOI (Republic of Korea) said the Government of the Republic of Korea had actively participated in the international community’s activities to promote human rights and from the same source came its deep concern over the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  The Republic of Korea had made every effort to build an atmosphere of conciliation and to bring about a reconciliation on the Korean peninsula.  For that reason, the Republic of Korea would abstain from the vote on this text.  That abstention should not be taken as signifying indifference to the issue, but rather as a sign of the Government’s belief that constructive engagement based on inter-Korean cooperation and dialogue would provide the way forward.  It was also hoped that the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would improve the situation of human rights in the country and would strengthen its dialogue with the international community.

In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Belarus (E/CN.4/2004/L.22), adopted by a roll-call vote of 23 in favour and 13 opposed, with 17 abstentions, the Commission expressed deep concern at reports from credible sources implicating senior officials of the Government of Belarus in the forced disappearance and/or summary execution of three political opponents of the incumbent authorities and of a journalist; about the electoral process and legislative framework in Belarus, which remained fundamentally flawed; about continued reports of arbitrary arrests and detentions; about persistent reports of harassment and closure of non-governmental organizations, national minority organizations, independent media outlets, opposition political parties, and independent trade unions; about increased restrictions on the activities of religious organizations; about reports of harassment of independent and internationally oriented educational establishments; about the failure of the Government to cooperate fully with all the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights, as requested in its resolution 2003/14; and about the criminal prosecution of a leading opposition figure.

The Commission urged the Government to dismiss or suspend from their duties law enforcement officers and public officials implicated in forced disappearances and/or summary executions, pending an impartial, credible and full investigation of those cases; to ensure that all necessary measures were taken to investigate fully and impartially all cases of forced disappearance, summary execution and torture and that perpetrators were brought to justice; to bring the electoral process and legislative framework into line with international standards; to bring the actions of its police and security forces into conformity with its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; to establish independence of the judiciary and end impunity for persons responsible for killing or injuring individuals; and to release scientists and other individuals detained for politically motivated reasons.

It urged the Government to cooperate fully with all the mechanisms of the Commission, including by extending invitations to the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders; as well as the Working Group on Enforced or Arbitrary Disappearances; and decided to appoint a Special Rapporteur to establish direct contacts with the Government and people of Belarus with a view to examining the situation of human rights in the country.

The vote was as follows:

In favour (23): Australia, Austria, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States.

Against (13): Armenia, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (17): Argentina, Bahrain, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Honduras, Mauritania, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, Togo and Uganda.

Earlier, a “no-action motion” tabled by the Russian Federation on resolution E/CN.4/2004/L.22 was rejected by a roll-call vote of 22 in favour and 22 opposed, with 9 abstentions.

YURI BOICHENKO (Russian Federation) said Russia considered that the text was politically motivated.  The sponsors were guided not by human rights concerns but by political motives.  The text had been drafted at a time when the authorities of Belarus were undertaking major changes designed to improve the situation in the country.  The content of the text was absurd.  The Russian delegation called for a no-action motion on the text.

LI BAODONG (China) said the resolution was firmly opposed by China because it was entirely contradictory to the facts.  The people of China and Belarus had a close relationship and China knew the genuine situation and reality in that country, which was entirely different from the allegations in the document.  The Government of that country had made tremendous democratic progress towards the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by all people in Belarus.  The resolution had ulterior motives, mainly to put economic and political pressure on Belarus, as it followed an independent political policy.  The resolution aimed to change the political system, not the situation of human rights.  China would vote against this entirely political resolution and supported the move to take no action.

RODOLFO REYES RODRÍGUEZ (Cuba) said Cuba also would support the “no-action motion” proposed by the Russian Federation.  It was inappropriate for the United States to present any draft on the human rights situation in another country, given its actions both in respect of the detainees held at GuantanamoBay and the situation in Iraq.  The draft was an attempt to exercise power as a precursor to the use of arms in the search to crush the independent paths of other peoples.  Cuba knew the people of Belarus and their commitment to the realization of their human rights.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said India would vote against the text if it was put to a vote.  L.22 called for the Special Rapporteur to have direct contact with the people, which was not the usual prescription in the mandate of special mechanisms.   India would vote in favour of the no-action motion.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said a motion not to take action was an attempt to deny members of the Commission their right to express their views on an issue.  It undermined the principles of transparency and non-selectivity that were essential for the work of the Commission. The Union voted against such motions as a matter of principle, as no country could be viewed as being above or beyond human rights consideration by the Commission.  The Union urged all members of the Commission to vote against the no-action proposal as a matter of principle, whether or not they voted for the resolution itself.

SERGEI ALEINIK (Belarus), speaking as a concerned country, said no one present was likely to be surprised that the United States had tabled a draft resolution based upon totally misleading and groundless accusations against another State.  This was nothing but an attempt to punish a State that had chose to follow another path.  It was obvious to all that the accusations against Belarus had been designed in the same manner as the weapons of mass destruction allegations against Iraq and that country’s alleged ability to deploy them in 45 minutes. However, the European Union’s position was more surprising.  Was it perhaps a simple attempt to divert attention from those countries’ own human rights situations?  The Union had rejected all constructive proposals for negotiation and had attempted to create new dividing lines in Europe, which ran counter to all policies of good neighbourliness and partnership.

Unlike the United States, Belarus was a party to all basic international human rights treaties and cooperated fully with international human rights treaty bodies.  Among the problematic aspects of the draft, one must ask why Belarus had been singled out as a problematic country in terms of enforced disappearances when such disappearances had been recorded in more than 79 countries.  Moreover, Belarus’ electoral legislation conformed entirely with international standards and its electoral practices were entirely democratic and transparent. Belarus had been recognized by the World Bank as a model for regional countries in the fight against poverty.  There were 18 political parties in Belarus today, and opposition parties could not only criticize the current Government but also benefited from generous political and financial support from the West.  Nor had any party been dissolved.  Belarusian citizens had established 2,214 public associations and 52 all-nation trade unions, which also maintained active international contacts.  The press had grown by 20 per cent in recent years and non-governmental organizations by 70 per cent.  The suggestion to have a Special Rapporteur for Belarus did not stand up to criticism or logic.  Special Rapporteurs should only be appointed as a last resort for those countries in which mass, gross and continuing violations of human rights were taking place.  The attempt to appoint a Special Rapporteur for Belarus was a mere attempt to divert the Commission from the consideration of true mass violations of human rights such as were occurring in Iraq.  The Commission again found itself being used as the tool of the political interests of certain Member States.

In a resolution on cooperation with United Nations human rights bodies (E/CN.4/2004/L.28), adopted by consensus, the Commission urged Governments to refrain from all acts of intimidation or reprisal against those who cooperated with Representatives of United Nations human rights bodies, or who provided testimony or information to them; those who availed themselves of procedures established under United Nations auspices for the protection of human rights and all those who had provided legal assistance to them for this purpose; those who submitted communications under procedures established by human rights instruments; and those who were relatives of victims of human rights violations; condemned all acts of intimidation or reprisal by Governments against private individuals and groups who sought to cooperate with the United Nations and representatives of human rights bodies; and invited the Secretary-General to submit to the Commission at its sixty-first session a report containing a compilation and analysis of any available information, from all appropriate sources, on alleged reprisals against the persons referred to above.

The Commission rejected, by a roll-call vote of 12 in favour and 23 opposed, with 18 abstentions, a resolution on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation (E/CN.4/2004/L.29).  The resolution, among other things, would have welcomed the efforts by the Government of the Russian Federation to ensure normal conditions of life for the civilian population, as well as the recent trials and subsequent convictions of military personnel who were serving in Chechnya for crimes against civilians; would have strongly condemned all terrorist attacks in Chechnya and elsewhere in the Russian Federation; and would have strongly condemned what it said were ongoing serious violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law in Chechnya, including forced disappearances, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, torture, ill-treatment, arbitrary detentions, and abductions.

The vote was as follows:

In favour (12): Australia, Austria, Croatia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States.

Against (23): Armenia, Brazil, China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (18): Argentina, Bahrain, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Mauritania, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea and Saudi Arabia.

SHA ZUKANG (China) said China would oppose the draft resolution.  The Russian Federation had made efforts to maintain peace and to uphold respect for human rights in Chechnya.  Chechnya was part and parcel of the Russian Federation, and tabling such a draft resolution was a sign of interference in the internal affairs of the country.  China urged others to reject the draft.

RODOLFO REYES RODRÍGUEZ (Cuba) said the draft resolution, tabled by the European Union, was yet another example of political manipulation in the Commission, with the evident purpose of playing to home audiences.  The European Union had presented a draft resolution on the GuantanamoBay in order to satisfy the same public opinion.  It was a groundless procedure that went nowhere and did not correspond to reality in Chechnya or in the rest of the Russian Federation.  Cuba was well aware of the efforts of the Russian Federation to find a solution to the issue, including through elections and the adoption of new legislative measures.  The draft resolution would in no way contribute to the promotion of human rights anywhere in the world.  Cuba could not support such a discriminatory, unfair procedure.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said the Russian Federation’s right to defend its territorial integrity, to defend its population, including against terrorist attacks, and the improvement of the human rights situation in Chechnya had all been recognized in the draft text.  Such concerns should guide any consideration of the question.  It was not clear why the text was necessary, nor would it help the situation.  India would, therefore, vote against the draft.

LEONID SKOTNIKOV (Russian Federation), speaking as a concerned country, said the European Union had persisted in drafting a resolution on the situation in the Chechen Republic despite the rejection of similar drafts at two previous sessions of the Commission.  The Russian Federation stood firmly for constructive international cooperation in the field of human rights and regretted that the former High Commissioner for Human Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, had not been able to carry through with his plans to visit the country last summer.

The process of normalization had become irreversible in Chechnya, and a political solution was being consistently pursued.  The President of the Republic had been elected in accordance with the provisions of the Republic’s Constitution, and Parliamentary and municipal elections would be held this fall.  The amnesty law was being implemented with respect to those who had voluntarily laid down arms and the social and economic infrastructure of this constituent entity of the Russian Federation had been generally rehabilitated.  Numerous public health and educational institutions were working, the system of law enforcement was functioning and internally displaced persons were returning to the Republic.  No one was more interested in the true well being and prosperity of Chechnya than the Russian Federation. Initiatives hindering that process –- such as the European Union sponsored draft –- were unacceptable and constituted an unfriendly act.  Such actions played into the hands of terrorists and went against the vital interests of the country.  They also undermined the effectiveness of the international campaign against terror.  It had been recognized internationally that Chechen extremists had closely established links with the Taliban in Afghanistan and that some had fought with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.  It was time for the European Union to show solidarity with the Russian Federation and the people of the ChechenRepublic, instead of tabling politically motivated texts such as this.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said Chile had decided to abstain in the vote.  A referendum had taken place in Chechnya to decide on the Constitution of the Republic; and measures had been taken to prosecute members of the armed forces who had been involved in human rights violations, among other things.

RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON (United States) said the United States would vote for the resolution because of deep concerns over continuing human rights violations in Chechnya.  It urged the Russian Government to resolve the situation.  There was a need for a political solution to the conflict, but Chechen rebel leaders also had the responsibility to stop and prevent human rights violations by their forces.  That was a necessary step for peace.  The resolution strongly condemned all terrorist acts in Chechnya and elsewhere in the Russian Federation.  The United States did not support secession from the Russian Federation, and condemned all terrorist acts and threatened terrorist acts in the strongest possible terms.

The Commission passed by a roll-call vote of 27 in favour and 24 opposed, with 2 abstentions, a no-action motion on a draft text on the situation of human rights in Zimbabwe (E/CN.4/2004/L.33).

The resolution would have expressed deep concern at what it said were continuing violations of human rights in Zimbabwe, in particular politically motivated violence, including killings, torture, sexual and other forms of violence against women, incidents of arbitrary arrest, restrictions on the independence of the judiciary and restrictions on the freedoms of opinion, expression, association and assembly; and at the failure to allow independent civil society in Zimbabwe to operate without fear of harassment or intimidation; and would have urged the Government of Zimbabwe to take all necessary measures to ensure that all human rights were promoted and protected.

The vote was as follows:

In favour (27): Bahrain, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

Against (24): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (2): Brazil and Mexico.

ROGER JULIEN MENGA (Republic of Congo) called for a no-action motion, given that the situation in Zimbabwe was once more being discussed for reasons completely unrelated to the situation of human rights in that country.  The Government had been demonized because of its redressing of the uneven distribution of land that had been perpetuated since colonial days.  Moreover, it should be noticed that the former colonial power, which had promised to fund land redistribution, had gone back on its promise and had attempted to coerce the Government to change its policy.  The draft resolution would only spread slander and accusation and the African Group therefore urged the authors to open real negotiations with Zimbabwe and to avoid this path of confrontation.  It was recognized that Zimbabwe had some problems, but those issues should be addressed nationally and, possibly, regionally or at the continental level.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNÁNDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said the resolution on the human rights situation in Zimbabwe was totally unrelated to human rights.  It was related to land and was aimed at undermining the right of the heroic people of Zimbabwe to land.  The text was a deceptive one.  The European Union, among which were former colonial powers, did not realize the situation on the ground.  The resolution was a new ploy brought about by the European Union. Cuba would vote in favour of the no-action motion.

RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON (United States), said the Government of Zimbabwe continued to conduct a concerted campaign of violence, repression and intimidation against its citizens, clearly demonstrating the leadership’s gross disregard for the full range of human rights.  Within the Commission, Member States had the responsibility to consider the substance of resolutions and not to play the procedural game of using “no-action motions”.  These motions amounted to approval of the human rights abuses being perpetrated by nations that disregarded the fundamental principles of the Commission.  The world community should resolutely condemn the repressive policies of the Mugabe regime that denied the Zimbabwean people their inalienable human rights, and should publicly express its support for and solidarity with the Zimbabwean people.

SAIDU BALARABE SAMAILA (Nigeria) said Nigeria had been intensively engaged in Zimbabwe, and was committed to a peaceful solution for the country, both at the Commonwealth and African level.  Dialogues had been held between the opposition and the Government, and these should bear fruit soon.  Nigeria appreciated that nation-building was an arduous task.  It was important that the Commission encourage these efforts that were committed to justice and healing in Zimbabwe, and that it sustain them, in order to enjoy the confidence of all.  There was a need for objectivity and transparency in the work of the Commission.  All should join hands in the dialogue with Zimbabwe and avoid any action that might continue the isolationist trend related to the country.  In the light of these views and without prejudice to Nigeria’s commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms, Nigeria would endorse the position of the African Group on the no-action motion.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that, as previously indicated, the Union would oppose all no-action motions and would urge all those upholding the freedom of expression to join it in this stand.  The members of the Commission should not seek to evade their responsibility to give a fair hearing to all motions.

CARLOS ANTONIO DA ROCHA PARANHOS (Brazil) said Brazil expressed its growing concern over selectivity and country specific resolutions.  Such resolutions intervened in the process of dialogue.  Brazil's vote would reflect its position on resolutions that did not reflect the spirit of the Commission.

LI BAODONG (China) said China was opposed to the draft resolution on Zimbabwe.  In its history of 24 years of development, Zimbabwe had made great progress.  The people of the country enjoyed the rights to education, health, and other human rights.  However, the relics of colonialism caused difficulties.  The Commission should help Zimbabwe to enjoy stability and development and should not table a resolution full of distortion and humiliation which would dampen the enthusiasm of a developing country eager to ensure human rights.  The no-action motion was entirely appropriate, and China would vote in favour of it.  The African countries understood Africa best and were in the best position to speak for African countries.  The resolution had nothing to do with the promotion and protection of human rights.  It was the product of the politicisation of international standards.

CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe) said this was not the first time a draft resolution had been considered on the human rights situation in Zimbabwe.  Every other time, the Commission had wisely rejected these “dreadful beasts dressed as cuddly lambs”.  There was a lingering dispute between Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom on the issue of land reform, but this was not the appropriate forum in which to address the matter.  Any human rights problems in the country were not out of the ordinary and allegations on that front should not take up any more of the Commission’s attention.  Therefore, the no-action mission was an appropriate step to take.  Moreover, unlike some of the fancy statements designed to dazzle Commission members, the step of tabling a no-action motion was a completely permissible action to take.

By a roll-call vote of 28 in favour and 16 opposed, with 9 abstentions, the Commission approved a no-action motion on a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in China (E/CN.4/2004/L.37).

The draft resolution would have expressed concern at what it said were continuing reports of severe restrictions on freedom of assembly, association, expression, conscience and religion, legal process that continued to fall short of international norms of due process and transparency, and arrests and other severe sentences for those seeking to exercise their fundamental rights, including those in Tibet and Xinjiang; and would have encouraged China to permit visits by United Nations mechanisms and to take additional steps to cooperate with the international community in the human rights area.

The vote was as follows:

In favour (28): Bahrain, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.

Against (16): Australia, Austria, Costa Rica, Croatia, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (9): Argentina, Armenia, Chile, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea and Uganda.

SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan) said this draft resolution put in jeopardy the United Nations' objective of cooperation among nations.  In China, people enjoyed all rights, and the Government had been committed to the respect of human rights for years.  In the past, China had been subjected to colonial aggression.  At present, China was one of the leading economies of the world.  Its Gross National Product (GDP) had tremendously grown; it exceeded even those of some developed nations.  The efforts of China had liberated its people from the shackles of poverty.  China's development record was a matter of pride for all.

The representative of (China) said China categorically rejected the anti-China draft resolution tabled by the United States.  This was the eleventh time that the United States had tabled such a resolution, claiming that it did so on the grounds that the human rights situation in China had “worsened sharply”.  If this logic held any truth, China would already have slid back into the primitive stage.  The truth was that China was now under a new generation of leadership that was inspired by the ideal of building a people-centred Government.  It was committed to doing all it could in the interests of its people.  The United States claimed that China lacked basic freedoms.  Such a claim was a pure distortion of the facts. It was outright lying.

The United States claimed that the resolution this year was very mildly worded, presuming that more support would thus be won over.  Regrettably, by overrating its own IQ, it had underestimated other people’s judgments. To any person who could still use his brain, it was obvious that the United States resolution was nothing but a sugar-coated bullet, and even masquerading as a mild resolution, its true purpose of obstinately interfering in the affairs of another country in order to serve its domestic interests could not be concealed.  Facts had shown that far from backsliding, the human rights situation in China had advanced significantly; reacting from disappointment and jealousy, the United States had come up with this anti-China resolution.  China’s no-action motion on the draft resolution did not mean that it wished to avoid discussing China’s human rights situation.  On the contrary, China welcomed well-intentioned criticism and suggestions, and had moved for a no-action motion because the resolution was for the sole purpose of serving the interests of the presidential election in the United States rather than based on any genuine concern for human rights.

ROGER JULIEN MENGA (Congo) Congo wished to associate itself with the statement by the delegation of China.  Congo was aware of the difficulties that could be encountered in the pursuit of human rights.  However, China had experienced tremendous and rapid development on many fronts and had made admirable progress to the benefit of its population.  A resolution on China would only hamper the country’s efforts.  None could deny the benefits that accrued from China’s economic development and which had been brought to other developing countries as well.  Therefore, Congo would vote in favour of the no-action motion.

CHITSAKA CHIPAZIWA (Zimbabwe) said Sino-African friendship had been based on mutual respect for human rights and self-determination.  China had been a friend of downtrodden people.  Its actions were based on respect.  No one had the right to judge the Chinese human rights situation.  Practical exercise on the ground should be the only remedy, which China was applying.  Zimbabwe would support the no-action motion.

IVAN MORA GODOY (Cuba) said the soap opera of the draft resolution on China that had been followed for a number of years was one of low quality.  The exercise represented manipulation and attempts to bring pressure to bear on China.  It sought to interfere in China’s domestic affairs.  This was a major problem of this infantilism -- it was like big boys who went around picking fights.  All should really learn from China.  There should not be blindness to the situation.  China was not so small.  It was a big country in terms of will, people, and ability to grow.  Cuba would be voting in favour of the no-action motion.

LEONID SKOTNIKOV (Russian Federation) said China had set an impressive example across the board for the entire world, including in the sphere of the protection of human rights.  Nothing but astonishment could be expressed at the tabling of this draft resolution.  China had proved its openness to cooperation and did not need any prompting from anybody.  The Russian Federation categorically objected to the draft text.

ILHAM SHANTER (Sudan) said Sudan valued the progress made in all aspects by China.  The developing countries had had excellent relationships with China for the last 40 years.  China had been helping developing countries with their development efforts.  The draft was a futile effort by the developed countries against the development of China.  Sudan would vote in favour of the no-action motion.

SARALA M. FERNADO (Sri Lanka) said the international community had recognized that the Government and people of China had made great strides in improving the situation of human rights in that country.  In such a context, there was no need for a resolution, and Sri Lanka would vote in favour of the no-action motion.  It was time to build on the achievements of China and not to denigrate the progress made.

MOHAMED SALECK OULD MOHAMED LEMINE (Mauritania) said China, throughout its long history, had developed its own institutions and political systems, which had constantly evolved and had experienced profound reforms and changes.  The country had undergone unprecedented economic and social reforms and had achieved improvements in the living standards of the Chinese people.  The great people of China deserved respect for their own economic and political choices.  China was progressing in its own way, but it was doing so in a sustained fashion.  The draft text did not contribute to the general effort to promote human rights and on that basis, it was rejected by Mauritania.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that it was the principle of the European Union to vote against any form of no-action motion.  The Union urged all members to vote against the no-action motion for reasons of principle.

HIDENOBU SOBASHIMA (Japan) said the Commission was an important platform for addressing various human rights issues in the world.  A no-action motion would interfere with this process, and Japan would oppose it as a matter of principle.

The representative of (Indonesia) said Indonesia strongly believed that genuine efforts to promote and protect human rights should be based on a spirit of cooperation.  The progress made in China in respect of economic, social and cultural rights made clear the country’s commitment to human rights.  China did not deserve to be targeted in such a manner.  Indonesia would vote in favour of the no-action motion

* *** *