COMMISSION ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL, CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, RIGHTS OF WOMEN

COMMISSION ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, CULTURAL,

CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, RIGHTS OF WOMEN

Approves Appointment of Special Rapporteur

On Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 19 April (UN Information Service) -- The Commission on Human Rights adopted a series of resolutions this afternoon on topics ranging from economic, social and cultural rights to civil and political concerns such as the eradication of torture and the protection of persons from terrorism, extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, and arbitrary detentions.

Towards the end of the meeting, the Commission approved several measures on enhancing the human rights of women.  Among other things, it decided to appoint for a period of three years a Special Rapporteur whose mandate would focus on the human rights aspects of trafficking in persons, especially women and children.

In a resolution on the question of the realization in all countries of the economic, social and cultural rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and study of the special problems which the developing countries face in their efforts to achieve these human rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 48 in favour and none opposed, with 5 abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed that the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want could only be achieved if conditions were created whereby everyone could enjoy economic, social and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights.  The Commission also decided to renew the mandate of the open-ended Working Group for a period of two years to consider options regarding the elaboration of an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

In a resolution on human rights and terrorism, adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 in favour and 14 opposed, with 8 abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed that everyone had a right to protection from terrorism and strongly condemned such violations of the right to life, liberty and security; expressed its solidarity with the victims of terrorism and their families; and rejected the identification of terrorism with any religion, nationality or culture.

A number of countries voting against the measure contended that it gave terrorists the status of violators of human rights, when only States could have that status.  Terrorists, these countries said, were simply criminals and should be tried and punished as such.

In a resolution on enhancing the role of regional, sub regional and other organizations and arrangements in promoting and consolidating democracy, the Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 45 in favour and none opposed, with
8 abstentions, the Commission invited intergovernmental regional, subregional and other organizations to engage actively in work to constantly promote and consolidate democracy; and welcomed the adoption by such organizations of institutional rules designed to prevent situations that threatened democratic institutions.

In a resolution on strengthening of popular participation, equity, social justice and non-discrimination as essential foundations of democracy, adopted by a roll-call vote of 28 in favour and 14 opposed, with 11 abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed that democracy was based on the freely expressed will of the people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives.  The resolution also said that while all democracies shared common features, there was no one model of democracy, and, therefore, States must not seek to export any particular model of democracy.

In a resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, adopted by a roll-call vote of 39 in favour and none opposed, with 12 abstentions, the Commission strongly condemned such practices which continued to take place throughout the world; noted with deep concern that impunity continued to be a major cause of such violations of human rights; and demanded that all States ensure that such executions were brought to an end.  The Commission also renewed the mandate of its Special Rapporteur on the topic for another three years.

In other resolutions, the Commission requested governments concerned to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily deprived of their liberty; deplored the fact that some governments had not provided for a long period of time substantive replies concerning the cases of enforced disappearances in their countries; condemned all acts of torture and decided to extend for three years the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture; expressed continued concern over violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; called on States to further build their capacities for respect for human rights in the administration of justice, particularly juvenile justice; called for steps to strengthen the independence and impartiality of the judiciary; and called for efforts to ensure compensation and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

In addition, the Commission requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare an analytical report that would provide supplementary information on best practices in relation to conscientious objection to military service; condemned political platforms, organizations, legislation and practices based on racism, xenophobia or doctrines of racial superiority; condemned all forms of religious intolerance and extended for three years the mandate of its Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief; and called upon States that had military courts or special criminal tribunals to ensure that such courts were an integral part of the general judicial system and applied due procedures that were internationally recognized as guarantees of a fair trial.

In a resolution on trafficking in women and girls, adopted by consensus, the Commission, among other things, called upon governments to strive to ensure that trafficked persons were protected from further exploitation and harm; and urged governments to address the root factors that encouraged trafficking in persons, especially women and children.

The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 20 April, to continue its consideration of draft resolutions and decisions as it works towards its scheduled adjournment on Friday.

Action on Draft Resolutions on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Continuing its consideration from Friday of a draft resolution on the question of the realization in all countries of the economic, social and cultural rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Commission proceeded to reject, by a roll-call vote of 25 in favour and 26 opposed, with two abstentions, an amendment to the resolution proposed in E/CN.4/2004/L.67/Rev.1.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.38) on the question of the realization in all countries of the economic, social and cultural rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and study of the special problems which the developing countries face in their efforts to achieve these human rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 48 in favour and none opposed, with 5 abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed that the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want could only be achieved if conditions were created whereby everyone could enjoy economic, social and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights; that all persons in all countries are entitled to the realization of their economic, social and cultural rights; that the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of all human rights should therefore never exempt or excuse States from the promotion and protection of other rights; and that it was important that international cooperation assist governments to fulfil their obligation to protect and promote economic, social and cultural rights, while it was emphasized that that first responsibility for promoting and protecting human rights lay with States.

Through the resolution the Commission also called upon all States to give full effect to economic, social and cultural rights; to consider signing and ratifying, and the States parties to implement, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; to guarantee that such rights would be exercised without discrimination of any kind; to give special attention to the individuals, most often women and children, especially girls, and to communities living in extreme poverty and therefore most vulnerable and disadvantaged, to help alleviate the unsustainable external debt burden of countries that met the criteria of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative; to promote the effective and wide participation of representatives of civil society in decision-making related to the promotion of economic, social and cultural rights; decided to renew the mandate of the open-ended Working Group for a period of two years to consider options regarding the elaboration of an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and to authorize the Working Group to meet for 10 working days prior to the sixty-first and sixty-second sessions of the Commission.

The vote was as follows:

In favour (48): Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.

Against (0):

Abstentions (5): Australia, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United States.

WANG MIN (China) said China attached great importance to economic, social and cultural development; and it was for that reason that it supported all resolutions concerning economic, social and cultural rights.  This year, China had actively participated in the work of the Working Group on the elaboration of an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  China believed that international cooperation should be the priority of the Working Group.  China would support the amendments made by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan with regard to resolution L.38.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the text of L.38, after four rounds of consultations, struck a careful balance.  Operative paragraph 14 followed the recommendation issued by the Chairperson/Rapporteur of the Working Group and had been the subject of broad agreement.  The insertion of other parts undermined the delicate balance achieved.  L.67/Rev 1, as amended, was contrary to the spirit of consensus.

NAELA GABR (Egypt) said Egypt welcomed all efforts aimed at promoting economic, social and cultural rights and had always demanded that they be placed upon equal footing with civil and political rights on the international agenda.  Firmly believing that all interpretations of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights should take that focus into account and that there should be consideration of the elaboration of an optional protocol to the Covenant, Egypt felt the resolution and its revision aimed to ensure that key provisions contained in the Covenant were taken into account, including the particular situation faced by developing countries in ensuring the realization of economic, social and cultural rights.  Egypt would for vote the revision offered in L.67/Rev.1.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said Cuba had voted in favour of the resolution presented by Portugal on the realization of the economic, social and cultural rights.  The text in draft resolution L. 38 was consistent with the other resolution on the issue.  Legally binding clauses should be stressed in the draft.  Cuba would support the amendment to L.38 presented by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said the contents of L.67/Rev 1 would bring value to draft resolution L38.  The contents of the proposed amendment complemented and did not detract from the resolution, and were fully consistent with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  By agreeing to language like this, it was believed that the prospect of full realization of economic, social and cultural rights would be enhanced.  India would vote in favour of the draft amendment and urged all others to do likewise.

PITSO D. MONTWEDI (South Africa) said that the country was now in a position to support the revision to the draft text and would vote in favour of it.

GREGORIO DUPONT (Argentina) said the amendment proposed in L.67/Rev.1 contained important issues that the developing countries valued very much.  The proposal brought a delicate balance to the draft resolution.

SERGEY CHUMAREV (Russian Federation) said that during the deliberations of the Working Group on the optional protocol to the International Covenant, Russia had declared its position regarding the mandate of the Working Group and its organization of work.  Conditions for work on the optional protocol had been laid down.  The proposal of Portugal for a mandate for the Group was broader and presupposed general discussion.  It was hoped that the Working Group would be able to discuss the provisions of the draft optional protocol at its next session. 

SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan) said the resolution had been deficient in that it had not addressed the question of international cooperation to assist developing countries in the realization of economic, social and cultural rights.  Without an explicit affirmation of this link, the resolution was imbalanced.  For that reason, Pakistan had called for an amendment to the resolution, but that suggestion had not been accepted, thus turning the entire debate on economic, social and cultural rights on its head.  It was to be hoped that developing countries could raise their voice for international cooperation when the Working Group next met.  However, despite those misgivings and in view of the importance attached to the realization of economic, social and cultural rights, Pakistan had voted in favour of the resolution.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said India strongly supported the amendment presented by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.  India’s support reflected the country’s efforts towards the cause of economic, social and cultural rights. The narrow defeat of the amendment would not discourage India from working further on the issue.  India would continue to deploy great effort in the Working Group dealing with the elaboration of an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Action on Draft Resolutions and Decisions on Civil and Political Rights

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.42) on enhancing the role of regional, sub regional and other organizations and arrangements in promoting and consolidating democracy, adopted by a roll-call vote of 45 in favour and none opposed, with 8 abstentions, the Commission recognized the importance of all actions, at regional and sub regional levels, that aimed at facilitating democratic institutions capable of responding to the specific needs of the countries in each region; acknowledged the importance of better awareness of the democratic values and principles in all regions and for all people; that democracy contributed to the realization of all human rights; that democracy contributed substantially to preventing violent conflicts, accelerating reconciliation and reconstruction and, in peacetime, to resolving disputes that might impede social and economic progress; invited intergovernmental regional, sub regional and other organizations to engage actively in work to constantly promote and consolidate democracy; welcomed the adoption by such organizations of institutional rules designed to prevent situations that threatened democratic institutions; urged the continuation and expansion of activities carried out by the United Nations system to support programmes of technical assistance to States in the field of democracy; and called upon the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to invite, inter alia, the United Nations Elections Division, the Department of Political Affairs, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the United Nations Development Programme, the International Labour Office, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and regional organizations to inform the Commission on Human Rights, at its next session, of actions undertaken to promote and consolidate democracy.

The vote was as follows:

In favour (45): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Against (0):

Abstentions (8): Bhutan, China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo and Zimbabwe.

JUAN PABLO VEGAS TORRES (Peru) said experience showed that regional and sub regional bodies could play a major role in strengthening the link between democracy and human rights.  In Peru, efforts were being made to construct a more inclusive and participatory democracy under which tangible progress in the enhancement of living standards was taking place.  The process required patience for the gradual strengthening of institutions and for developing commitment -– including international support for domestic efforts.  For that reason, Peru was proud of its participation in initiatives aimed at the strengthening of the link between human rights and democracy.

MARI DEL CARMEN HERRERA CASEIRO (Cuba) said the draft resolution contained elements of previous ones that had not enjoyed consensus.  The focus ignored the various different forms of democracy that existed around the world.  There was no sole model of democracy or of democratic institutions.  Instead, each society had its own context and democratic institutions that were all important, and this draft ignored that truth.  It also ignored the right to self-determination of peoples.  The approach outlined in the resolution was detrimental to developing countries.  It converted them into victims for the political manipulation that so often characterized the work of the Commission.  This was a further manifestation of the double standards of the work of the Commission, as it consistently voted on matters that were of interest of those who wanted to monitor the countries of the South.  Cuba could not support resolution L.42 and would abstain during the vote.

MICHAEL KOZAK (United States) said the United States hoped that all countries would support the resolution, which invited interested groups, including those within the United Nations system, to play an active role in promoting and consolidating democracy.  The essential elements of democracies, such as civil and political rights, were essential for protecting all human rights.  Increasing cooperation of democracies within regional and international organizations was a key element of the community of democracies’ efforts.  Cooperation among democracies within the United Nations was based explicitly on shared interests and values and could produce results that were more consistent with democratic ideals and human rights standards.

QI XIAOXIA (China) said China had worked for the development of democracy and was actively and steadily carrying out reform to its political system.  However, the Chinese Government also believed that different regions of the world would progress in that regard at different rates and that their different political, cultural and religious histories meant that there was no single form of democracy that all must follow.  A model of democracy from one region could not be imposed upon or transplanted or copied by countries in other regions.  Moreover, countries such as the United States talked about democracy but acted upon the international stage in a unilateralist manner, which was very different from democracy.  For that reason, China would abstain in the vote on draft resolution L.42.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said Chile supported draft resolution L. 42, as it sprang from various previously adopted resolutions of the General Assembly and the Commission over the last four years.  It made an initial basic statement with regard to the fundamental elements of democracy, a statement which guided the community of democracies.  There was a direct link between democracy, good governance, economic development, and the elimination of poverty.  Democracy sped up the construction of peace, and in times of peace eliminated causes of conflict.  It was the system that best ensured the rights of minorities.  This resolution appealed to the United Nations system, inter-governmental organizations and Member States to speed up the development of instruments for the consolidation of democracy.  For these reasons and others, Chile supported the draft resolution, and other members of the Commission also should support it.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said India associated itself with the statement of Chile.  There was an inescapable link between political and civil rights and democracy.  India urged all other countries to support the draft resolution.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.44) on strengthening of popular participation, equity, social justice and non-discrimination as essential foundations of democracy, adopted by a roll-call vote of 28 in favour and 14 opposed, with 11 abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed that democracy was based on the freely expressed will of the people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives and that in that context the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels should be universal and conducted without conditions attached; that while all democracies shared common features, there was no one model of democracy; and therefore States must not seek to export any particular model of democracy

The vote was as follows:

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

Against (14): Australia, Austria, Croatia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (11): Argentina, Armenia, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Saudi Arabia.

The resolution also affirmed that the consolidation of democracy required the promotion and protection of all human rights for everyone; that the right to development was a crucial area of public affairs in every country; that democracy, development and respect for human right were interdependent and mutually reinforcing; stressed that the consolidation of democracy required that sustained economic growth and sustainable development of countries and communities fostered the promotion and consolidation of democracies; declared that full popular participation was only feasible if societies had democratic political and electoral citizens that were non-discriminatory; and reaffirmed that the will of the people should be the basis of the authority of Government.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the present text lacked a definition of democracy and tended to present international cooperation and development as a prerequisite of democracy.  In the view of the Union, this text did not serve to advance the interests of human rights and humanity, and the Union would therefore call for a vote on the measure.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.45) on integrity of the judicial system, adopted by consensus as orally amended, the Commission reiterated that every person was entitled to a fair, public and lawful hearing by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal duly established by law, and that he/she was entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty according to law; underlined that any court trying a person charged with a criminal offence should be competent, independent and impartial; urged States to guarantee that all persons brought to trial had the right to be tried in their presence, to defend themselves in person or through legal assistance of their own choosing and to have all the guarantees necessary for the defence; called upon States to ensure that the principles of equality before the courts and the law were respected:  reaffirmed that every convicted person should have the right to have his/her conviction reviewed by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction according to law; and called upon States that had military courts or special criminal tribunals to ensure that such courts were an integral part of the general judicial system and applied due procedures that were internationally recognized as guarantees of a fair trial.

T. MICHAEL PEAY (United States) said that during the last two years, the United States had found it necessary to call for a vote on this resolution.  The necessity for the resolution was still questioned.  This year, however, the Russian Federation had presented for adoption a draft that had been seriously negotiated and contained universally recognized themes.  The Russian Federation was commended for its work.  This year the United States was pleased to join consensus in the adoption of the resolution.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) recalled that last year, India had abstained on a similar draft resolution.  However, the delegation would join the consensus this year.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.52) on independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors and assessors and the independence of lawyers, adopted by consensus, the Commission noted the concern of the Special Rapporteur on the topic that the situation of independence of judges and lawyers, which was the bedrock of the rule of law, remained delicate in many parts of the world; invited the High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue to provide technical assistance to train judges and lawyers; called upon all governments to respect and uphold such independence and, to that end, to take effective legislative, law enforcement and other appropriate measures that would enable judges and lawyers to carry out their professional duties without harassment or intimidation of any kind; urged all governments to assist the Special Rapporteur in the discharge of his mandate; and encouraged governments that faced difficulties in guaranteeing the independence of judges and lawyers, or that were determined to implement those principles further, to consider the services of the Special Rapporteur, for instance by inviting him to visit.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.53) on the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, adopted by consensus, the Commission called upon the international community to give due attention to the right to a remedy and, in particular, in appropriate cases, to receive restitution, compensation and rehabilitation, for victims of grave violations; requested the Chairperson/Rapporteur of the relevant consultative meetings, in consultation with the Independent Experts, Theo van Boven and Cherif Bassouni, to prepare a revised version of the “Basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of violations of international human rights and humanitarian law”; and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to hold a third consultative meeting with a view to finalizing the basic principles.

JEFFREY DELAURENTIS (United States) said the United States was pleased to join the list of co-sponsors of this draft resolution and wished to thank Chile for its efforts in producing the text.  Chile had managed to produce the guidelines on the right to a remedy with great transparency.  The right to a remedy should serve as a set of guidelines for authorities and the sequential approach to that right was the proper route to follow.  Current efforts should focus solely on the human rights aspects of the present guidelines, setting aside the international law aspects for later consideration.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.54) on conscientious objection to military service, adopted by consensus, the Commission called upon States that had not yet done so to review their current laws and practices in relation to conscientious objection in the light of its resolution 1998/77; encouraged States, as part of post-conflict peace-building, to consider granting, and effectively implementing, amnesties and restitution of rights, in law and practice, for those who had refused to undertake military service on grounds of conscientious objection; and requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare an analytical report that would provide supplementary information on best practices in relation to conscientious objection to military service.

KATHERINE M. GOROVE (United States) said the hard work of the Croatian delegation was appreciated, and the United States, fully supporting the right of all to have personal objections to military service as part of their freedom of thought, expression and religion, would join consensus on the draft resolution.  No one had an absolute right or entitlement to be granted conscientious objector status, however, and unaccepted applicants should be prepared to accept the consequences as provided for by law.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.55) on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance and its amendment (E/CN.4/2004/L.111), both adopted by consensus, the Commission condemned all such intolerance; urged States to ensure that their constitutional and legislative systems provided adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief without distinction; to ensure that no one was deprived of the right to life or liberty and security of person because of religion or belief, or was subjected to torture or arbitrary arrest and detention on that account, and to bring to justice all perpetrators of violations of these rights; to combat hatred, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance based on religion or belief; to recognize the right of all persons to worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief ; to ensure that religious places were fully respected and protected; and to ensure that all public officials and civil servants respected different religions and beliefs and did not discriminate on such grounds.

The resolution also called on States to promote and encourage understanding, tolerance and respect in matters relating to religion or belief; emphasized that restrictions on the freedom to manifest religion or belief were permitted only if limitations were prescribed by law, were necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, and were applied in a manner that did not vitiate the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; urged all governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief; and decided to extend for three years the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said the Chairperson had announced the withdrawal of 12 co-sponsors.  India would be the thirteenth to do the same.  The amendment presented by Argentina necessitated the revision of India’s stand on the measure.  India was a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic nation, and was much concerned about the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance.  India believed that all religions faced difficulties.  In a spirit of accommodation, India would join the consensus on the resolution.

SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the Islamic countries had always maintained that every individual had the right to freedom of religion and belief.  Ensuring those rights was vital for the attainment of world peace.  The rising trend of intolerance, particularly against Muslims, constituted a threat to the rights of individuals as well as to international peace and security.  Practices of religious intolerance must therefore be brought to a speedy end.  The Islamic countries had traditionally supported this resolution.  However, the Organization felt concern over the citing of anti-Semitism as a basis for religious intolerance, which was factually inaccurate.  Semites were peoples speaking Semitic languages and whose ancestry could be traced back to Shem, the oldest son of Noah.  Semites therefore included Jews, Muslims and Christians, and anti-Semitism was not a religious phenomenon.  Any violence or intolerance on this basis could not be categorized as religious intolerance.  It was inappropriate and misleading to include such references in the text, which dealt with religious intolerance.  Having made those feelings clear to the co-sponsors, the Islamic countries would nevertheless join consensus on this resolution.

Before proceeding to consider a draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Commission decided to retain operative paragraph 6 of the draft text, by a roll-call vote of 30 in favour and 7 opposed.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.56/Rev.1) on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, adopted by a roll-call vote of 39 in favour and none opposed, with 12 abstentions, the Commission strongly condemned such practices which continued to take place throughout the world; noted with deep concern that impunity continued to be a major cause of such violations of human rights; demanded that all States ensure that such executions were brought to an end; reiterated the obligation of all States to conduct exhaustive and impartial investigations into all suspected cases of such executions; and reaffirmed the obligation of States to protect the inherent right to life of all persons under their jurisdiction and called upon concerned States to investigate promptly and thoroughly all cases of killings committed in the name or passion or in the name of honour, and all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation.

The resolution also called upon all States in which the death penalty had not been abolished to comply with relevant provisions of international human rights instruments; urged all States to prevent loss of life, in particular that of children, during public demonstrations, internal and communal violence, civil unrest and public emergency or armed conflicts; stressed the importance of States taking effective measures to end impunity; strongly urged that all States cooperate with and assist the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; and decided to extend for three years the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.

The vote was as follows:

In favour (39): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bhutan, Brazil, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Against (0):

Abstentions (12): Bahrain, Burkina Faso, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Togo and Zimbabwe.

SHAUKAT UMER (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the right to life, liberty and security was a fundamental human right, and States and governments were obliged to take measures to protect this right for all of their citizens.  The Islamic countries were fully convinced of the need for effective measures for States to combat extrajudicial killings, which negated these rights, and had therefore participated in the drafting of this resolution.  Some of their concerns had been included.  However, Islamic countries had a serious problem with operative paragraph 6, which should call all countries to investigate extra-judiciary killings without a list of any type or form of categories of these killings, as was currently included.  Further, the paragraph did not contain any reference to extrajudicial killings in a country under occupation.  It was not appropriate to include a selective listing in this draft resolution.  A vote on operative paragraph 6 and on the resolution were called for.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the Union gave its full support to the draft resolution and to the revised version. The resolution underlined the importance for all States of criminalizing, investigating, prosecuting and punishing all suspected cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, irrespective of the victim or the perpetrator. The establishment of the International Court of Justice on the basis of the Rome Statute was a positive development.  The Union was aware that some countries had expressed concerns during the informal consultations on the draft.  The Union hoped that the current version of the text could be adopted by consensus.  If there was a vote, the Union would vote against the proposed amendments and in favour of the text as revised in L.56/Rev. 1.

AMANDA LOUISE GORELY (Sweden) said that Sweden had listened with great interest to the proposal put forward by the Representative of Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and noted that the list of victims included in the paragraph cited had been included because they were specific victims and targets of such killings.  The list should be retained in the text until the day that such targeted killings no longer occurred.  Sweden urged all delegations to vote to keep operative paragraph 6 in the text.

KATHERINE M. GOROVE (United States) said the United States enthusiastically joined the co-sponsors of this draft resolution in condemning any executions that were arbitrary or extrajudicial.  However, it was the position of the United States that the draft resolution should reflect the fact that the Special Rapporteur’s mandate did not include challenging the legitimacy of capital punishment under international law, nor to campaign for the abolition of the capital punishment where it existed.  Operative paragraph 16 was not satisfactory.  Nonetheless, the United States was pleased to vote yes on this important resolution.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.57) on the incompatibility between democracy and racism, adopted by consensus, the Commission condemned political platforms, organizations, legislation and practices based on racism, xenophobia or doctrines of racial superiority or related discrimination; reaffirmed than any form of impunity condoned by public authorities for crimes motivated by racist and xenophobic attitudes played a role in weakening the rule of law and democracy; condemned the persistence and resurgence of neo-Nazism, neo-fascism and violent nationalist ideologies based on racial or national prejudice, and stated that these phenomena could never be justified; recognized with deep concern the increase in anti-Semitism, and Christianophobia and Islamophobia in various parts of the world; and urged States to reinforce their commitment to promote tolerance and human rights and to fight against racism and related intolerance as a way to strengthen democracy.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said Chile considered the draft resolution an important text because of its encouragement for the fight against racism and racial discrimination.  It requested States to ensure that their legal systems protected all members of the population from racism and racial discrimination.  It also urged States to increase awareness on the issue of tolerance.  Chile urged delegations to adopt the text by consensus.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.58) on arbitrary detention, adopted by consensus, the Commission requested governments concerned to take account of the views of the Working Group on the topic and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily deprived of their liberty; encouraged governments concerned to give due consideration to the recommendations of the Working Group; to respect and promote the right of anyone who was deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention to be entitled to bring proceedings before a court in order that the court could decide without delay on the lawfulness of the detention; to ensure access to adequate remedies concerning extradition procedures; not to extend states of emergency beyond what was strictly required by the situation; to pay special attention, during states of emergency, to the exercise of those rights that ensured protection against arbitrary detention; and requested governments concerned to give the necessary attention to the “urgent appeals” addressed by the Working Group.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.59) on enforced or involuntary disappearances, adopted by consensus, the Commission stressed the importance of the work of the Working Group on the topic and encouraged it to continue to promote communication between families of disappeared persons and the governments concerned, particularly when ordinary channels had failed; deplored the fact that some governments had not provided for a long period of time substantive replies concerning the cases of enforced disappearances in their countries and had not given due consideration to the relevant recommendations of the Working Group; urged States to work to eradicate the culture of impunity for perpetrators of such crimes; to take steps to protect witnesses of enforced or involuntary disappearances and human rights defenders acting against such disappearances; to continue their efforts to elucidate the fate of disappeared persons; to make provisions in their legal system for machinery for victims or their families to seek fair and adequate reparation; reminded States that they should ensure that impartial inquiries were conducted immediately where there was reason to believe that such a disappearance had occurred; and reminded States that, if such belief was borne out, all the perpetrators must be prosecuted.

T. MICHAEL PEAY (USA) (United States) said it was among the strongest champions of the right of all to be free from enforced or involuntary disappearances, and had thus participated in the discussions of the Working Group on a binding instrument against such events.  Resolution L59 reflected the work of the Working Group, and the permanent Representative of France should be commended for his efforts in the Working Group.  However, the negotiations on this new instrument should not be unduly rushed.  On the other hand, it need not require an extended period of years: what was most important was that it be finely crafted, consensus based, and not subject to arbitrary time frames for its completion.  It was only within that framework that the final instrument would find universal acceptance within the international community. 

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.61) on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, adopted by consensus and as orally amended, the Commission condemned all such acts; condemned in particular any action or attempt by States or public officials to legalize or authorize torture under any circumstances, including on grounds of national security; stressed that all allegations of torture should be promptly and impartially examined and that those who encouraged, ordered, tolerated or perpetrated acts of torture must be held responsible and severely punished; stressed that national legal systems should ensure that victims of torture were awarded fair and adequate compensation; reminded governments that corporal punishment, including of children, could amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and even torture; and stressed that States must not punish personnel for not obeying orders to commit acts amounting to torture.

The resolution also called upon all governments to prevent and prohibit the production, trade, export and use of equipment specifically designed to inflict torture; urged States to consider becoming parties to the Convention against Torture; called upon them to consider signing or ratifying the optional protocol to the Convention; decided to extend for three years the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture: and urged those governments that had not yet responded to communications from the Special Rapporteur to answer without further delay.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.65) on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, adopted by consensus, the Commission expressed continuing concern that violations of this right continued to occur, often with impunity, and included extrajudicial killing, arbitrary detention, torture, intimidation, persecution and harassment, threats and acts of violence and of discrimination, including gender-based violence and discrimination, abuse of legal provisions on defamation and criminal libel as well as on surveillance, search and seizure, and censorship; that these violations were facilitated and aggravated by states of emergency; that a high rate of illiteracy continued to exist in the world, especially among women.

The resolution also called upon all States to respect and ensure respect for the right to freedom of opinion and expression; to put an end to violations of these rights; to ensure that victims of violations had an effective remedy; to facilitate and equal and effective participation and free communication of women at all levels of decision-making; to respect freedom of expression in the media and broadcasting, in particular the editorial independence of the media; to promote a pluralistic approach to information; to ensure that any limitations on the right to freedom of opinion and expression were only such as were provided by law and were necessary for the respect of the rights and reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals; to refrain from using counter-terrorism as a pretext to restrict the right to freedom of opinion and expression; and appealed to all States to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

As it took up its consideration of the draft resolution on human rights in the administration of justice, in particular juvenile justice, the Commission rejected, by a roll-call vote of 1 in favour and 43 opposed, with eight abstentions, the deletion of operative paragraph 11 of the draft text.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.66) on human rights in the administration of justice, in particular juvenile justice, adopted without a vote, the Commission reiterated its call to all Member States to spare no effort in providing for effective mechanisms and procedures to ensure the full implementation of the United Nations standards on human rights in the administration of justice; appealed to governments to allocate adequate resources for the provision of legal aid services; stressed the special need for national capacity-building in the field of administration of justice, among other things in post-conflict situations; called upon States to implement section XII on action on juvenile justice of the Plan of Action for the implementation of the Vienna Declaration on  Crime and Justice; affirmed that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complied with their obligations under international law; urged States to ensure that capital punishment and life imprisonment without the possibility of parole could not be imposed for offences committed by persons below 18 years of age; and recognized that every child and juvenile in conflict with the law must be treated in a manner consistent with his or her rights, dignity and needs, in accordance with international law.

KATHERINE M. GOROVE (United States) said the United States wished to thank the co-sponsors of the draft resolution for their work for consensus on the issue.  However, the United States found itself needing to ask for an amendment to the text to delete operative paragraph 11.  While noting that the United States Supreme Court would be reviewing whether the execution of juvenile offenders was consistent with national law, the United States had undertaken no international obligation to proscribe the death penalty for offenders aged 16 or 17.

KATHERINE M. GOROVE (United States) said the United States delegation had difficulties with the operative paragraph just adopted.  The United States delegation would not strand against adoption of the text as a whole, but it would dissociate itself from consensus on the adoption of the draft resolution.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.80) on human rights and terrorism, adopted by a roll-call vote of 31 in favour and 14 opposed, with 8 abstentions, the Commission reaffirmed that everyone had a right to protection from terrorism and strongly condemned violations of the right to life, liberty and security; expressed its solidarity with the victims of terrorism and their families; condemned incitement of ethnic hatred, violence and terrorism; rejected the identification of terrorism with any religion, nationality or culture; and urged States to fulfil their obligations in strict conformity with international law, including human rights standards and obligations and international humanitarian law, to combat terrorism in all its forms and whenever and by whomever committed.

The resolution also called upon States to take measures in conformity with national and international law, including human rights standards, before granting refugee status, with the purpose of ensuring that the asylum-seeker had not planned, facilitated or participated in terrorist acts; and urged States and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to review, with full respect for legal safeguards, the validity of a refugee status decision if credible and relevant evidence came to light which indicated that the person had planned, facilitated or participated in terrorist acts; and invited the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to respond to requests from interested governments for assistance and advice on ensuring full compliance with international human rights standards and obligations when undertaking measures to combat terrorism.

The vote was as follows:

In favour (31): Bahrain, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

Against (14): Australia, Austria, Croatia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (8): Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, Chile, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Paraguay and Ukraine.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said acts of terrorism were a violation of human rights and were attributable to a State or its agents acting with State knowledge or acquiescence.  Consequently, although Chile condemned all forms of terrorism, Chile had to abstain, as this draft resolution said terrorists could violate human rights, a position which was not endorsed by Chile, which considered that only States could violate human rights.  It was not possible to place terrorist organizations on the same footing as States.  The responsibility for human rights violations lay with States.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, reaffirmed the Union’s condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whoever committed, and whatever the considerations that were invoked as justification.  The fight against terrorism would continue to be a priority of the Union, which agreed that acts of terrorism could constitute acts of aggression threatening international peace and security.  Moreover, the Union strongly believed that efforts to combat terrorism must be carried out at all times in conformity with human rights and fundamental freedoms.

However, the European Union could not subscribe to the assertion that terrorist acts as such constituted human rights violations.  A distinction must be made between individual criminal acts and acts attributable to States.  As only States could be party to international human rights instruments, only States had an obligation under those instruments to protect human rights.  Nevertheless, the European Union considered that acts of terrorism were criminal acts aimed at the destruction of human rights and fundamental freedoms and seriously affected their enjoyment.  It was unfortunate that the draft text’s sponsors had not been able to address these concerns.  The European Union had decided to vote against the draft.

GREGORIO DUPONT (Argentina) said Argentina restated its firm condemnation of any acts of terrorism.  But according to Argentina’s doctrine, responsibilities for human rights violation were attributable to States and their agents.

JEFFREY DELAURENTIS (United States) said the United States felt a strong commitment to combating the evil of terrorism, which included cooperating with the international community.  The draft resolution included language which gave terrorists an equality with States.  Terrorists were notState actors, they were criminals who bore criminal responsibility for their actions.  This was why the United States would vote no on this draft resolution. 

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said a premium should be placed upon consistency at the Commission.  While it was true that the State normally had primary responsibility for actions in regard to human rights, the world in practice had moved on.  Illegal armed groups in Colombia had been condemned for carrying out terrorist acts and for having infringed upon the human rights of individuals.  Non-state actors were armed groups that could be criminal, but in condemning them and asking them to follow international law, they were not being equated with States.  India would vote for the resolution and urged all States to be consistent in the application of human rights.

In a measure on terrorism and human rights, the Commission approved the request of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to request the Secretary-General to give the Special Rapporteur on the subject all assistance necessary for the preparation of her final report.

Action on Draft Resolutions and Decisions on the Human Rights of Women

In a measure (E/CN.4/2004/L.46) on integrating the human rights of women throughout the United Nations system, the Commission decided unanimously to consider the topic on a biennial basis at its sixty-first session, taking into account the outcome of the review and appraisal of gender mainstreaming that would be undertaken at the coordination segment of the substantive session of the Economic and Social Council in July 2004.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.60) on trafficking in women and girls, adopted by consensus, the Commission called upon governments to strive to ensure that trafficked persons were protected from further exploitation and harm and had access to adequate physical and psychological care; encouraged governments to intensify collaboration to reintegrate into society victims of trafficking and to provide shelter and help lines for victims; invited governments to take steps to offer victims of trafficking the possibility of obtaining compensation for damage suffered; invited governments to consider preventing victims of trafficking from being prosecuted for their illegal entry or residence, bearing in mind that they were victims of exploitation; urged governments to address the root factors that encouraged trafficking in persons, especially women and children; called upon governments to criminalize trafficking in persons, especially women and children; invited governments to encourage Internet service providers to strengthen self-regulatory measures to eliminate the trafficking in persons; urged governments to combat use of the Internet to facilitate trafficking in persons; and encouraged the business sector, in particular the tourism industry and Internet providers, to develop codes of conduct to prevent trafficking in persons.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.62) on a Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially in women and children, adopted by consensus, the Commission decided to appoint for a period of three years a Special Rapporteur whose mandate would focus on the human rights aspects of trafficking in persons, especially in women and children; to request the Special Rapporteur to prepare an annual report, commencing with the sixty-first session of the Commission, together with recommendations, on measures required to uphold and protect the human rights of the victims; and to determine that the Special Rapporteur might, as appropriate, and in line with the current practice, respond effectively to reliable information on possible human rights violations with a view to protecting the human rights of actual or potential victims of trafficking.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said India was committed to the draft.  The appointment of a Special Rapporteur for the period of three years was intended to continue to address the issue of trafficking in persons, especially in women and girls. It was not clear why an additional mechanism had been suggested.  There was no gap in addressing the issue, and another mechanism might be costly.  

Action on draft resolution E/CN.4/2004/L.63, on elimination of violence against women, was postponed to Tuesday morning due to lack of time.  Some discussion on the measure, however, occurred.

KATHERINE M. GOROVE (United States) said the United States appreciated the spirit of flexibility of the co-sponsors, but had two amendments for the draft resolution.  First, to operative paragraph 7, in the phrase “healthcare services”, the word “services” should be deleted.  This was because in various United Nations measures, this term, in the context of reproductive health, had been described by some as including abortion, and the United States did not recognize abortion.  It wished “services” to be deleted for reasons of clarity.  Second, in operative paragraph 18, the United States wished to call for an amendment to delete the last part of the paragraph, from “and urges States to ratify or accede to the Rome Statute” through the rest of the sentence.  This was because the United States had not ratified these statutes.  The United States called for a vote on both these amendments.

MANUEL A. GONZÁLEZ-SANZ (Costa Rica) said violence against women had an impact on physical and mental health and acknowledged States’ responsibility to combat that evil.  The right to life was a principle enshrined in Costa Rica’s Constitution, and the country rejected abortion overall.  However, operative paragraph 7 could in no way be interpreted as advocating abortion, which would run counter to Costa Rica’s policy.  It was on that understanding that Costa Rica had supported the draft resolution as presented.

* *** *