COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON RIGHTS OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN, SPECIFIC GROUPS, INDIGENOUS ISSUES

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS RESOLUTIONS ON RIGHTS OF WOMEN

AND CHILDREN, SPECIFIC GROUPS, INDIGENOUS ISSUES

Requests Secretary-General to Establish Mechanism

To Address Complex Problem of Internal Displacement

(Reissued as received.)

GENEVA, 20 April (UN Information Service) -- The Commission on Human Rights this morning took action on a series of draft resolutions and measures on its agenda items on the integration of the human rights of women and the gender perspective, the rights of the child, specific groups and individuals, indigenous issues and the report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.

On women’s rights, the Commission adopted by consensus a resolution on the elimination of violence against women in which it strongly condemned physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring in the family, including battering, sexual abuse, dowry-related violence, marital rape, female infanticide, female genital mutilation, and crimes committed against women in the name of honour.

It also adopted by consensus a measure on harmful traditional practices affecting the health of women and the girl child, in which it approved the decision of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to renew for a further three years the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the topic.

With regard to children’s rights, the Commission adopted by consensus a resolution on the abduction of children in Africa in which it condemned the practice of abduction of children for various purposes; demanded the immediate demobilization and disarmament of all child soldiers; and called upon African States to take extra measures to protect refugee children and internally displaced children, particularly girls, from being abducted by guerrilla groups.

A resolution on the rights of the child was adopted by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour to one against, with no abstentions.  In it, the Commission urged once again States that had not done so to consider ratifying or acceding to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and to the two optional protocols to the Convention; and called upon States to end impunity for perpetrators of crimes committed against children.

Concerning specific groups and individuals, the Commission adopted by consensus a resolution on violence against women migrant workers in which it called upon all governments to take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment of human rights by women migrant workers and encouraged governments to seek ways to eliminate causes that put them at risk.

In a resolution on missing persons, adopted by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention, the Commission called upon States that were parties to armed conflicts to take all appropriate measures to prevent persons from going missing and to account for those reported missing.

Resolutions and measures were also adopted by consensus on the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities; on human rights and persons with disabilities, on the human rights of migrants; on a study on the rights of non-citizens; on publishing the report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of non-citizens, on the voluntary fund on minority-related activities; on an international year/decade for the world’s migrants; on tolerance and pluralism as indivisible elements in the promotion and protection of human rights; and on the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

In a resolution on internally displaced persons, adopted by consensus, the Commission expressed concern at the persistent problems of large numbers of internally displaced persons worldwide; and expressed particular concern at the grave problems faced by many internally displaced women and children.  The Commission requested the Secretary-General to establish a mechanism that would address the complex problem of internal displacement, in particular by mainstreaming of human rights of the internally displaced into all relevant parts of the United Nations System; it requested the Secretary-General to review the new mechanism’s performance and effectiveness after two years of its inception.

With regards to indigenous issues, the Commission adopted by a roll-call vote of 38 in favour to two opposed, and with 13 abstentions, a resolution recommending that the Working Group on indigenous populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights meet for five working days prior to the fifty-sixth session of the Sub-Commission.

Other resolutions were adopted on the Working Group on indigenous populations, and on the Working Group of the Commission of Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994.

Concerning the report of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the Commission adopted resolutions on responsibilities of transnational corporations and related business enterprises with regard to human rights; and on the work of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights.  Consideration of a draft resolution on human rights and indigenous issues was postponed to the next meeting after an amendment was introduced.

The Representatives of the following countries spoke during the adoption of the resolutions and decisions: Egypt, Ireland (on behalf of the European Union), Mexico, India, China, United States, Chile, Argentina, Cuba, Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia, Russian Federation, Australia, Japan and the Netherlands.

The Commission will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 21 April, to continue to take further action on remaining draft resolutions and decisions.  The Commission is scheduled to wrap up its sixtieth session on Friday, 23 April.

Action on Draft Resolution and Measure on Integration of Human Rights of Women and Gender Perspective

Before taking action on the draft resolution on the elimination of violence against women, the Commission rejected, by roll-call votes of two in favour and 50 opposed, with one abstention, and five in favour and 43 opposed, with four abstentions, respectively, two amendments proposed by the United States.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.63) on the elimination of violence against women, adopted by consensus and as orally amended, the Commission strongly condemned all such violence; strongly condemned physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring in the family, including battering, sexual abuse, dowry-related violence, marital rape, female infanticide, female genital mutilation, crimes committed against women in the name of honour, crimes committed in the name of passion, traditional practices harmful to women, incest, early and forced marriages, non-spousal violence and violence related to commercial and sexual exploitation as well as economic exploitation; emphasized that violence against women had an impact on their physical and mental health, including their reproductive and sexual health; and stressed that women should be empowered to protect themselves against violence and that women had the right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence.

The Commission also urged governments to strengthen initiatives that would increase the capacities of women and adolescent girls to protect themselves from the risk of HIV infection; urged governments to enable men to adopt safe and responsible sexual and reproductive behaviour; urged States parties to consider signing and ratifying the optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; and to condemn violence against women and not invoke custom, tradition or practices in the name of religion or culture to avoid their obligations to eliminate such violence; strongly condemned violence against women in situations of armed conflict; stressed the importance of efforts to eliminate impunity for such violence in situations of armed conflict; and called on the Special Rapporteur to recommend proposals for indicators on violence against women and on measures taken by States to eliminate such violence.

AMR ROUSHDY (Egypt), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the issue of elimination of all forms of violence against women was very important.  The promotion and protection of the rights of women was an integral part of Islam.  As for the draft resolution as a whole, the flexibility and open-mindedness of Canada during the negotiations was to be commended.  The text as a whole was balanced.  Concerning health services, it was the opinion of Egypt that this covered services at large, and not abortion, and this was why Egypt would support the text as proposed by Canada.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the Union regretted that amendments had been proposed to the draft text, as the need for comprehensive health care services and programmes remained necessary as part of the fight against violence against women.  Moreover, States must ensure their provision.  Thus, the amendment proposed to operative paragraph 7 would serve to weaken the language of the text and to undermine efforts by both States and the international community as a whole to combat violence against women.  The language used in the text had already been internationally agreed in a number of instruments, including the Beijing Declaration.  Violence against women had been recognized as a crime against humanity and/or war crime.  Moreover, the Rome Statute contributed to combating violence against women and for that reason the European Union opposed the United States’ proposed amendment.  Finally, she noted, the Secretary-General had stated that not enough efforts had been made to combat violence against women and girls.

ELIA SOSA (Mexico), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the removal of the formula of healthcare services was an unnecessary exercise. The Mexican delegation would vote against the amendment.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the term healthcare services had been used in the past and covered a wide array of issues, and India would therefore vote against the deletion of the term services, as it should not be diluted.  Insofar as operative paragraph 8, this paragraph would be voted against, and the proposal to delete it would be supported.

WANG MIN (China) said that the United States’ amendment to the draft text had been carefully studied with the use of a dictionary, but that the Chinese delegation had been unable to see how the term “health services” could imply an advocacy of abortion.  If the United States had a dictionary in which that link was shown, perhaps they could provide each delegation with a copy.

RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON (United States) said the term healthcare or health services should not be interpreted as promoting abortion.  The United States supported family planning and did not in any way encourage abortion.  It also stressed the need for the prevention of abortion.  The United States would join the consensus in adopting the draft text.

In a measure on harmful traditional practices affecting the health of women and the girl child, adopted by consensus, the Commission approved the decision of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to renew for a further three years the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the topic.

ELIA SOSA (Mexico), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said with regard to the draft decision of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on women adopted yesterday by consensus, the delegation wished to express its understanding of the mandate of the special procedure.  This encompassed women and children regardless of the context.

Action on Draft Resolutions on Rights of Child

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.50) on the abduction of children in Africa, adopted by consensus and as orally amended, the Commission condemned the practice of abduction of children for various purposes, for example as soldiers or workers, for purposes of sexual exploitation and/or paedophilia, and for the purposes of trade in human organs; condemned the abduction of children from camps of refugees and internally displaced persons; demanded the immediate demobilization and disarmament of all child soldiers; called for the immediate and unconditional release and safe return of all abducted children to their families and communities; called upon African States to take extra measures to protect refugee children and internally displaced children, particularly girls, from being abducted by guerrilla groups; welcomed the progress achieved in the eradication of abduction of children by some national mechanisms and encouraged other States to consider establishing such mechanisms; called on Member States to put an end to impunity and to identify those responsible for child abductions and to bring them to justice; requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize sub regional consultations for gathering research, expertise and information on child abductions; and requested the High Commissioner to submit to the Commission at its sixty-first session a report on the abduction of children in Africa.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.51) on the rights of the child, adopted by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour and one opposed, with no abstentions, the Commission urged once again States that had not done so to consider ratifying or acceding to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and to the two optional protocols to the Convention; called upon States to end impunity for perpetrators of crimes committed against children; called upon States to continue to intensify efforts to ensure the registration of all children; to undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality; to address cases of international abduction of children; to allocate financial resources particularly in areas that contributed to the development of children in a holistic manner; called upon all States to take all appropriate measures to develop sustainable health systems and social services and to ensure access without discrimination to them for all children; and to make primary education free and compulsory for all, without discrimination.

The Commission also called on States to prevent and to protect children from all forms of violence, including violence occurring within the family; to ensure that children were entitled to their civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights without discrimination; to ensure full and equal enjoyment of all human rights by girls; to eliminate all forms of discrimination and violence against girls, including female infanticide and prenatal sex selection, rape, sexual abuse and harmful traditional or customary practices, including female genital mutilation; called upon all States to ensure full and equal enjoyment of all human rights by children with disabilities and for migrant children; called upon all States to prevent violations of the rights of children working and/or living on the street; to protect refugee, asylum-seeking and internally displaced children; to eliminate child labour likely to be hazardous or to interfere with a child’s education; to comply with obligations under international standards on the death penalty; to prevent and combat trafficking and sale of children for any purpose and in any form; and to end the recruitment and use of children in armed conflicts.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (52):Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, 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, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Zimbabwe.

Against (1): United States.

Abstentions (0)

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said in a general comment that his country subscribed fully to the statement by Uruguay and said his country’s concern for the promotion and protection of the rights of the child had been longstanding and cited in all international fora.  For example, in a recent Security Council statement, Chile had referenced the more than 300,000 children who continued to participate in armed conflicts worldwide.  That situation presented a grave situation and the international community must struggle to combat the phenomenon and to reintegrate and rehabilitate children involved in armed conflicts.  Therefore, there had been a proposal to establish a systematic monitoring mechanism, which would be mandated to adopt measures against countries using child soldiers and enabling the rehabilitation of children. 

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union and the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC) in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the groups had spared no efforts in working towards a consensus resolution on the rights of the child.  The groups considered that the Convention on the Rights of the Child, an almost universally ratified international instrument, was the standard in the promotion and protection of the rights of the child.  She urged all members to adopt the text by consensus.

RICHARD S. WILLIAMSON (United States), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the United States welcomed the interest of the United Nations in general and the Commission in particular with regard to issues linked to children, and the Government was engaged in a large range of programmes benefiting children around the world, and recognized the efforts of organizations to promote and protect the rights of children.  The United States supported many of the elements of the text of the draft resolution.  There were some improvements in the text over its predecessors, and the United States appreciated the efforts of the co-sponsors.  However, the process of dealing with the resolution needed to change, with a more transparent drafting process, and a shorter more targeted text for critical efforts affecting children.  The draft resolution contained unacceptable language that the United States had repeatedly asked to be eliminated or changed, and therefore it would vote against it.  It also contained unacceptable interpretations, and the language should be neutral and factual.  If this had been changed, the United States would have been able to join consensus. 

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that as was well known by the Commission, the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States (GRULAC) and the European Union had spared no effort to come up with a consensus text on the draft resolution on the rights of the child.  However, achieving that consensus should not mean that there was a loss of progress already made.  Therefore, the objections stated by the United States were unacceptable and all members of the Commission were urged to support the draft.

Action on Draft Resolutions and Measures on Specific Groups and Individuals

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.69) on violence against women migrant workers, adopted by consensus, the Commission called upon all governments to take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment of human rights by women migrant workers and encouraged governments to seek ways to eliminate causes that put them at risk; also called upon concerned governments, in particular those of countries of origin and destination, to put in place penal actions to punish traffickers and perpetrators of violence against women migrant workers, and, to the extent possible, to provide victims with the full range of immediate assistance; invited States concerned to consider adopting appropriate legal measures against intermediaries who deliberately encouraged the clandestine movement of workers and who exploited women migrant workers; and encouraged States to consider signing and ratifying or acceding to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and two protocols, the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea, and Air, and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, as well as the Slavery Convention of 1926.

Before taking action on the draft resolution on missing persons, the Commission adopted, by consensus, an amendment proposed by the United States to operative paragraph 1, but rejected two other proposals to amend operative paragraphs 3 and 4, by roll-call votes of four in favour and 47 against, with two abstentions; and three in favour and 46 opposed, with four abstentions.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.70) on missing persons, adopted by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour and none opposed, with one abstention and as orally amended, the Commission called upon States that were parties to armed conflicts to take all appropriate measures to prevent persons from going missing and to account for those reported missing; reaffirmed the right of families to know the fates of their relatives reported missing in connection with armed conflicts; reaffirmed that each party to an armed conflict, as soon as circumstances permitted, should search for the persons who had been reported missing by an adverse party; called upon States that were parties to armed conflicts to take immediate steps to determine the identities and fates of persons reported missing; and requested States to pay the utmost attention to cases of children reported missing in connection with armed conflicts.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (52): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, 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, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.

Against (0)

Abstention (1): United States.

T. MICHAEL PEAY (United States), in a general comment, said his delegation was in favour of supporting the families of disappeared persons.  The United States would like to make amendments to some of the paragraphs, which might not in any way modify the content of the draft text.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India) said in a general comment that India was not a party to the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention, and therefore reserved the right to respond to the obligations hereunder to the effect that they came under Indian policies and practices.  A similar comment had been made by his delegation at the fifty-eighth session.  No amendments had been suggested, as the thrust of the draft resolution was agreed with, but it was hoped that the draft resolution could accommodate the wishes of the non-sponsoring parties.  The amendments of the United States should be taken on board, since they covered the concerns of the non-sponsoring parties.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said that his country held that the text, as presented by Azerbaijan, reflected previously agreed upon language.  Therefore, he wished to vote on the proposed amendment submitted by the United States and Argentina would vote against it.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.75) on the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, adopted by consensus and as orally amended, the Commission urged all States to promote and protect the rights of such persons; to pay specific attention to the negative impact of racism and related intolerance on the situations of such persons; called upon States to give special attention to the promotion and protection of the human rights of children belonging to minorities, taking into account that girls and boys might face different types of risks; welcomed the efforts of the Working Group on minorities; and invited the High Commissioner to continue efforts to improve coordination and cooperation among United Nations agencies and programmes active in the field of minority rights.

SARALA M. FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) said her delegation had been a supporter of the draft and would co-sponsor it.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.76) on human rights and persons with disabilities, adopted by consensus, the Commission urged governments to take active measures to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by persons with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms; to prevent and prohibit all forms of discrimination against persons with disabilities; to ensure equal opportunities for their full participation in all spheres of life; called uponthe Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Commission on Human Rights at its sixty-first session on progress in the implementation of the recommendations contained in the study on human rights and disability presented at the fifty-eighth session of the Commission and on the achievement of the objectives set forth in the programme of work of the Office in relation to the human rights of persons with disabilities;encouraged Member States and observers to participate actively in the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities; in order to present to the General Assembly, as a matter of priority, a draft text of a convention; urged Member States, observers, civil society and the private sector to continue to contribute to the voluntary fund established by the General Assembly to support the participation of non-governmental organizations and experts from developing countries, in particular from the least developed countries, in the work of the Ad Hoc Committee; and urged governments to address fully the question of the human rights of persons with disabilities in complying with their reporting obligations under the relevant United Nations human rights instruments, and welcomed the efforts of those governments who have begun to do so.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.78) on the human rights of migrants, adopted by consensus and as orally amended, the Commission strongly condemned the manifestations and acts of racism and related intolerance against migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them and urged States to eradicate impunity for those who committed such acts; strongly condemned all forms of racial and other discrimination in access to employment, vocational training, housing, schooling, health services and social services, as well as services intended for use by the public; requested all States firmly to prosecute violations of labour law with regard to migrant workers’ conditions of work; urged all States to adopt effective measures to put an end to the arbitrary arrest and detention of migrants; encouraged States to combat international trafficking and smuggling of migrants; called upon States to protect all human rights of migrant children; requested States to prevent the violation of the human rights of migrants while in transit; called upon States to facilitate family reunification in an expeditious and effective manner; and requested all governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants.

JEFFREY DE LAURENTIS (United States) said in a general comment that the United States would join the consensus as it had done in the past, but there were concerns with regard to the language of preambular paragraphs 11 and 18.  Documents referenced in these paragraphs were not relevant to the work of the Commission, and the United States had been disappointed that the request to delete them could not be accommodated, although it was pleased that other requested changes had been made.  It was hoped that other delegations would take advantage of the inter-sessional period to consider these matters further.

In a measure (E/CN.4/2004/L.48) on a study on the rights of non-citizens, adopted by a roll-call vote of 33 in favour and 10 opposed, with 10 abstentions, the Commission, taking note of the resolution on the matter by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and recalling that the Commission had decided that the Sub-Commission could best assist the Commission by providing it with papers and studies solely carried out by its members or alternates, decided not to recommend to the Economic and Social Council that it authorize David Weissbrodt as Special Rapporteur to undertake the task of furthering the study on the rights of non-citizens.

The result of the vote was as follows

In favour (33): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bhutan, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Egypt, France, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Paraguay, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Against (10): Brazil, China, Cuba, Pakistan, Peru, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sudan, Togo and Zimbabwe.

Abstentions (10): Burkina Faso, Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Mauritania, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Swaziland and Uganda.

TURKI AL MADI (Saudi Arabia) said in a general comment that his delegation supported the amendment to the Sub-Commission’s draft decision and wished that the Sub-Commission would take the point made by the United Kingdom and not reappoint Special Rapporteurs after the end of their terms in the future.

LA YIFAN (China) said his delegation would vote against the amendment presented by the United Kingdom.  When a proposal was presented, even though the expert was not actually a member of the Sub-Commission, the appointment of such individuals might not contradict the decisions of the Commission, which said that the rapporteurs of the Sub-Commission should be current members.  The candidate was a well-known scholar and he was fit to be appointed as a Special Rapporteur.  China could find hundreds of reasons for his appointment.  There was also a precedent in appointing experts beyond the membership of the Sub-Commission.  China would vote against the amendment by the United Kingdom.

IVAN MORA GODOY (Cuba), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the precedent already established by the Commission was to respect the right of the Sub-Commission to appoint whoever it felt was best in the post.  Cuba would therefore vote against the resolution submitted by the United Kingdom.

In a measure on publishing the report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of non-citizens, adopted by consensus, the Commission recommended to the Economic and Social Council a draft decision authorizing the publication of the updated and consolidated report on the subject.

In a measure on the voluntary fund on minority-related activities, adopted by consensus, the Commission endorsed the recommendation of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights that a such a fund be established to facilitate the participation in the Sub-Commission’s Working Group on minorities of minority representatives and experts from developing countries and for the organization of other activities relating to the implementation of the rights of minorities.

In a measure (E/CN.4/2004/L.47) on an international year/decade for the world’s minorities, adopted by consensus, the Commission called for greater cooperation among the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system in order to contribute to the full realization of the rights and principles set forth in the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.71) on tolerance and pluralism as indivisible elements in the promotion and protection of human rights, adopted by consensus, the Commission affirmed that all peoples and individuals had contributed to the progress of civilizations and cultures that formed the common heritage of humanity, that they collectively constituted one human family rich in diversity, and that preservation and promotion of tolerance, pluralism and respect for diversity could produce more inclusive societies; condemned unequivocally all violent acts that infringed upon human rights and democracy and thereby undermined the values of tolerance and pluralism; reiterated the obligation of all States and the international community to promote and enhance tolerance and harmonious relations between groups; to protect effectively the rights of all persons belonging to minorities; and to oppose all forms of discrimination.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.77) on internally displaced persons, adopted by consensus and as orally revised, the Commission expressed concern at the persistent problems of large numbers of internally displaced persons worldwide; expressed particular concern at the grave problems faced by many internally displaced women and children; noted the importance of taking the human rights and the specific protection and assistance needs of internally displaced persons into consideration in peace processes and in reintegration and rehabilitation processes; called upon governments to provide protection and assistance to internally displaced persons; urged all those involved to allow full unimpeded access by humanitarian personnel to such persons; requested the Secretary-General to establish a mechanism that would address the complex problem of internal displacement, in particular by mainstreaming of human rights of the internally displaced into all relevant parts of the UN system; and requested him to review the new mechanism’s performance and effectiveness after two years of its inception and submit a report thereon, as well as on the details of the mechanism, to the Commission on Human Rights at its sixty-first session.

HARDEEP SINGH PURI (India), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said his country was fully conscious of the need to address the global problem of internally displaced persons, however, India felt that the primary responsibility for internally displaced persons rested with the States concerned.  International action should stay within the bounds of State sovereignty and intervention should only occur only at the request of the State concerned or in the event of State collapse, which was a limited phenomenon.  The issue of internally displaced persons belonged firmly to the humanitarian arm of the United Nations, while the Commission’s concern was confined to human rights.  Expressing doubt about the appropriateness of the Commission on Human Rights being approached about the establishment of a mechanism outside its purview and which properly belonged to the humanitarian realm, he said that, nevertheless, India would go along with Austria on the draft text.

JEFFREY DE LAURENTIS (United States), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the United States shared the concerns expressed in the text with regard to internally displaced persons.  The new instrument should enhance the cause of displaced persons.  However, his delegation would join the consensus.

ANDREY LANCHIKOV (Russian Federation), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said great importance was attached to the problem of internally displaced persons and their protection.  The Russian Federation would not break the consensus, but had traditionally supported a strengthening of the mechanism of the Secretary-General on internally displaced persons.  The draft resolution left certain questions unresolved, and there was concern that the draft resolution, together with the proposal for a new mechanism had not been given a clear mandate, and there was also lack of clarity with the financial implications.  The nature of the relationship between the new mechanism and existing ones also required clarification, and its work required a wide consensus so that it would be facilitated.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.72) on the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, adopted by consensus and as orally revised, the Commission acknowledged with appreciation the entry into force of the Convention; called upon all States that had not done so to consider urgently signing and ratifying or acceding to the Convention; and requested the Secretary-General to continue providing the facilities and assistance for the effective functioning of the 10 Independent Experts of the new Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.

JEFFREY DE LAURENTIS (United States), in a general comment, said with regard to L72, the United States understood after discussions with the sponsor that the draft resolution had no potential budgetary implications. 

PETER MAXWELL HEYWARD (Australia), in a general comment, said it did not wish to stand in the way of consensus, but regarding operative paragraphs 4 and 5, the activities of the Commission on all migrant workers were only of relevance to the parties to that Convention.  Funding this Commission from the regular budget could limit funds for issues of more importance to more States. 

HIDENOBU SOBASHIMA (Japan) said in a general comment that it shared the understanding that there were no budgetary implications. 

ELIA SOSA (Mexico) said that her delegation understood that this draft resolution had no financial implications outside of those already approved by the General Assembly’s Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary).  On the part of the co-sponsors, Mexico urged all States to support the draft.

Action on Draft Resolutions on Indigenous Issues

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.81) on the Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, adopted by a roll-call vote of 38 in favour and 15 opposed, with no abstentions, and as orally revised, the Commission reiterated the recommendation made to the Economic and Social Council in Commission resolution 2003/55 that the Council take duly into account the contents of that resolution when holding its review of all existing mechanisms, procedures and programmes within the United Nations concerning indigenous issues; and recommended also that the Council take duly into account the contents of the present resolution when carrying out the review at its substantive session of 2004.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (38): Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

Against (15): Australia, Austria, Croatia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Abstentions (0)

PETER MAXWELL HEYWARD (Australia), in a general comment, said it was regrettable that the text contained language that pre-empted the review by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).  Consideration of these issues should be deferred to the upcoming session of ECOSOC.  Australia therefore wished for a vote and would vote against the draft resolution.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.82) on the Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, adopted by a roll-call vote of 38 in favour and two opposed, with 13 abstentions and as orally revised, the Commission recommended that the Economic and Social Council authorize the Working Group to meet for five working days prior to the fifty-sixth session of the Sub-Commission; invited the Working Group to continue its review of activities undertaken during the Decade; emphasized the affirmation by the General Assembly that a major objective of the Decade was the adoption of a declaration on the rights of indigenous people and called for the early conclusion of the drafting of that most important document; appealed to all governments, organizations and individuals to support the Decade by contributing to the Voluntary Fund for the Decade; and encouraged governments to continue giving support, as appropriate, to the Fund for the Development of Indigenous Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (38): Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine and Zimbabwe.

Against (2): Australia and United States.

Abstentions (13): Austria, Croatia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Sweden and United Kingdom.

KATHERINE M. GOROVE (United States), in a general comment, said it was believed that the time had come for the Working Group on indigenous populations to end its work.  The purposes once served by it were now fulfilled by other United Nations mechanisms.  The Working Group on the draft Declaration worked on standards to protect the rights of indigenous peoples, and the Permanent Forum was working to mainstream issues pertaining to indigenous peoples.  The role of the Working Group was therefore obsolete, and the United States opposed the text.  The United Nations should not expend resources on this, and the United States called for a vote and would vote against the draft resolution.

SERGEI KONDRATIEV (Russian Federation) said in a general comment that it believed the Working Group on indigenous populations continued to occupy an important part in the work to protect indigenous peoples.  Its uniqueness lay in the opportunity it gave to allow indigenous peoples to be heard. 

LA YIFAN (China) said in a general comment that the Working Group on indigenous populations demonstrated the concern of the international community about the issue of indigenous people, and had done a good job in that regard.  Thus, China had been surprised to hear the view that the Working Group no longer had a useful role to play.  His country could not accept that view and would vote in favour of the draft resolution.

MARY WHELAN (Ireland), speaking on behalf of the European Union in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the European Union remained wholly committed to upholding the rights of indigenous peoples, but viewed that the draft text did not comply with relevant decisions already taken.  However, those views were of a procedural nature and she would waive consideration until the next session of the Economic and Social Council.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.90) on the Working Group of the Commission of Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994, adopted by consensus, the Commission welcomed the decision of the Economic and Social Council approving the participation of organizations of indigenous people in the work of the Working Group and urged the Council to process all pending applications as soon as possible; recommended that the Working Group meet for 10 working days prior to the sixty-first session of the Commission; and invited the Chairperson/Rapporteur of the Working Group to undertake inquiries with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to determine the possibility of convening additional meetings with a view to facilitating progress in drafting a declaration on the rights of indigenous people.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) said in a general comment that it had expressed during the debate on item 15 its alarm and unease on the progress being made in the Working Group in coming up with a draft on the Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.  Cuba was still worried over the low level of progress made in the negotiations and the possibility of coming up with texts that would reflect the aspirations of indigenous peoples and the logical and predictable needs of States in terms of upholding their sovereignty.  The Declaration and its adoption after eight or nine years of negotiations would not be concluded during the International Decade, and the General Assembly had considered it one of the basic objectives of the Decade.  Cuba would not block consensus on the text, as it was the last opportunity for the Commission to allow the Working Group to make substantial progress on the issue.  There was concern for what would happen at the end of the Decade in this context, and it would require consideration at the next session of the Commission. 

Consideration of the draft text on human rights and indigenous issues (E/CN.4/2004/L.105) was postponed until the next meeting, after the proposal of an amendment to the text by the United States.

KATHERINE M. GOROVE (United States) said in a general comment that it was with dismay that the United States had learned that an amendment – proposed during informals and which had been thought to have been incorporated into the text –- had not been incorporated after all, according to the text as read by Mexico.  Therefore, the United States would request an amendment to one of the preambular paragraphs to reflect the fact that the Migrants Convention had only been ratified by a small number of States.  Only the “applicable” norms and standards applied to all in the room, not all norms and standards.

Action on Draft Resolutions on Report of Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.73/Rev.1) on responsibilities of transnational corporations and related business enterprises with regard to human rights, adopted by consensus and as orally revised, the Commission, taking note of document E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2 of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to compile a report setting out the scope and legal status of existing initiatives and standards relating to the responsibility of transnational corporations and related business enterprises with regard to human rights, inter alia, the draft norms contained in the above-mentioned document, and identifying outstanding issues; and affirmed that document E/CN.4/Sub.2/2003/12/Rev.2 had not been requested by the Commission and, as a draft proposal, had no legal standing, and that the Sub-Commission should not perform any monitoring function in this regard.

MIGUEL ALFONSO MARTINEZ (Cuba) said in a general comment that it would stick to the consensus, but this was because the text was due to the work of a significant number of countries, whose work was appreciated.  At the same time, there were concerns for some of the elements in the draft resolution, for example paragraph “c” referred to the fact that the report had not been requested and had been taken by the initiative of the reporter, and this was the first time this had happened.  The work was of quality and mentioned the results of the activities of transnationals on human rights.  A vote would not be asked for, but Cuba would revert to this topic at the next session.

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2004/L.73/Rev.1) on the work of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, adopted by consensus and as orally revised, the Commission decided that the Sub-Commission could best assist the Commission by, among other things, providing it with independent expert studies and working papers solely carried out by its members or alternates during their mandates; and studies, research and expert advice at the request of the Commission; reaffirmed that the role of the Sub-Commission was that of a “think tank” and therefore it should not attribute to itself monitoring functions, while reaffirming the content of paragraph 52 of the Annex to the Commission Decision 2000/109, of 26 April 2000; recommended that the Sub-Commission further improve its methods of work by, among other things, respecting strictly the highest standards of impartiality and expertise and avoiding acts which would affect confidence in the independence of its members, in particular where they could have a conflict of interest.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said in a general comment that Cuba’s delegation was among the delegations considering that this draft resolution should and could be adopted by consensus.  However, he would like to make a minor amendment to the text of operative paragraph 9, sub-paragraph d.

IAN M. DE JONG (Netherlands) said in a general comment that the author of the draft resolution considered this proposal as acceptable, as it did not change the substance of operative paragraph 9 as it reaffirmed the text of operative paragraph 9 a and b.

* *** *