GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S SOCIAL COMMITTEE, AFTER DETAILED DEBATE, APPROVES RANGE OF TEXTS RELATED TO HUMAN RIGHTS

Sixtieth General Assembly

Third Committee

43^rd & 44^th Meetings (AM & PM)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S SOCIAL COMMITTEE, AFTER DETAILED DEBATE,

APPROVES RANGE OF TEXTS RELATED TO HUMAN RIGHTS

Calls for Reform in Iran , Myanmar ; Some Delegates Say Selective

Country-Specific Actions Undermine Efforts to Advance United Nations Agenda

(Issued on 21 November 2005.)

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) today adopted eight draft resolutions on a wide range of issues, including human rights questions, promotion and protection of the rights of children, the advancement of women and implementation of the outcome of the Fourth World Conference on Women and of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly.

By a draft on the situation of human rights in Iran, the Assembly would express its serious concern over continuing restrictions on freedom of assembly, opinion and expression throughout Iran and the disqualification of large numbers of prospective candidates during the June 2005 presidential elections.  It would also call upon Iranian officials to end persecution of political opponents and human right defenders, ensure full respect for the right to due process and equality before the law, eliminate the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman punishment, as well as end impunity for violators, abolish public executions, particularly of minors, and eliminate all forms of discrimination and violence against women and minorities.

Iran’s representative said the draft was a response by Canada, the draft’s main sponsor, to a bilateral legal dispute between Iran and Canada, and contained distortions and falsifications in many human rights areas.  The Committee rejected Iran’s motion to adjourn debate on the draft and approved the text by a recorded vote of 77 in favour to 51 against, with 46 abstentions.  Several speakers did, however, echo the concerns of the representative of Iran, who spoke on draft Committee resolutions that singled out human rights abuses in developing countries while ignoring such abuses in the industrialized world.  They said such selectivity and politicization was counterproductive and thwarted efforts to advance the United Nations human rights agenda.

A text on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, which the Committee approved by consensus, would have the General Assembly express grave concern over the extension of house arrest and consistent harassment of senior leaders of the National League for Democracy, particularly Aung San Suu Kyi and her deputy, Tin Oo.  The Assembly would strongly call on the Myanmar Government to end systematic human rights violations, bring human rights abusers to justice, immediately release political prisoners, enable human rights defenders to safely pursue their activities, and end recruitment of child soldiers, rape and sexual violence by the armed forces, and systematic enforced displacement that led to refugee flows to neighbouring countries.  It would implore Myanmar authorities to become a party to all international human rights instruments and fully cooperate with the Special Envoy and the Special Rapporteur to bring the country towards civilian rule.

A draft approved on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment condemned all forms of torture and such treatment, and all action or attempts by States or public officials to make legal, authorize or acquiesce such practices, including on the grounds of national security or through judicial decision.  It would call for States not to expel, return or extradite persons to another State where they could be subjected to torture, regardless of the terms of diplomatic assurances.

A text on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights called for creation of such institutions and the strengthening of existing ones and for the Secretary-General to continue to give high priority to requests from Member States for assistance to set them up.  It would also commend the efforts of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to support such institutions and would invite Governments to contribute additional funds to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights.

By terms of the draft on elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion of belief, the Assembly would condemn them all, and also urge States to ensure adequate freedoms, including the right to freely practise or change one’s religion, set up religious, charitable or humanitarian institutions, and the right to not be arrested, detained or tortured for religious beliefs.  The text also called for full respect and protection for religious sites and symbols, and for resolute action against dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and materials.

The draft on the rights of the child, which was approved by a recorded vote of 173 in favour to 1 against, with 1 abstention, called for full implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols, promoting and protecting the rights of children through poverty eradication, high standards of healthcare, and equal opportunity and access to education.  It also recommends measures to prevent and eradicate the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, and strongly condemns recruitment of children for armed conflict, while suggesting steps to assist children affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic.  Several speakers expressed concern over waning support for the resolution at large, and the way in which some delegations were putting forward amendments.

The draft on the future operation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) called for INSTRAW’s active participation in discussions on international migration and development, particularly the General Assembly’s high-level dialogue in September 2006, and for Member States to give voluntary contributions to the United Nations Trust Fund for INSTRAW, particularly during the critical transitional period.  An accompanying draft on the programme budget implications spelled out INSTRAW’s 2006 funding requirements.

The draft on follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly called for sustained national, regional and international political commitment to mainstream gender perspectives into Government and institutional policies and programmes, and financial and technical assistance to strengthen national institutional mechanisms for gender equality and women’s advancement.  It also called on States parties to fully comply with their obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and its Optional Protocol and for non-parties to consider signing, ratifying or acceding to the Protocol.

Also speaking at the Committee’s two meetings today were the representatives of Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Sweden (on behalf of Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), Japan, United States, Mexico, Portugal, Venezuela, India, Denmark, Yemen, Syria, Russian Federation, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, China, Sudan, Brazil, Singapore, Uruguay, Barbados, Benin, Norway, New Zealand (also speaking on behalf of Canada), Sierra Leone, Uganda and Barbados (speaking this time on behalf of the Caribbean Community).

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Monday, 21 November, to take action on 10 more draft resolutions.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to take action on eight draft resolutions on several agenda items.

Under its agenda item on the advancement of women, the Committee was expected to take action on a draft on the future operation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) (document A/C.3/60/L.15/Rev.1), which would have the General Assembly request that INSTRAW actively participate in discussions on international migration and development, particularly the General Assembly’s high-level dialogue in September 2006.  It would also stress the importance of Member States’ voluntary contributions to the United Nations Trust Fund for INSTRAW and would urge them to contribute to the Fund, particularly during this critical transitional period.

The accompanying draft on the programme budget implications of draft resolution A/C.3/60/L.15 (documents A/C.3/60/L.21 and Corr.1), would have the Assembly decide to provide full support to current efforts to revitalize INSTRAW, and the requisite funds to carry out its core functions for at least the next three years.  By the text, the 2006 funding requirements would be an estimated $1,314,352 and the balance available for allocation in the INSTRAW Trust Fund as of 1 January 2006 would amount to approximately $272,200.  Contingent upon available additional voluntary contributions, an extra $1,067,200 may be required from the regular United Nations budget to maintain INSTRAW in 2006.

By the draft resolution on follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly (document A/C.3/60/L.67), the Assembly would call on Governments, the United Nations system, other international organizations and civil society to fully commit to and step up contributions to implement the Beijing Declaration, Platform of Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session.  It would also call on States parties to fully comply with their obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and its Optional Protocol, and call on non-parties to consider signing, ratifying or acceding to the Protocol.

Further to that text, the Assembly would call on Governments, United Nations relevant funds, programmes and special agencies, as well as invite international financial institutions and civil society, to intensify action to fully implement the three outcomes through, among other things, sustained national, regional and international political commitment to mainstream gender perspectives into all policies and programmes, and strengthening national institutional mechanisms for gender equality and women’s advancement through financial and other assistance.

Further, the Assembly would strongly encourage Governments to continue to support civil society, particularly non-governmental organizations and women’s groups, to implement the Declaration, Platform of Action and special session outcome.  It would also call on the United Nations system to continue to ensure their implementation through the work of the Office of the Special Advisor on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, gender specialists, and training and support for personnel in gender mainstreaming.

Under its agenda item on promotion and protection of the rights of children, the Committee was to take action on a draft on the rights of the child (document A/C.60/L.22/Rev.1) and amendments thereto, contained in document A/C.3/60/L.69, and programme budget implications contained in A/C.3/60/L.66.  The draft resolution refers to implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols; promotion and protection of the rights of the child; promoting and protecting the rights of children, including children in particularly difficult situations; prevention and eradication of the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography; children affected by armed conflict; children infected and affected by HIV/AIDS; and follow up.

By the terms of the text, the Assembly would urge States that have not yet done so, to consider signing and ratifying or acceding to the Optional Protocols to the Convention and fully implement them through effective national legislation, withdraw reservations that are incompatible with the Convention or its Optional Protocols and consider reviewing other reservations with a view to withdrawing them.

Concerning registration, family relations and adoption, the Assembly would once again urge all States to step up efforts to comply with their obligations under the Convention to preserve a child’s identity, including nationality and family relations; allow for registration of the child immediately after birth; ensure simple, expeditious and effective registration procedures at minimal cost; and raise awareness of the importance of local, national and regional birth registration.

Concerning the economic and social well-being of children, the Assembly would call upon States and the international community to create an environment that would, among other things, support poverty-eradication, the right of the child to the highest attainable standard of health and social services, equal opportunity and access to education, and social services for pregnant and adolescent mothers.

Also, the Assembly would condemn all forms of violence against children, including physical mental and sexual violence, torture, child abuse and exploitation, hostage taking and domestic violence.  In addition, it would condemn the abduction of children, particularly extortion of children in armed conflict, and urge States to prevent and protect children from all forms of violence, investigate and prosecute cases of torture and other forms of violence against children, end impunity for perpetrators, criminalize and penalize effectively sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children.

Regarding children affected by armed conflict, the Assembly would strongly condemn the recruitment or use of children in such conflict and related violations and abuses, and would urge States and other parties engaged in such practices to end them.  It would also call on States to raise the minimum age of voluntary recruitment into the national armed forces to age 18 and adopt safeguards against forced and coerced recruitment.

In connection with human rights questions, the Committee was to take action on a draft on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (document A/C.3/60/L.25/Rev.1), which would have the Assembly condemn all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including through intimidation, and call on States to fully implement the absolute prohibition of such practices. The Assembly would also condemn any action or attempt by States or public officials to make legal, authorize or acquiesce such practices, including on the grounds of national security or through judicial decision.

Further, it would urge States not to expel, return or extradite persons to another State where such persons would possibly be subjected to torture, as well as recognize that diplomatic assurances did not release States from their obligations under international human rights, humanitarian and refugee law, in that regard.  The Assembly would also call on States to take appropriate legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures to prevent and prohibit the production, trade, export and use of equipment designed to inflict torture or related practices.

Further to the text, the Assembly would urge all States that had not yet done so, to become parties to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, as a matter of priority, and call on States parties to give early consideration to signing and ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention.

The Committee also had before it a draft on the national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/C.3/60/L.33/Rev.1), which would have the Assembly encourage Member States to set up national institutions for human rights protection and promotion and to strengthen existing ones. The Assembly would also urge the Secretary-General to continue to give high priority to Member States’ requests for assistance in setting up and strengthening national human rights institutions as part of the United Nations Programme of Advisory Services and Technical Assistance in the Field of Human Rights.

Further to the text, the Assembly would commend the high priority given by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to support national human rights institutions, and would invite Governments to contribute additional funds to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights.

The draft on elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion of belief (document A/C.3/60/L.54) and amendments thereto, contained in document A/C.3/60/L.70, would have the Assembly condemn all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief.  The Assembly would also, among other things, urge States to ensure adequate freedoms including the right to freely practice one’s religion, or to change one’s religion, as well as to ensure full respect and protection for religious sites and symbols.

In addition, the Assembly would urge States to ensure the right and freedoms of all people to establish religious, charitable and humanitarian institutions; ensure the right to life, liberty, or security, the right to not be arrested, detained or tortured for their beliefs; further ensure that all public officials, civil servants and law enforcement bodies respect different religions and their beliefs; and take resolute action to prohibit dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and materials that constituted discrimination, intimidation or coercion.

In addition, the Assembly would emphasize that equating any religion with terrorism should be avoided, and further emphasize that restrictions on the freedom to manifest religion should only be permitted if limited by law or are necessary to protect public safety and the fundamental rights of others.  Also, the Assembly would stress the need for the Special Rapporteur to continue to apply a gender perspective through the identification of gender-specific abuses in the reporting process.

By a text on the situation of human rights in Iran (document A/C.3/60/L.45), the Assembly would express its serious concern over the continuing harassment, intimidation and persecution of human rights defenders, non-governmental organizations, political opponents, religious dissenters, journalists, and students through undue restrictions on freedoms of assembly, press and expression, arbitrary arrests, as well as the disqualification of large numbers of prospective candidates during the June 2005 presidential elections.

Additionally, it would call on the Iranian Government to ensure full respect for the rights to freedom of assembly, opinion and expression, and end the persecution of political opponents and human rights defenders.  It would also call on it to ensure full respect for the right to due process, as well as equality before the law, and to eliminate the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman punishments, end impunity for violations of human rights, abolish public executions, particularly those who were under the age of 18 at the time of their offence, and eliminate all forms of discrimination and violence against women and minorities.

Also before the Committee is a draft on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/60/L.53) and related programme budget implications, contained in A/C.3/60/L.68.  The draft would have the Assembly express grave concern over, among other things, the extension of house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi and her deputy, Tin Oo, and other senior leaders of the National League for Democracy, the consistent harassment of League members and other politicians, and continued denial of freedom for human rights defenders to pursue their activities.

The Assembly would also strongly call on the Myanmar Government to end systematic human rights violations; to bring to justice human rights abusers, including members of the military; to allow human rights defenders to pursue their activities unhindered and safely; and to make it a high priority to become party to all international human rights instruments.  It would also strongly call on Myanmar officials to end recruitment and demobilization of child soldiers and maintain close dialogue with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), to end widespread rape and sexual violence by the armed forces, particularly against women of ethnic nationalities, and end systematic enforced displacement that led to refugee flows to neighbouring countries.

The Assembly would also strongly call on Myanmar officials to release all political prisoners immediately and unconditionally, lift all restraints on peaceful political activity, give clear assurances that no action would be taken against persons lodging complaints of forced labour, and fully cooperate with the Special Envoy and the Special Rapporteur to bring the country towards civilian rule, as well as facilitate an independent international investigation of reports of sexual violence by the armed forces and ensure United Nations and humanitarian organizations unhindered access to all parts of the country to deliver humanitarian assistance.

Action on Draft Resolutions

The Committee Secretary began the session by reading out a statement on the financial implications of the draft on future operation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) (document A/C.3/60/L.15/Rev.1).  The budget implications were continued in document A/C.3/60/L.21 and Corr. 1.

The representative of Jamaica, the main sponsor of the draft, said that since its tabling, informal consultations had resulted in several amendments, which he read out.  He thanked the draft’s co-sponsors and his colleagues for the constructive spirit of informal consultations and their useful statements, which had resulted in a strengthened text that recognized the true value of the Institute.  Regrettably, they had not been enough to realize the consensus that had been hoped for.  Nonetheless, he counted on the support of the Committee in adopting the text, which would help the advancement of all women in all regions.

In a general statement before the vote, the representative of the Dominican Republic said the text recognized the excellent work of the Institute and its Director, as well as the important contributions of the Institute to gender equality and the empowerment of women, both in developed and developing countries.  As the host country, the Dominican Republic had supported INSTRAW, despite the limits of being a developing country, by providing excellent facilities, equipment and services.  The moment had come for Member States to give decisive support to continue the Institute’s operations.  He urged all delegates to support the draft and take measures to give INSTRAW a fully funded future.

In explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Sweden, speaking on behalf of Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, said all of those delegations were outspoken and committed advocates for the full enjoyment of all human rights, the fundamental freedoms of women and the struggle for global gender equality.  They had worked to make sure women were integrated into all aspects of United Nations work.  They were also fully engaged in the Organization’s processes and were considerable donors.  The Organization should allocate more resources to gender mainstreaming and equality, but he could not endorse continued funding of the Institute from the regular budget.  It should be funded strictly from voluntary contributions.

The representative of Japan said her country attached great importance to achieving the goal of gender equality.  The INSTRAW should be funded entirely by voluntary contributions, as stipulated by Article 6 of its own statute.  Despite that irrefutable norm, the Committee was witnessing a request for a subvention from the regular budget.  That would greatly damage the financial discipline of the budget and make Member States fully unaccountable to themselves and to their taxpayers, especially when the 2006-2007 budget could reach $4 billion.  Whatever the political reasoning, the draft was nothing but an infringement of financial discipline.

The representative of United States said her country was very supportive of women’s issues and women’s rights, but would vote against the draft.  Operative paragraph 5 released $250,000 from the 2002-2003 contingency fund.  Since the United States opposed that release, it could not accept wording that endorsed that action.  In preambular paragraph 8, she could not accept the word “sustainable” since it indicated that regular budget funding was sought.  The INSTRAW should be voluntarily funded, with Member States that supported its work able to contribute if they wished.  She could not accept all of paragraph 10 because of budgetary concerns.  The United States could not support the budget implication of $1.3 million for two years.

The Committee then approved the draft by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to 12 against, with 26 abstentions.  (See Annex I.)

After the adoption of the draft, the representative of Mexico said the adoption reflected the substantial progress of the Institute in the last two years.  The Institute’s Executive Director had set an example for other United Nations bodies, reversing INSTRAW’s financial situation, despite a lack of support and other obstacles.  It was consistent to support the strengthening of the Institute’s work.  The commitment to gender equality could not be selective.  She expressed great concern at the actions aimed at weakening the Institute.  She invited all delegations that had not done so to make voluntary contributions and use their available capacity for training and research.

The representative of Portugal, Committee Vice-Chairperson and the main sponsor of the draft, on follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly (document A/C.3/60/L.67), said that, with that draft resolution, the Committee would reaffirm the commitments made at Beijing and at “Beijing+5”.  She called on all Governments to prevent, protect against, and punish the perpetrators of, violence against women.  The draft would also confirm the commitment to Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) on women, peace and security.  She thanked the delegations for their hard work and flexibility.

The representative of United States said her country was firmly committed to the empowerment of women and had devoted substantial resources to eliminating violence against them.  The Beijing Declaration had expressed important political goals, creating a policy framework that did not impose binding international obligations or create new rights to abortion.  The United States fully supported voluntary choice, but did not support abortion as a method of family planning or reproductive health assistance.

The representative of Venezuela said she was concerned at the draft’s emphasis on commitments made by certain Heads of State at the recent World Summit, because they did not reaffirm the 1995 Beijing Declaration on questions of poverty, development and external debt.  Preambular paragraph 4 and operative paragraphs 2, 3, and 16 did not imply recognition of the Summit’s Outcome, which Venezuela considered a non-binding working paper without a mandate.  She recognized the commitments made at the Fourth World Conference on Women and supported all initiatives of the Beijing Platform.  She did not agree with operative paragraph 13 of the draft or Security Council resolution 1325, which had been adopted by a small number of States.

The Committee then approved the draft without a vote.

The representative of United Kingdom, one of the main sponsors of the draft on rights of the child (document A/C.3/60/L.22/Rev.1), its amendments (document A/C.3/60/L.69) and budget implications (document A/C.3/60/L.66), asked whether, in view of last-minute consultations with delegations who were proposing amendments to document A/C.3/60/L.69, it would be possible to delay consideration of the draft until the end of the current day’s session.

The representative of India said he supported that suggestion, as it would help to organize work in a more timely fashion.

The chair deferred action on the draft until later in the day.

The Committee Secretary read out a statement on budget implications for the draft on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (document A/C.3/60/L.25/Rev.1).

The representative of Denmark, the main sponsor of the draft, said freedom from torture was a right that must be protected under all circumstances.  Such acts were intolerable violations of the values of the international community, which must continue to show firm resolve against the shocking, disgraceful acts of torture that it continued to witness in all parts of the world.  A consensus adoption would be a clear indication of that resolve.  He went on to explain two revisions that had been made to the draft to ensure consensus, and warmly thanked the many co-sponsors and interested delegations for their constructive contributions and high spirits.  He invited those who had not done so to join the list of co-sponsors.

The Committee then approved the draft without a vote.

The representative of Venezuela said her country condemned all forms of torture and degrading treatment and had always advocated for the draft resolution.  She greatly regretted that Venezuela could not co-sponsor it because it could not support the affirmations in operative paragraph 19.  The Special Rapporteur had never provided any information on his recommendations.  When he had submitted his report, Venezuela had pointed out his errors and lack of objectivity.  In an act of manipulation of information, he had forgotten that, on 23 August, he had requested Venezuela to provide additional information on his 1997 visit and gave a deadline of November, after the deadline of the report itself.

Venezuela, she continued, had provided the information requested up to the deadline.  Despite Venezuela’s efforts to lower the tone of operative paragraph 19, it had decided not to sponsor the draft for the first time.  The situation was a clear demonstration of the need for non-political and transparent objectivity and ethics to govern the work and reports of special rapporteurs.

The Committee Secretary said the Committee was still waiting for confirmation from the budget division that the draft on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/C.3/60/L.33/Rev.1) did not give rise to financial implication, and requested that consideration of the draft be deferred until later in the day.

The Committee deferred action on the draft until later in the day.

The representative of United Kingdom, the main sponsor of the draft on elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief (document A/C.3/60/L.54) and its amendment (document A/C.3/60/L.70), read out amendments to the draft.  He said the draft reminded Member States of their Charter obligations to encourage fundamental respect for human rights without distinction to race, sex, language or religion.  There was a continued need for action against any acts of intolerance or discrimination within States.  He hoped the draft would be adopted by consensus.

The Committee Secretary pointed out that the document being circulated at that moment reflected revisions, and not amendments.

The representative of India asked whether preambular paragraph 17 should read “respect of freedom of belief” because the current revision did not make sense.  He asked the co-sponsor to clarify.

The representative of United Kingdom said that paragraph had been subject to much discussion and had been drafted deliberately in a way to promote tolerance and respect.  Also, there was one slight mistake in the revisions.  They applied not to operative paragraph 10(a) but to operative paragraph 9(a).

The representative of Yemen withdrew amendments contained in document A/C.3/60/L.70, since consensus had been reached on them.

The Committee then approved the draft without a vote.

After the approval of the draft, the representative of Syria said she wanted to confirm that her country refused all demonstrations of intolerance based on religion or belief.  She had voted in support of the draft because she was convinced of the necessity of condemning all forms of intolerance or discrimination.  The United Nations must play a leading role in counteracting intolerance.  Her country did have some reservations with operative paragraph 4(a).  The co-sponsors understood well that it contradicted the precepts of Islam.  The co-sponsors should not have insisted on that sentence, which referred to respect for the individual right to change religion, particularly since the draft dealt with eliminating of all forms of intolerance.

The representative of India, the main sponsor of the draft on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/C.3/60/L.33/Rev.1), said the resolution sought to encourage more Member States to set up institutions to promote and protect human rights.  It also recognized the useful role of the United Nations and civil society in that process.

The Committee then approved the draft without a vote.

In a general statement after the action, the representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said national institutions played an important role in improving national human rights protection.  He welcomed the Secretary-General’s emphasis in the report “An  Agenda for Change”, on the need to build strong human rights institutions, and he commended efforts to encourage United Nations entities, funds and agencies to work in cooperation with national institution and to strongly support their work in the field.

The European Union fully recognized their importance and fully supported and encouraged the establishment of such institutions, he said.  All 25 member States of the European Union had co-sponsored the resolution for the first time.  That was a clear signal of their recognition of national human rights institutions as essential, and was also a testament of the willingness of the main sponsors to listen to the European Union and take their views on board.

The representative of Canada, the main sponsor of the draft on the situation of human rights in Iran (document A/C.3/60/L.45), said the text recognized and welcomed some steps to allow visits to the country in 2005.  He called on the Iranian Government to hasten that process.  Such steps were important and should be used to encourage positive change in the human rights situation in Iran.  The resolution had an important role to play in that regard.

In a general statement before action, the representative of Iran said the motives behind the Canadian move in drafting the resolution and its attempt to distort the facts might be viewed from different standpoints.  A dangerous, normative and structural tendency had evolved within the United Nations, disguised within the context of legitimate human rights concerns.  That tendency was to pursue a political agenda based on emerging complications and exigencies in domestic, bilateral and multilateral politics.  Two groups of States were acting within the human rights domain.

On the one hand, she continued, the majority was of the conviction that all Governments were equally accountable for the failure to safeguard human rights in an objective, non-selective manner.  On the other hand, the minority was of the conviction that human rights scrutiny in the Commission on Human Rights, or in the future Human Rights Council and the General Assembly should be confined to the South, and that developed countries should not be subject to international monitoring.  Politicization of human rights was at the heart of the West’s human rights policy.  Canada’s statement in the general debate on the reform of the United Nations human rights machinery was an effort to pre-empt the structure and mandate of the Council, in an effort to further its own political goals.

The resolution before the Committee was a response to a bilateral legal dispute between Iran and Canada, and was part of Canada’s international disinformation campaign against Iran.  It was meant to put maximum pressure on Iran and had been particularly acknowledged by Canadian officials on various occasions.  The resolution’s content had nothing to do with the real situation in Iran and contained distortions and falsifications in many human rights areas.  Iran would never submit to political pressure, and firmly believed that might was not always right and would act accordingly.

The need to eliminate politicization of human rights was at the core of the human rights debate in recent years and particularly in the current General Assembly session, she said.  The international community was at a historic crossroads of whether to align itself with current conditions or work for a new era in human rights implementation.

She then requested that the Committee adopt a motion to adjourn debate on the draft resolution under rule 116 of the rules of procedure, and requested that all delegations, particularly developing countries, vote in favour of the motion.

Speaking in favour of the motion, the representative of the Russian Federation said the draft resolution could incite confrontation and politicization, and was part of a selective approach in which the same States stood accused of human rights violations and almost no one chose to make others the subject of such scrutiny.  He supported the proposal to adjourn the debate and called on other delegates to vote in favour of that proposal.

The representative of Zimbabwe said the practice of name calling and selective targeting of developing countries did not advance the human rights agenda.  The resolution only aimed at further politicization by States and heightened divisions among them.  As many delegations had argued, none were unblemished. In many cases, the main sponsors of the resolution were guilty of human rights abuses in their own territories and in other countries.  The hypocrisy and double standards involved were bewildering.  The resolution was not about human rights; it was about settling scores.  That was not the business of the Committee.

Speaking in opposition to the motion, the representative of Canada said the Organization’s fundamental responsibility was to address human rights concerns.  While Canada was keenly aware of the concern over country-specific resolutions, there were specific situations that cried out for attention.  No Member State could claim a perfect human rights record.  There were cases in which Governments themselves were involved in human rights abuses and it was important to speak out against that.

However, the resolution under discussion was not frivolous.  The United Nations must send sustained and consistent messages.  It must not forget the courageous people in Iran who had worked to improve the country’s human rights situation.  A procedural motion should not be used to thwart the role of the United Nations through a successful motion of no action.  In order to create a credible, collective voice on human rights, the Committee must be consistent in its message to the Iranian Government and the international community.  He urged all States to vote against the motion.

The representative of Australia expressed deep regret that a motion of no action was being called for.  He supported the statement of Canada’s representative, stressing that failure by the Committee to consider action on issue of human rights in Iran would further damage the reputation of the already battered United Nations.  The Third Committee was charged with addressing human rights issues.  Procedural motions should not be used by any delegation to prevent action.  He called on others who shared his real interest in the Organization’s international reputation to vote against the motion.

The Committee then rejected the motion to adjourn the debate by a recorded vote of 70 in favour to 77 against, with 23 abstentions.  (See Annex II.)

The Committee then returned to consideration of the draft resolution.

In explanation of vote, before the vote, the representative of Cuba said the text’s objective was not to promote genuine cooperation on human rights.  It was selective and based on political motives.  Cuba supported non-interference, as it had stated during the previous day’s session.  Interference was aimed at discrediting the Human Rights Commission and could impede the work of the Committee.  Cuba would vote against the draft.

The representative of Venezuela said the draft reflected selective and arbitrary condemnation of certain countries.  That was a pretext for political and arbitrary action against States, which only served to cause conflict and distrust among Member States.  Action should be aimed at encouraging cooperation for constructive multilateralism on human rights.  Venezuela would vote against the resolution.

The representative of Turkmenistan said his country was guided by non-selectivity and was against the targeting of select countries.  Such targeting led to extreme politicization of the United Nations human rights machinery.  Only through dialogue would the United Nations be able to assist countries in the area of human rights.  Iran was a good neighbour of Turkmenistan and the two enjoyed extensive economic, political and cultural ties.  Turkmenistan would oppose the resolution.

The representative of Uzbekistan said resolutions such as the one before the Committee caused confrontation, misunderstanding and mutual distrust among nations.  Human rights issues must be addressed through constructive dialogue.  The tabling of country-specific resolutions only brought conflicting elements to the United Nations and damaged its work in the field of human rights.  Uzbekistan would vote against the draft.

The representative of Belarus said such resolutions were counterproductive and did not serve to promote human rights.  Human rights protection must be based on mutual respect.  Country-specific resolutions increased divisions and led to further politicization of the Committee’s work.  Belarus would vote against the draft.

The representative of Indonesia said the resolution was highly politicized and confrontational and did not serve the purpose of protecting human rights.  The desire to address politicization was among the reasons for ongoing efforts to reform the United Nations human rights machinery.  The Organization must devise more constructive ways, based on dialogue and cooperation, to address human rights situations in specific countries.  Indonesia could not support the confrontational approach of the resolution and would vote against it.

The representative of Malaysia said human rights issues must be addressed, while respecting the principle of non-interference in States’ internal affairs.  Exploitation of human rights for political purposes and selective targeting of certain countries should be avoided.   Malaysia opposed resolutions targeting specific countries and would vote against the draft.  The tabling of such initiatives had not been constructive and only contributed to further polarization and division among Member States.

The representative of Myanmar said human rights must be based on objectivity and the principle of non-interference.  The name-and-blame approach that targeted select countries would not advance the human rights cause.   Myanmar would vote against the resolution and any other similar resolutions in the future.

The representative of the Sudan said his country rejected resolutions that targeted specific countries, particularly developing nations.  He expressed extreme concern over the message they sent to the international community that the United Nations was studying human rights situations in developing countries while closing its eyes to situations in industrialized countries.  Justice was indivisible.

He noted the evolution of the situation in Iran, pointing to that country’s tireless efforts to achieve socio-economic development, including the protection and promotion of human rights, and advance a vibrant democratic process.  He strongly opposed politicization, double standards and selectivity.  The draft resolution could only impede United Nations reform aimed at ending such divisions.  The Committee should not be used as a vehicle or forum to settle bilateral disputes.  The Sudan would vote against the draft.

The Committee then approved the draft by a recorded vote of 77 in favour to 51 against, with 46 abstentions.  (See Annex III.)

In a general statement after the vote, the representative of Brazil called for further non-selective scrutiny of human rights situations in all countries.  United Nations reform could create important innovations in the field of human rights.  Country-specific resolutions should only be adopted in cases of very grave human rights situations.   Brazil had abstained from the vote, the only country in Latin America to do so.

Iran, he noted, had received the Commission on Human Right’s Special Rapporteur on violence against women.  Iranian officials also had engaged in bilateral dialogues with many countries and United Nations entities.  Still, Brazil was concerned about violence against women.  The use of the death penalty on people under 18 years of age was particularly disquieting, as was wide discrimination, including imprisonment and restrictions on the right to employment, against the Baha’i community.  He hoped that the Iranian Government would receive the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and expression.

When the Committee met again this afternoon, the representative of United Kingdom, the main sponsor of the draft on Situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/60/L.68) and its statement of budget implications contained in document A/C.3/60/L.53, said the European Union remained deeply concerned about ongoing abuses there.  Opposition groups were consistently harassed, and sexual and other violence and expropriations were consistently carried out on ethnic communities.  Prison conditions failed to meet international standards.

Of great concern, he said, was the fact that Myanmar had reduced cooperation with the United Nations system and other international organizations.  It was deeply regrettable that the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy had not been able to visit since 2004, and the Special Rapporteur had not been able to visit since 2003.  There were positive political developments as outlined in the Special Rapporteur’s report, which were reflected in the draft.  The democratic transition would have a fundamental influence on human rights.

He said a cooperative approach on human rights could lead to improvement, which was why the European Union had extensively consulted with Myanmar, and why the draft contained offers of finance assistance.  The resolution had been adopted by consensus in the past.  He urged the Assembly to do so again without a vote.  He also outlined amendments to the draft.

The representative of Myanmar said that, over the years, the European Union had put forth country-specific resolutions on his country with the clear attempt of micro-managing its political process under the guise of human rights.  That had become more intrusive, particularly this year, and demonstrated the true intention of manipulating Myanmar’s home-grown political process.  Myanmar, through its national reconciliation process, had been able to re-consolidate national unity and bring insurgent groups back to the legal fold to join the National Convention, the first crucial step for the country’s seven-step road map for a smooth transition to democracy.

He said this year’s draft resolution contained harsh language and unfounded allegations.  Myanmar had negotiated in good faith with the one remaining insurgent organization, but the efforts had been futile.  The insurgents and the remnants of a narco-trafficking armed group had instead waged a disinformation campaign to discredit the Government and people of Myanmar.  The majority of allegations in the draft resolution emanated from them, and were part of a well-funded campaign of disinformation.  If unchallenged, the draft would not only infringe upon Myanmar’s national sovereignty but also create a dangerous precedent with far-reaching consequences for the entire United Nations membership.

He said that in previous years, Myanmar had not pressed for a vote but dissociated itself from the resolutions.  This year, in view of the language, there was no other recourse than to resist the European Union’s highly intrusive, highly politicized and manipulative draft resolution.  He called on all developing countries, in the spirit of the Non-Aligned Movement, as well as the unity of developing countries, to stand in solidarity with Myanmar and defeat the overly-politicized European Union draft resolution.

The representative of Malaysia said he wished to reiterate his country’s commitment that human rights should be addressed in an objective and transparent way that took into account national sovereignty.  Selective targeting of individual countries was contrary to Charter principles and should be excluded.  Should a “no-action” motion be called for, Malaysia would vote in favour of it.

The representative of Cuba said the text did not promote cooperation among Member States.  It was a tool aimed at the political manipulation of Myanmar and an exercise in hypocrisy.  It showed selectiveness and a double standard.  The European Union sought to take the work of the Committee and cast it into disarray, as it had with the Commission on Human Rights.  He proposed a motion of non-action and urged all delegates to vote for it.  He noted that in 2004 the European Union had tabled a non-action motion against a draft resolution to take up the issue of detainees maintained by the United States at Guantanamo Bay.  If there was to be consistency, all delegations would approve the current non-action motion.

Speaking in favour of Cuba’s motion, the representative of China said countries had different national situations, levels of development and human rights issues.  On the basis of mutual respect, singling out countries could only lead to division and confrontation and was not conducive to the course of human rights.

Speaking in favour of the motion, the representative of Turkmenistan said that only through dialogue and encouraging capacity building would we help advance human rights.  Country-specific resolutions, especially against developing countries by developed ones, were becoming a trend in the Third Committee.  That was not constructive since it did little to advance human rights when the United Nations was trying to reform that mechanism.

Speaking in opposition to the motion of Cuba, the representative of United Kingdom said it was an important matter of principle not to adjourn the debate.  It was not true that his country had tabled such a motion at the Commission on Human Rights.  No country large or small was beyond consideration of human rights.  There were reports of widespread and serious violations in Myanmar.  If the motion were successful, it would aim to end the mandate of the Secretary-General to use his special offices to continue dialogue with Myanmar.  The Committee was the only United Nations body with a universal membership that dealt with human rights, and action should be taken here.

The representative of New Zealand said that if other delegations were concerned about political motivations, the appropriate response would be to vote no or abstain.  It was not appropriate to avoid action through a procedural motion.  Many times there had been increased pressure on regimes that ultimately turned into strong emerging democracies.  It was inaccurate that western countries sought to avoid scrutiny.  New Zealand was happy to discuss its record with others.  To say the measure targeted developing countries distorted and distracted the debate.  The resolution was not intended to target a developing country but to focus on a human rights situation that was one of most desperate in world today.  The only hypocrisy was to remain silent in the face of massive human rights violations.

The Committee then rejected the motion to adjourn the debate by a recorded vote of 54 in favour to 77 against, with 35 abstentions.  (See Annex IV.)

The Committee then returned to consideration of the draft resolution, as orally amended.

The representative of Myanmar said that although the adjournment motion failed to carry, the vote sent a clear message.  Despite the tremendous political pressure on developing countries by the powerful countries, it was most telling that out of 191 Member States, the draft resolution had the support of only 30 countries other than the 25 European Union members, the United States and 20 other co-sponsors.  Myanmar would not accept the exploitation of human rights for political purposes.  It would proceed with the seven-step political road map for a smooth transition to democracy and resist attempts to interfere with its internal affairs.  The draft contained a litany of unfounded allegations from remnants of insurgents and exiles living abroad.  Myanmar totally rejected them.  It would not press for a vote but dissociated itself entirely from the draft resolution.

The Committee then adopted the draft resolution by consensus.

After the adoption of the draft, the representative of Cuba said he also wished to dissociate himself from the draft.  It was political in nature and did not seek to establish cooperation in dealing with human rights.  It was plain to see that the text was based on a lack of objectivity.

The representative of Venezuela said she reaffirmed her disagreement with the policy of some Member States of selectively condemning certain States for human rights violations, which contradicted the Charter, particularly obligations for non-intervention and respecting the sovereignty of States.  Any measure or action taken to promote human rights must be based on cooperation and dialogue and not on sanctioning developing countries.  She dissociated herself from the consensus because she disagreed with using human rights as a tool of political pressure against States.

The representative of Belarus said his country was consistently against the practice of using such counterproductive resolutions.  Cooperation in the human rights area should be on the basis of mutual respect for sovereign States and encouraging constructive dialogue between countries.  He was against politicizing the work of the Committee, and also refused to join the consensus on the draft.

The representative of Japan said that, over the years, Myanmar had consistently engaged in dialogue on human rights resolutions in the Committee and the Commission on Human Rights.  It never resisted adoption but dissociated itself once the draft was adopted.  He appreciated Myanmar’s willingness to participate in the process, and regretted that this year, it had been necessary to vote on “no action”.  The international community should adopt well-balanced resolutions on human rights situations.  It should express its concern but also welcome and encourage positive improvements.  It was regrettable that Myanmar and the main sponsors were unable to agree on mutually acceptable language for the text, even though it was somehow adopted by consensus.  Myanmar should continue dialogue and engage with the international community, especially the United Nations.  He also expressed concern that the Secretariat had issued programme budget implications, just before the item was considered.  He consistently supported the Secretary-General’s efforts, but insisted on adequate time to consider any new budgetary implications.

The representative of Indonesia said she deeply regretted the fact that the Committee sided with country-specific resolutions.  That was contrary to ongoing efforts to reform the Organization’s human rights machinery.  Issues of human rights must be addressed in a global context, with respect for national sovereignty, impartiality, and objectivity.  Exploitation of human rights for political purposes, including selective targeting, should be excluded.

The representative of Uzbekistan said he again confirmed his categorical opposition to country-specific resolutions.  They created a deep rift among members, which could lead to achieving nothing during discussions of new human rights mechanisms.  He understood Myanmar’s position and appreciated the country for taking the very difficult step of deciding to sacrifice itself essentially to prevent any further rifts.  Uzbekistan insisted that it was not to be associated with the draft resolution.

The representative of United Kingdom, the main sponsor of the draft on Rights of the Child (document A/C.3/60/L.22/Rev.1) and amendments contained in document A/C.3/60/L.69, said rich discussions motivated by obvious commitment led to a draft that addressed all the challenges to children’s full enjoyment of human rights.  For the first time, it particularly highlighted those who experienced the cataclysmic effect of HIV/AIDS.  Despite extensive consultations, it was clear that the sheer breadth of issues, as in previous years, meant that not all delegations could be content with every paragraph.  Co-sponsors had carefully weighed the views and chosen to include references, which enjoyed overwhelming support.  It was understood that there would be issues with the final draft.  He sincerely hoped that delegations would see the value of the resolution as a whole and not press amendments, which experience showed were not supported by a large majority of the Assembly.  To make a strong statement, the draft deserved to be adopted by consensus.

The representative of Singapore introduced the amendments contained in document A/C.3/60/L.69, and then gave a general statement.  He said he had observed that, in recent years, resolutions which used to be non-contentious, such as this one, were being put to a vote.  On such resolutions, one would expect sponsors to strive for universal support instead of taking it for granted.  It was not difficult to achieve consensus if one kept the text focused on making progress on broad areas of agreement, while working towards consensus on contentious issues.  Some delegations seemed ready to fight to score points over others, and every year certain divisive issues came up in committees and in the Plenary.  It was his fervent hope that wisdom would prevail in the future, and that all would recognize that “exploiting noble resolutions such as the present ones to score an illusory and Pyrrhic victory ... achieving nothing but acrimony”.

He said many countries strongly believed that it was necessary, in the best interest of children’s safety and learning environment in schools, to maintain a strictly regulated disciplinary system appropriate to each country’s circumstances.  It was the right of every sovereign State to decide on its own domestic policies.  Singapore was firmly committed to its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  The issue before it was not about the merits or demerits of corporal punishment in schools.  Not so long ago, many of the States co-sponsoring the draft still practised corporal punishment in their schools.  Having eliminated it, they now expected every one of us to comply.  For that reason, his delegation once again proposed several amendments to the operative paragraphs.

In a general statement before the vote, the representative of United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the main sponsors, said that consultations on the draft had been conducted in a transparent and friendly manner.  It was, therefore, regrettable that the amendments, which had been considered and rejected overwhelmingly by the co-sponsors during consultations, had been tabled.  He said the main sponsors were, therefore, opposing the amendments, and he called on all Member States to reject them, as well.

Also in a general statement, the representative of Uruguay said the amendments were unacceptable to the co-sponsors. The proposed amendment for a new operative paragraph 15 (c) bis was repetitive in view of subsequent sub-paragraphs.  Corporal punishment violated the rights of the child, as well as human rights.  It was unacceptable to weaken the language of the Declaration on Human Rights.  The subsequent amendments were also unacceptable, as torture and corporal punishment were governed by several conventions on human rights.

The Committee then rejected, in a recorded vote of 39 in favour to 111 against, with 13 abstentions, the first amendment, which would add operative paragraph 15 (c) bis, which would read:  “Urges States to take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity.”  (See Annex V.)

The Secretary of the Committee suggested doing away with promptings for general statements or explanation of votes with the understanding that any delegation could raise its flag at any time.  The Chairman agreed.

The second amendment –- on operative paragraph 15 (d) -- was rejected by a vote of 23 in favour to 119 against, with 19 abstaining.  (See Annex VI.)

The third amendment -– on operative paragraph 27 -- was rejected by a vote of 36 in favour to 106 against, with 21 abstentions.  (See Annex VII.)

The representative of Barbados explained his opposition to operative paragraph 26.  He said he was concerned about the incremental way that some States were attempting to impose their own standards.  His vote was not meant to support the death penalty, but to show immense distress at the way the debate was progressing on issues that did not enjoy international consensus.

The representative of India spoke to explain his vote before the vote on operative paragraph 28, which referred to children in detention.  India believed that children in detention should not be sentenced to forced labour, corporal punishment or torture.  Unfortunately, the option was either no corporal punishment or no torture.  He would abstain because the choice being presented was a wrong one.

The representative of the United Kingdom said that children in detention should be protected cruel and unusual punishment.  The draft sought to delete corporal punishment and replace it with operative paragraph 13, which was a general prohibition.  For that reason, he entirely agreed with the representative of India, but believed both issues were covered, which was why the co-sponsors did not want to accept the amendment.  He would vote against it.

The fourth amendment was rejected by a vote of 23 in favour to 116 against, with 21 abstaining.  (See Annex VIII.)

The representative of Japan requested a separate vote on operative paragraph 35.

The representative of Cuba requested a clarification from Japan, as it was not clear what the amendment was, or if it was a deletion.

The Secretary said that the vote was intended to address deleting the paragraph.  Those in favour of Japan’s proposal would be in favour of deletion and would need to press the green button.

The representative of India said he wanted to know why Japan had asked for the deletion.  He presumed it was because of programme and budget implications, but since no reason was extended, he would appreciate some clarification.

The representative of Japan said she intended to explain her position at a later stage, but since clarification had been requested, she would give it.  In informal discussions, Japan had proposed amending the paragraph on extending the Special Representative’s mandate.  Since that was not accepted by the co-sponsors, she was requesting the deletion of the paragraph instead of an amendment.

The representative of Benin said he wished to draw attention to the fact that his country attached great importance to paragraph 35, in that it was one of the architects of the text.  He wanted to ensure the full mandate of the office.  For that reason, he would not support Japan and urged all delegations to reject the proposal.

The representative of Norway said that children were particularly vulnerable in armed conflicts.  The Secretary-General’s Special Representative had achieved many successes over the years.  The task at hand was whether to build on those successes.  Norway would vote against the proposed deletion of the paragraph in question and for an extension of the mandate of the Special Representative for an additional three years, and appealed to other Member States to do likewise.

The representative of India said that given the vulnerability of children, and the fact that the issue was of concern to the international community, his delegation would be voting against the proposal.

The representative of the United Kingdom said the European Union attached great importance to the mandate of the Special Representative’s office.  For the first time, we were advocating the protection of children in conflict through the United Nations system, and the European Union would like to see that work carried on.  On the issue of funding, no voluntary contributions had been pledged to the office as of yet.  If the amendment had been accepted, the office would have closed down, ending a valuable function and mandate.  For that reason, he had been unable to support Japan’s amendment during informal discussions and could not support its proposal for deletion.

The representative of Japan said she wished to apologize for the confusion and clarify that her proposal was to vote on the inclusion of the paragraph, not to ask for its deletion.

The representative of Sierra Leone said he felt Japan had wanted a separate vote and not a deletion, but then later on said she wanted a deletion.  He opposed deletion because it would be tantamount to abolishing the office of the Special Representative.  If there were budget problems, those should be addressed in the Fifth Committee and the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ).

The representative of Uganda said she understood that Japan was asking for a vote on the paragraph, in which case she supported Japan’s position.  Since she had the floor, she said she would also like to make a general statement.  Paramount on Uganda’s agenda, she said, was the protection of the rights of the child.  Therefore, she was ready to accept consensus on all paragraphs of the draft.  Unfortunately, that was not possible because operative paragraph 35 did not register correctly what had transpired in Uganda.  Progress had not been achieved because of the existence of the Secretary-General’s Special Representative.  Progress was due to the Government’s efforts and those of its development partners, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and some non-governmental organizations.  It was perplexing that the resolution did not properly address issue of mandate.  Because she supported the existence of a properly funded office of the special representative, she supported extending the mandate only after that was correctly addressed.

The representative of Cuba said it would support the paragraph in resolution A/C.3/60/L.22/Rev.1 because it understood that the paragraph was already part of the draft resolution.  He expressed concern over how the procedures for voting on separate paragraphs were being handled.  Such procedures should be clear-cut, so that delegates should either vote for or against the whole resolution.  He called for clarification over whether the paragraph in question was to be deleted or retained.

The representative of Singapore said delegates did, in fact, have the right to vote on paragraphs, and that his delegation had informed the Secretary early on that it wanted to vote on three parts of paragraphs.

The representative of the United States asked for guidance on this issue.

Responding to the Chairman’s request for clarification, the representative of Japan said her request was that operative paragraph 35 be put to a vote, and that Japan’s position was to have the paragraph deleted.

The Committee then approved retaining operative paragraph 35 by a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 3 against ( Japan, Uganda, United States), with no abstentions.  (See Annex IX.)

Explanation of Vote after the Vote

The representative of Japan said Japan was committed to finding a lasting solution to the issue of protecting the rights of children in armed conflict and to advocate on children’s behalf.  Regarding extending the mandate for three years of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children in Armed Conflict, she said that, to ensure transparent and efficient management, it should be funded through voluntary contributions.  Responsible States could not accept additional requirements to the regular budget for such an extension.

The representative of Singapore requested three separate votes on operative paragraph 15(d), operative paragraph 27 and operative paragraph 28 of the resolution.

The motion to retain the words “to take measures to eliminate the use of corporal punishment in school” in operative paragraph 15(d) was approved by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 17 against, with 13 abstentions.  (See Annex X.)

The motion to retain the words “in particular those States in which the death penalty had not been abolished” in operative paragraph 27 was approved by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 28 against, with 21 abstentions.  (See Annex XI.)

The motion to retain the words “or corporal punishment” in operative paragraph 28 was approved by a recorded vote of 123 in favour to 14 against, with 20 abstentions.  (See Annex XII.)

The representative of the United States also proposed amendments to the draft on the rights of child, saying that if the main co-sponsors were not able to incorporate these amendments, the United States would not insist on bringing them to a vote.  Preambular paragraph 2 should be substantially revamped and should be amended to read as follows:  “emphasizing that the Convention on the Rights of the Child, its Protocol on Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, its Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 12 Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and the 1951 Convention Relating to the status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol contain a comprehensive set of international legal standards for the protection and well-being of children, and reaffirming that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children”.

She proposed that operative paragraph 2 be revised to read:  “Urges States that have not yet done so to consider as a matter of priority signing and ratifying or acceding to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols, and urges States Parties to implement them fully, while stressing that the implementation of the Convention and its Optional Protocols and the achievement of the goals of the World Summit for Children from the special session of the General Assembly on children are mutually reinforcing”.

She said obligations under the Convention should only to States Parties and to that end the second line of operative paragraph 4 should be revised to read “…and calls upon all States Parties…”.  She proposed that operative paragraph 7 be revised to either read “Urges again all States Parties to intensify…” or to delete the phrase “to comply with their obligation under the Convention on the Rights of the Child…”  She said operative paragraph 9 failed to address the need for effective means of legally reinforcing international access and visitation and should be amended, as should operative paragraph 10, which she deemed too weak because it failed to address enforcement of remedies and treaty compliance.  Further, she proposed that operative paragraph 16 be deleted and that operative paragraph 33(c) end after “…Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949” and that the last two lines be deleted.

The representative of the United Kingdom said the proposals set forth by the United States should have been presented during informal meetings.  At first glance, the first of the four amendments proposed by the representative of the United States seemed to undermine the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  He said the Committee should not look at them.

The representative of India said delegates needed time to look at these amendments and should go into informal discussions to do so.  The way in which the amendments were presented was such that delegates could barely take them down.  The Committee was dealing with the serious issue of the well-being of children he said, adding the manner in which this was being presented was irresponsible, almost childish.

The representative of Venezuela said all delegates had had a chance to put forward amendments during informal meetings and now was not the time to do so.

The representative of the United States then called for a vote on the draft resolution A/C.3/60/L.22/Rev.1.

In a general statement before the vote, the representative of New Zealand, also speaking on behalf of Canada, said it had always been committed to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  Notwithstanding strong support for the draft resolution, he expressed concern over the way the issue was being presented.  The language was too long and merely repeated calls for States to abide by Conventions to which they were already party.  He thanked the co-sponsors for streamlining the text and introducing new issues, particularly the new chapter on HIV/AIDS and the indication that the subject matter in chapter 3 would change from year to year.

He said he remained concerned, however, at the erosion of wider support for the resolution and regretted that some delegations attended meetings on the draft only to protect their views on sensitive topics.  It was necessary to end the juvenile death penalty, corporal punishment and other forms of mistreatment of children.

The representative of Singapore said he was pleased that the representative of New Zealand had echoed many points that he had made in the Committee earlier in the afternoon.

Explanation of Vote before the Vote

The representative of the United States said that her country was committed to ensuring the protection of the rights of children.  For that reason, it supported many of the draft’s underlying principles.  The Convention of the Rights of the Child raised a number of concerns, however.  In particular, it conflicted with the authorities of parents and provisions of State and local law in the United States.  She could not accept the resolution’s over-emphasis on the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the assertion that the Convention must constitute the standard in the promotion and protection of children’s rights.  Other international instruments addressed particular problems confronting children in a far more comprehensive and effective manner.  She could not accept the co-sponsors’ refusal to list by name the ILO Conventions that addressed child labour matters, The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, the leading Refugee instruments, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  Also regrettable was the weakness of the language on both the rights of children to visitation with both parents in international custody cases, and on parental or familial child abduction.  Any language on the International Criminal Court that was not purely factual or neutral was also unacceptable.

She said the text should be shorter, and targeted on specific issues of critical importance to children, as well as ones that concentrated on matters not addressed in other resolutions.  The United States would once again vote no on the draft because it contained unacceptable language that it had, over the past years, repeatedly requested the co-sponsors to eliminate, revise, amend or address elsewhere.

The Committee then approved the draft by a recorded vote of 173 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 1 abstention ( Nauru).  (See Annex XIII.)

Explanation of Vote after the Vote

The representative of Sierra Leone said it had had some reservations about the language in the resolution, but that in the spirit of compromise it had decided to concur with action in the overall interests of children.

In a general statement after the vote, the representative of Venezuela said the Convention on the Rights of the Child was a normative pillar for protecting children and guaranteeing their full enjoyment of their fundamental rights.  He expressed support and appreciation to its main co-sponsors, particularly Uruguay, for its efforts.  However, he said, Venezuela did not recognize the reference to the Summit Outcome Document as mentioned in preambular paragraph 6.   Venezuela was of the view that the Summit Outcome Document was no more than a working paper with no other obligation or mandate.  He said he welcomed the Committee’s decision to have a special session set aside on the issue of children and poverty.

The representative of Barbados, speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said it had traditionally co-sponsored this resolution, but noted that the subject did not enjoy international consensus at this time.  He said he was particularly concerned that the language had been strengthened to place corporal punishment in the section under the same category as pornography, sexual exploitation and other heinous crimes against children.

ANNEX I

Vote on Future Operation of INSTRAW

The draft resolution on the future operation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) (document A/C.3/60/L.15/Rev.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to 12 against, with 26 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Australia, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, Japan, Marshall Islands, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine.

Absent:  Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Georgia, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX II

Vote on Motion to Adjourn Debate by Iran

The motion to adjourn the debate, proposed by Iran was rejected in a recorded vote of 70 in favour to 77 against, with 23 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gambia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu.

Abstain:  Angola, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Colombia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Iraq, Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United Republic of Tanzania.

Absent:  Armenia, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Gabon, Georgia, Grenada, Jordan, Kuwait, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Turkey, Uruguay.

ANNEX III

Vote on Situation of Human Rights in Iran

The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran (document A/C.3/60/L.45) was adopted by a recorded vote of 77 in favour to 51 against, with 46 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu.

Against:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Gambia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Suriname, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia.

Absent:  Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Gabon, Georgia, Grenada, Jordan, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Turkey, Uruguay.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Cuban Motion for Adjournment of Debate

The motion by Cuba to adjourn debate on the budget implications of the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Myanmar (document A/C.3/60/L.53) was defeated in a recorded vote of 54 in favour to 77 against, with 35 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Cameroon, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Eritrea, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu.

Abstain:  Angola, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Colombia, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tajikistan, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay.

Absent:  Armenia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Gabon, Grenada, Honduras, Kiribati, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mongolia, Mozambique, Oman, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Swaziland.

ANNEX V

Vote on Amendment to Operative Paragraph 15 (c) on Rights of Child

The amendment to operative paragraph 15 (c) bis of the draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/60/L.22/Rev.1) was defeated in a recorded vote of 39 in favour to 111 against, with 13 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, United States, Viet Nam.

Against:  Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia.

Abstain:  Bahrain, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Mongolia, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Fiji, Gabon, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Maldives, Mauritania, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Amendment to Operative Paragraph 15 (d) on Rights of Child

The amendment to operative paragraph 15 (d) of the draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/60/L.22/Rev.1) was defeated in a recorded vote of 23 in favour to 119 against, with 19 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Iraq, Jamaica, Malaysia, Myanmar, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, United States.

Against:  Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Abstain:  Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Bhutan, Guinea, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Mali, Mongolia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Fiji, Gabon, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Mauritania, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Amendment to Operative Paragraph 27 on Rights of Child

The amendment to operative paragraph 27 of the draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/60/L.22/Rev.1) was defeated in a recorded vote of 36 in favour to 106 against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, United States, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen.

Abstain:  Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Belize, Guinea, Haiti, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Mali, Mongolia, Morocco, Niger, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Zambia.

Absent:  Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Fiji, Gabon, Kiribati, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Mauritania, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Amendment to Operative Paragraph 28 on Rights of Child

The amendment to operative paragraph 28 of the draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/60/L.22/Rev.1) was defeated in a recorded vote of 23 in favour to 116 against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Libya, Malaysia, Oman, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Syria, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen.

Abstain:  Afghanistan, Bahrain, Belize, Guinea, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Mali, Mauritius, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States, Zambia.

Absent:  Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Fiji, Gabon, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX IX

Vote on Operative Paragraph 35 on Rights of Child

Operative paragraph 35 of the draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/60/L.22/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 3 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  Japan, Uganda, United States.

Abstain:  None.

Absent:  Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Gabon, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX X

Vote on Operative Paragraph 15(d) on Rights of Child

Operative paragraph 15(d) of the draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/60/L.22/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 125 in favour to 17 against, with 13 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.

Against:  Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Iran, Jamaica, Malaysia, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, United States.

Abstain:  Belize, Bhutan, Guinea, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Kuwait, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Uganda, United Arab Emirates.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX XI

Vote on Operative Paragraph 27 on Rights of Child

Operative paragraph 27 of the draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/60/L.22/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 109 in favour to 28 against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen.

Against:  Barbados, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Dominica, Egypt, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, United States, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Guinea, Haiti, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Mali, Niger, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Suriname, United Arab Emirates, Zambia.

Absent:  Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Fiji, Gabon, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

ANNEX XII

Vote on Operative Paragraph 28 on Rights of Child

Operative paragraph 28 of the draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/60/L.22/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 123 in favour to 14 against, with 20 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen.

Against:  Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Dominica, Gambia, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Malaysia, Saint Lucia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Syria.

Abstain:  Bahamas, Bahrain, Belize, Bhutan, China, Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Kuwait, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States, Zambia.

Absent:  Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Palau, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX XIII

Vote on Draft Resolution on Rights of Child

The draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/C.3/60/L.22/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 173 in favour to 1 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

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

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Nauru.

Absent:  Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Kiribati, Liberia, Palau, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record