HUMAN RIGHTS IN TURKMENISTAN, DEFAMATION OF RELIGION ADDRESSED IN TEXTS APPROVED BY THIRD COMMITTEE

Sixtieth General Assembly

Third Committee

45^th Meeting (AM)

HUMAN RIGHTS IN TURKMENISTAN , DEFAMATION OF RELIGION

ADDRESSED IN TEXTS APPROVED BY THIRD COMMITTEE

Also Recommends Drafts on Right to Food, Unilateral Coercive Measures,

Respect for National Sovereignty in Electoral Processes among Other Issues

Gravely concerned by “continuing and serious” rights violations occurring in Turkmenistan, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, Cultural) today approved, by a vote of 70 in favour to 38 against, with 58 abstentions, a measure which would have the General Assembly urge the Turkmen Government to respect all human rights -- notably the right of everyone to freedom of thought, conscience and religious belief -- and to cease harassment, detention and persecution of members of religious minorities.  (See Annex VII.)

That draft resolution was passed after the Committee narrowly voted down a “no action motion” -- 64 delegations in favour to 70 against, with 26 abstentions -- following Turkmenistan’s proposal from the floor that the Committee adjourn its debate on the matter.  (See Annex VI.)

Stressing her Government’s willingness to cooperate with the United Nations and other actors, ahead of the vote, Turkmenistan’s representative said there was a “sad gap” between what was presented in the draft and the real situation on the ground.  The text was unbalanced and unfair, she said, warning that the Committee’s decision could become the determining factor, as negotiations wrapped up on the mandate, make-up and overall direction of the new Human Rights Council, meant to replace the Geneva-based Commission on Human Rights, which had for years been stymied by political motivations and double standards.

That view was shared by many delegations who expressed opposition to the Turkmenistan measure, as well as to the Committee’s ongoing consideration of drafts which, they believed, were targeted against developing countries, but which ignored human rights abuses in the industrialized world.  Those speakers called for ending the practice of “naming and shaming” poor countries in favour of a less divisive, more collaborative approach in which concerned parties worked together to ensure that all countries lived up to their international obligations.

Other delegations, meanwhile, were deeply concerned that the “no action” motion could prevent the Committee from considering the human rights situation in any country, on its merits and taking appropriate action.  They believed that such motions stifled debate and undermined the credibility of the Committee, the Commission and the wider United Nations, which had been chartered to protect and promote the human rights of all people without distinction.

Among the eight other drafts approved today was a text on combating defamation of religions -- adopted by a vote of 88 in favour to 52 against, with 23 abstentions -- which would have the Assembly express deep concern at the persistent stereotyping of religion in some regions of the world, and that Islam was frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.  (See Annex I.)

That draft would also have the Assembly stress the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, Islam and Muslims in particular, especially in human rights forums.  It would have the Assembly urge States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions.  Before action was taken on that text, several delegations expressed concern that its language was focused mainly on one religion and region, rather than religious persecution worldwide.

The Committee also overwhelmingly adopted a draft resolution on the right to food by a recorded vote of 171 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 1 abstention ( Israel).  (See Annex V.)  The text would have the Assembly consider it intolerable that, somewhere in the world, a child under the age of 5 dies every five seconds from hunger or hunger-related diseases, when the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates the planet could provide enough food to feed twice the world’s present population.  The draft requests that all States and private actors, as well as international organizations, take fully into account the need to promote the effective realization of the right to food.

A draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures was adopted by a recoded vote of 121 in favour to 52 against.  (See Annex II.)  Among other things, that text would have the Assembly urge all States to refrain from adopting or implementing such measures, particularly those which created obstacles to trade relations among States.

The Committee approved a text on respect for the principles of national sovereignty and diversity of democratic systems in electoral processes as an important element for the promotion and protection of human rights, by a recorded vote of 106 in favour to 4 against (Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, United States), with 61 abstentions.  (See Annex IV.)  A text on promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of all human rights by all was adopted by a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 51 against, with 8 abstentions ( Argentina, Armenia, Chile, Equatorial Guinea, India, Mexico, Samoa, Singapore).  (See Annex III).

Draft resolutions approved by consensus concerned the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People, the rights of peoples to self-determination, and on the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights.  The Committee postponed action on a draft resolution on the situation of and assistance to Palestinian children.

The Third Committee will meet again at 10:00 a.m. Tuesday, 22 November, to continue taking action on outstanding draft resolutions.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Cultural and Humanitarian) met today to consider and take action on 10 draft resolutions on several agenda items.

Under its agenda item on the promotion and protection of the rights of children, the Committee was expected to take action on a draft resolution on the situation of and assistance to Palestinian children (document A/C.3/60/L.19).  The text would have the General Assembly stress the urgent need for Palestinian children to live a normal life free from foreign occupation, destruction and fear in their own State.  The Assembly would also demand that Israel respect relevant provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and comply fully with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to ensure the well-being and protection of Palestinian children and their families.

Under its agenda item on indigenous issues, the Committee was expected to take action on a draft resolution on the programme of action for the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People (document A/C.3/60/L.23).  That text would have the General Assembly adopt the draft programme of action, and urge all actors involved in the process to cooperate to achieve the Second Decade’s goals.  The Assembly would also appeal to the international community to provide financial support to the Decade’s Voluntary Fund and adopt for the Decade the theme “Agenda for Life”.  Further, it would request that the coordinator consult with Member States, agencies and organizations of the United Nations system, indigenous peoples and other groups on whether to conduct mid-term and end-of-term reviews of the Decade.

Under its agenda item on rights of peoples to self-determination, the Committee was expected to take action on a draft resolution on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/C.3/60/L.59), which would have the General Assembly express its deep concern at continuing acts or threats of foreign military intervention and occupation that are threatening to suppress, or have already suppressed, the right to self-determination of peoples and nations.  Further, it would have the Assembly express grave concern that, as a consequence of such actions, millions of people have been and are being uprooted from their homes as refugees and displaced persons.  It would emphasize the urgent need for concerted international action to alleviate their condition.

In addition, it would have the Assembly declare its firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, and call upon States responsible to immediately halt them.  Further, it would deplore the plight of millions of refugees and displaced persons who have been uprooted as the result of such acts, and reaffirm their right to return to their homes voluntarily in safety and honour.  It would request the Commission on Human Rights to continue to give special attention to human rights violations, especially the right to self-determination, resulting from foreign military intervention, aggression or occupation.

Under its agenda item on human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the Committee was expected to take action on a draft resolution on combating defamation of religions (document A/C.3/60/L.29).  The draft would have the General Assembly express deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions and related manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in some regions of the world; strongly deplore physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centres and places of worship, as well as targeting of religious symbols; and express deep concern over the religious defamation campaigns, ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 events, and that Islam was frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.  The Assembly would also deplore the use of print, audiovisual and electronic media, including the Internet, or other means to incite violence, xenophobia or related intolerance or discrimination towards Islam or any other religion.

Further to the text, the Assembly would stress the need to effectively combat religious defamation, particularly of Islam and Muslims, in human rights forums.  It would urge States to take resolute action to prohibit dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas through political institutions and organizations and urge them to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from religious defamation.  It would further call for steps to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance.

The Assembly would also urge States to ensure that all public officials, including law enforcement, the military, civil servants and educators, respect different religions and beliefs, and do not discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief; underscore the need to combat religious defamation through education and awareness-raising at the local, national, regional and international level; and urge States to ensure equal access to education for all and to refrain from racial segregation in schools. 

The draft on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/60/L.34) would have the Assembly urge all States to refrain from adopting or implementing unilateral measures not in accordance with international law and the United Nations Charter.  It gives particular attention to those which created obstacles to trade relations among States, thus impeding achievement of rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments.

Further to the text, the Assembly would reject unilateral coercive measures as tools for political and economic pressures against a country, especially developing countries, because of their negative impact on human rights of children, women and the elderly in particular.  The Assembly would also call upon Member States that had initiated such measures to revoke them as soon as possible, in accordance with their obligations under international human rights instruments, and would urge the Commission on Human Rights to fully take into account such measures’ negative impact on the right to development.  

The draft on enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (document A/C.3/60/L.35) would have the Assembly urge all international actors to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equality and equity, human dignity, mutual understanding and promotion of and respect for cultural diversity and universal human rights, and to reject all doctrines of exclusion based on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.  The Assembly would also call upon Member States, specialized agencies and intergovernmental organizations to continue constructive dialogue and consultations to enhance understanding and the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.   

The draft on promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of all human rights by all (document A/C.3/60/L.49) would have the Assembly urge all States to apply the purposes and principles of the Charter in their relations with other States, regardless of their political, economic or social system and irrespective of their size, geographical location or level of economic development.  Further, it would call upon the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to carry out consultations with Member States and the specialized agencies and intergovernmental organizations, on how the Commission on Human Rights could work for the promotion of an international environment conducive to the full realization of the right of peoples to peace, and encourage non-governmental organizations to contribute actively to that endeavour.

The draft on respect for the principles of national sovereignty and diversity of democratic systems in electoral processes as an important element for the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/C.3/60/L.50), would have the General Assembly call upon all States to refrain from financing political parties or other groups in any other State in a way that would be contrary to the United Nations Charter or would undermine the legitimacy of States’ electoral processes.  The Assembly would also condemn acts of armed aggression or use of force against peoples, their elected Governments or legitimate leaders.

The draft on the right to food (document A/C.3/60/L.52/Rev.1) would have the Assembly express its deep concern at the number and scale of natural disasters, diseases and pests and their increasing impact in recent years, which have resulted in a massive loss of life and livelihood and threatened agricultural production and food security, particularly in developing countries.  It would stress the importance of reversing the continuing decline of official development assistance devoted to agriculture.  It would further have the Assembly consider it intolerable that there are about 852 million undernourished people in the world and that, somewhere in the world, a child under the age of 5 dies every five seconds from hunger or hunger-related diseases, when the Food and Agriculture Organization estimates the planet could provide enough food to feed twice the world’s present population.

It would also express its concern that women are disproportionately affected by hunger, food insecurity and poverty.  It would have the Assembly request that all States and private actors, as well as international organizations, take fully into account the need to promote the effective realization of the right to food for all, and urge states to give adequate priority in their development strategies and expenditures to the realization of the right to food.  It would call upon Member States, the United Nations system and other relevant stakeholders to support national efforts aimed at responding rapidly to the food crises currently occurring across Africa.

Further to the text, it would have the Assembly request the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human rights to provide all the necessary human and financial resources for the effective fulfilment of the Special Rapporteur’s mandate.  It would call upon all Governments to cooperate with him, and request the Special Rapporteur to submit a comprehensive report on the implementation of the present resolution to the Commission on Human Rights at its sixty-second session, as well as an interim report to the General Assembly at its sixty-first session.

Under the agenda item on human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives, the Committee was expected to take action on the draft on tbe situation of human rights in Turkmenistan (document A/C.3/60/L.46).  The text would have the Assembly express its grave concern at continuing and serious human rights violations, including the repression of political opposition, arbitrary detentions, imprisonment and surveillance.  It would also have the Assembly express its grave concern at poor prison conditions and credible reports of torture and mistreatment of detainees, as well as the Government’s continued denial of unaccompanied access to prisoners to the International Committee of the Red Cross.  It would further have the Assembly express its grave concern at the Government’s complete control of the media and continued restrictions on the exercise of freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. 

It would have the Assembly express its grave concern at continued discrimination against ethnic minorities in the fields of education, employment and media access, as well as forced displacement of its citizens, including a disproportionate number of ethnic minorities.  It would also have the Assembly express its grave concern at continued restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly and the continuing failure of the Government to respond to criticisms regarding the investigation, trial and detention procedures following the reported assassination attempt against the country’s president in 2002.  It would have the Assembly express grave concern at arbitrary or unlawful interference with individual privacy and violations of the freedom to leave one’s own country, as well as reported instances of hate speech against national and ethnic minorities and Government policies that significantly restrict equal access to quality health care and education.

The draft would have the Assembly urge the Government of Turkmenistan to ensure full respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms and work closely with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and cooperate with all the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights, particularly requests made by a number of special rapporteurs to visit the country.  It would urge the Government to implement fully the recommendations of the rapporteur of the Moscow Mechanism of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and work constructively with the Organization’s institutions.  It would urge the Government to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross and other interested representatives of the international community full access to places of detention, and give those in detention full access to lawyers and relatives. 

It would urge the Government to respect everyone’s right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief and cease the harassment, detention and persecution of religious minorities.  It would urge the Government to bring laws and practices governing registration of public associations in line with standards of the OSCE, and enable non-governmental organizations and other civil society actors to carry out their activities without hindrance.  It would also urge the Government to submit reports to United Nations treaty bodies to which it has assumed a reporting obligation and give their recommendations due regard.

Action on Drafts

The representative of Palestine, the main sponsor of the draft on the situation of and assistance to Palestinian children (document A/C.3/60/L.19) said her delegation had decided, after a series of consultations, to withdraw the draft resolution.  Successful negotiations had led to the incorporation of language in a European Union draft resolution that would be adopted in the Assembly under the agenda item, assistance to the Palestinian people.  She reminded the Committee that the draft that had been put before it was intended to address the plight of Palestinian children under occupation.  Their rights had been fiercely violated in every manner on a daily basis.  With the outbreak of the second uprising, the occupier responded with brute force that had been unprecedented.  Palestinian children bore the brunt of that force.  The draft resolution would have sent a strong message that the world was not silent and recognized their agony.  He hoped the situation on the ground truly changed. 

The representative of Peru, the main sponsor of the draft on Programme of Action for the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People (document A/C.3/60/L.23/Rev.1) read out amendments.  She thanked the delegations that had co-sponsored and participated in negotiations and helped enrich the text.  She said she hoped it would be adopted without a vote.

The representative of Australia said she supported the goals of action for the next decade, but there were elements with which it did not agree.  Some included factual errors.  Australia was a strong supporter of cultural diversity, but it was concerned that the draft might allow States to implement measures that conflicted with treaty obligations, particularly on trade and intellectual property.  He was also concerned about the frequent references to the as yet undefined phrase “free, prior and informed consent”.  Notwithstanding, Australia would favour adoption by consensus, which would reflect a commitment to advancing the cause of indigenous issues.

The representative of Uruguay, speaking on behalf of the Southern Common Market (MERSOCUR), expressed her support for the draft.  She said the Governments for whom she spoke had made firm progress in that area, and believed the adoption of the program of action would assist the full development of those peoples.  The relevant actors must cooperate in the process.  She hoped everyone could move forward in promoting the rights of indigenous peoples, and called on all delegations to adopt the draft by consensus.

The representative of United Kingdom said he shared the concern that many indigenous peoples did not enjoy human rights.  Their situation deserved continued international attention, but his delegation had long taken the view that human rights were universal.  There was no such thing as human rights for only one group of people, and United Kingdom did not accept collective rights in international law.  Governments in many States had granted many rights at the national level, which was welcome.  Those rights were distinct from human rights, which applied to everyone without distinction.  His delegation would like to lend full support to the resolution, but since paragraphs 2 and 3 sought to link collective rights to human rights law, he would be forced to vote against it.  In the absence of a vote, he would join in the consensus.

The representative of United States said she would join the consensus, but there was confusion in the text between “indigenous people” and “indigenous peoples”.  The negotiations in Geneva had set out the right framework for those terms.  It was incumbent on countries to come up with a strong aspirational declaration, which should be done this year. 

The Committee then adopted the measure without a vote. 

The Committee then took up the draft on combating defamation of religions (document A/C.3/60/L.29).

As the main sponsor, Yemen’s representative said the resolution referred not just to religion, but to racism and xenophobia of all types.  It called for efforts to be taken to increase tolerance.  It had been adopted by the Human Rights Commission in Geneva and contained no amendments.  It should be approved by consensus.

Explanation of position before action

Egypt’s representative clarified that the resolution was not aimed against anyone but was merely a statement on the importance of respect for all religions and views.

The representative of United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the Union considered tolerance and freedom of belief to be of the highest priority.  Religious intolerance of any kind was of concern, as had been stated at the Human Rights Commission.  There were difficulties with the draft, however.  Discrimination must be addressed in all its aspects, so that human rights were protected at all levels.  Since the thrust of this resolution did not differ from previous versions, a vote should be taken and the Union would vote against it.

Before the vote, the representative of India said his delegation condemned any attempts to associate Islam, which was a peaceful religion like any other, with terrorism and violence.  India also stood against negative stereotyping of any religion.  But it was nevertheless concerned that the text under consideration spoke about only one religion, when in fact, all religions faced similar problems. India would abstain from the vote.

The representative of the United States said her country had been founded on freedom of religion and believed firmly in, not only the protection of religious freedoms, but also in the promoting the rights of others to choose their religions.  Indeed, people everywhere must be free to worship the religion of their choice without fear of persecution.

The United States deplored the denigration of any religion, and believed that the text under consideration was incomplete because it did not address all religions and faiths.  The text should have included all religions, as well as mention of State sponsored media that promoted hatred and negative stereotyping of other religions.

The draft was adopted by a vote of 88 in favour to 52 against, with 33 abstentions.  (See Annex I.)

After the vote, the representative of Canada said his delegation was troubled by the fact that the resolution continued to stress the protection of one religion above all others.  The text also did not adequately address the link between racism and religious persecution.  Canada had voted against the draft.

The representative of Costa Rica said his delegation had voted in favour of the draft, but was concerned that it was the second time that a text on this important subject had been put to a vote.  He urged the co-sponsors of the draft to take note of the statements that had been made before and after its adoption, particularly those that had called attention to the fact that its subject matter focused on only one religion.

Chile’s representative said her delegation believed that the fight against defamation of religion was important and had voted in favour of the text.  But, in the future, Chile hoped that similar texts would address other religions.

The representative of Guatemala said her delegation condemned all defamation of religion and defended tolerance and freedom of worship.  But, at the same time, the text just adopted lacked balance and excluded the fact that followers of other religions and beliefs in other parts of the world were victims of human rights violations merely because of their expression of their faith.  Guatemala had voted against the resolution and hoped that future texts, if more inclusive, could be adopted by consensus.

Singapore’s representative said his delegation had voted in favour of the draft because it had become increasingly concerned by the irresponsible attempts to stereotype certain religions in certain quarters.  Singapore had been struck by how little people today knew about one another, even those who shared regions and borders.  It had also become concerned by the continuous attempts to sensationalize and stereotype certain religions.  By voting in favour of the draft, Singapore considered that the subject matter covered all religions.

In a general statement, the representative of Yemen, the draft’s main sponsor, said that the text had distributed the draft to all countries and had received no request for amendments during the negotiation phase.

Following that, the representative of Pakistan introduced the draft resolution on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/C.3/60/L.59), with a few minor technical corrections.  He said the right to self-determination was one of the cornerstones of the Charter and had been upheld by major resolutions and United Nations-backed conferences.  The text under consideration was a strong affirmation for that right, reflective of previous drafts adopted by the Committee on the matter.

The text was adopted without a vote.

After the adoption, the representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that his delegation had joined consensus because it believed that peoples right to self-determination was a key principle of international law and was entrenched in all the international human rights covenants.

Respect for the right required the holding of free and fair elections.  It also required respect for political and civil rights.  Still, the European Union would have preferred that the text been more broadly focused.  It also contained several inaccuracies that ran counter to international humanitarian law.  Further, the Union would have liked to have seen matters regarding the right of return more accurately reflected.

Liechtenstein ’s representative said his delegation had been a long-standing supporter of the right to self-determination and had consistently been advocating a staged approach, allowing discussion of different forms of self-governance.  The discussions leading up to today’s action did not leave any room for a more creative consideration of the matter.  The action taken today had been another failed opportunity to address the issue in a more constructive way.   Liechtenstein deplored such stagnation and hoped that, in the future, the Committee could move away from this “stale” perception of self-determination.

The representative of Argentina said the text should be interpreted and applied in accordance with previous Assembly resolutions dealing with the dispute between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falkland Islands, with a view to finding a peaceful settlement in line with the wishes of the people of the islands.

Venezuela ’s representative said her delegation dissociated itself form language in the text that made specific reference to the Outcome Document of the 2005 Wold Summit.

Algeria ’s representative said the right to self-determination was recognized as one of the founding principles of international law -- a prerequisite to the enjoyment of all other human rights.  The recognition of the exercise of that right, leading to decolonization, had freed countless peoples, including Algeria, from their colonial yokes.

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of the United Kingdom said his delegation’s position on the Falkland Islands was well known.  The United Kingdom had no doubts about its sovereignty over the Falklands and there could be no discussion of the matter, unless and until it was initiated by the people of the islands themselves.

The representative of Malaysia, the main sponsor of the draft on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/60/L.34), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and China, said he was concerned about unilateral actions which created obstacles to the full enjoyment of human rights, to trade, and to the well-being of populations, especially women, children, and the elderly.  The draft made a strong call against States on imposing coercive measure on other States.  He said he hoped the draft would be adopted by overwhelming support.

The Committee then adopted the measure by a vote of 121 in favour to 52 against.  (See Annex II.)

The representative of Malaysia, the main sponsor of the draft on enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (document A/C.3/60/L.35), said the draft reaffirmed the importance of international cooperation among Member States, which was essential for achieving the purposes of the United Nations.  States had a collective responsibility to uphold dignity and equity.  He thanked the other delegations for their constructive spirit in negotiations, and said he hoped the draft would be adopted by consensus.

The Committee then adopted the draft without a vote.

The representative of Cuba, the main sponsor of the draft on promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of all human rights by all (document A/C.3/60/L.49) read out amendments to the draft.  He said that it brought together different elements that could lead to the promotion of peace.  Some in the room might question them, even though they had been confirmed by the United Nations itself.  He asked other Member States for their support to affirm the commitment of everyone to peace.  Without peace there could be no human rights or fundamental freedoms.

The representative of Cuba said he wanted to ask for clarification from the delegation which asked for the vote, and renewed his call for all Member States to give their support.

The representative of Canada said the draft resolution was based on the Declaration of the Rights of Peoples to Peace, which was adopted in 1984.  Canada did not support that resolution.  She said she also had several concerns with respect to the right of peoples to peace, including the obligations of other States.  The draft focused on the relations between States rather than the rights of States to respect the rights of their citizens.  It also dealt with other matters, such as disarmament, that were more appropriate to the First Committee or other United Nations bodies.  She said she would welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsor on a compromise text in the future. 

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the draft presumed that peace was a prerequisite for the realization of human rights.  It dealt only with relations between States, not between States and their citizens, which was the Committee’s core mandate.  While he agreed with the underlying mandate, other issues were better suited to other fora that were more competent to deal with them.  His delegation would vote against the draft. 

The Committee then adopted the text by a vote of 113 in favour to 51 against, with 8 abstentions ( Argentina, Armenia, Chile Equatorial Guinea, India, Mexico, Samoa, Singapore).  (See Annex III.)

Following that action, the representative of Cuba, the main sponsor of the draft on respect for the principles of national sovereignty and diversity of democratic systems in electoral process as an important element for the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/C.3/60/L.50), said that the text recognized the right of peoples to determine the institutions of electoral process, thus highlighting that there was no single model for democracy.

Before action was taken, Cuba asked all delegations to support the text and which delegation had requested a recorded vote.  He was informed that the United States had requested the vote.

The text was approved by a vote of 106 in favour to 4 against ( Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, United States), with 61 abstentions.  (See Annex IV.)

After the vote, the representative of Venezuela said that her delegation had co-sponsored the draft, particularly because of the paragraphs dealing with the need to prevent attempts to undermine legitimately elected governments.

The Secretary read out a statement regarding financial provisions relating to the draft resolution on the right to food (document A/C.3/60/L.52/Rev.1). 

The representative of Cuba, the main sponsor of the draft, said hunger and malnutrition were still one of the most critical problems in world, despite the fact that enough food was produced to feed twice the world’s population.  The draft only attempted to make additional contributions to the fight against hunger, which was an unacceptable scourge from any point of view, in any society.  He read out an amendment to the draft and requested the Committee to give the draft its strong support.

The representative of Cuba said he wanted officially to know who had made the request for a recorded vote.

The delegate of the United States said she had requested the vote.

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of United States said her country had proved its profound commitment to food aid.  More than 60 per cent of food aid came from the United States, as a gift.  Although she agreed with some of the draft, she could not support it as written.  Attainment of the “right to adequate food” or the “right to be free from hunger” was a goal to be achieved progressively, without giving rise to international obligations or diminishing a Government’s commitment to its own citizens.  The current resolution contained numerous inaccuracies, as did previous ones.  It commended the work of the special rapporteur, with which her delegation disagreed in many respects.  He used his position as a novel forum for legal assertions regarding the right to food, which were not found in international law.  She said she hoped those concerns could be clarified in future years.

The Committee then adopted the draft by a vote of 171 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 1 abstention ( Israel).  (See Annex V.)

The Committee next took up the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Turkmenistan (document A/C.3/60/L.46), introduced by the representative of the United States, who introduced several technical revisions to the text following consultations with the delegation of Turkmenistan.  He said that this was the third consecutive year for this text and noted that the Government had taken some steps to address some of the issues that had been highlighted in those texts.

Nevertheless, much remained to be dome.  When Turkmenistan had become a Member of the United Nations, it had taken the obligation to promote religious and political freedoms.  The fact that individuals in that country must still answer to their Government about their religious beliefs was proof that such restrictions existed.

The representative of Malaysia said human rights issues must be addressed impartially on a global level, with respect to the principles of State sovereignty and non-intervention.  The Non-Aligned Movement would also call on Member States to cease the practice of “naming and shaming”.

The representative of Uzbekistan representative also reiterated his delegation’s opposition to the practice of country-specific resolutions.

The representative of Myanmar said his delegation was against resolutions that targeted developing countries under the pretext of human rights.  Indeed, all attempts to use human rights as a political tool must be rejected.

The representative of Cuba, said that once again, the Committee was involved in an exercise of cynicism, initiated by those who used chemical weapons against civilians and ruthlessly tortured and abused detainees in secret prisons around the world.  At the same time, those that had initiated the text would hold themselves out as arbiters of human rights.   Cuba was opposed the text.  He called for the Committee to vote against the draft.  

Turkmenistan ’s representative said her Government had informed the United Nations and relevant regional bodies about its actions to address the situation of human rights in that country.  The Government had also continued to express its willingness to work with others on the matter and was indeed currently working at several levels with the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  It had also taken major steps to guarantee religious and political freedoms, and had given citizenship and residency to some 16,000 refugees from different countries and of different beliefs.  That had been a major undertaking, which had not been reflected in the text.

Indeed, there was a “sad gap” between what had been presented in the text and the real situation on the ground in Turkmenistan.  The text was unbalanced and unfair, and put pressure on her country.   Turkmenistan would call for the Committee to never again consider such biased and selective texts.  Indeed, the decision taken on this draft would be a determining factor in the final outcome of the negotiations on the make-up and mandate of the new Human Rights Council, currently being negotiated by the wider Assembly.  She called for an adjournment of the debate.

Speaking in favour of the motion to adjourn, the representative of China said that it has been his delegation’s view that differences among and between countries on specific human rights issues should be resolved through dialogue.  Bringing such matters before the Committee only served to further polarize States.

The representative of Venezuela also spoke in favour of no action on the text, reaffirming her delegation’s opposition to texts which promoted division and selectivity.

Speaking in opposition, the representative of the United States urged all member States to allow consideration of the text on its merits and vote against the no action motion.  Was it not a hallmark of democratic institutions to debate all issues of concern openly?  Indeed, one of the basic principles of the United Nations was to serve as a forum to discuss human rights abuses and violations, particularly when such matters were considered beyond the scope of bilateral negotiations.  Further, many of the delegations that had spoken out against the text addressing the human rights situation in Turkmenistan had not hesitated to “name and shame” other States.

The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that it was a matter of principle for his delegation to vote against any motion for no action on a matter under debate by the Committee.  Where there had been positive developments in Turkmenistan, they had been mentioned in the text.  Nevertheless, much remained to be done in order for Turkmenistan to fulfil its international obligations.  The European Union therefore believed it was unthinkable for the Committee to ignore or gloss over human rights violations.

The motion for no action was rejected by a vote of 64 in favour to 70 against, with 26 abstentions.  (See Annex VI.)

Before a vote was taken on the text, the representative of Belarus said his delegation had consistently spoken against country-specific resolutions, believing that such texts were counter-productive.  It had also spoken against politicizing the Third Committee’s work.   Belarus would vote against the text.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that his delegation strongly opposed such country-specific texts.  At a time when reform of the Organization’s human rights machinery was under discussion, such politicization and selectivity was deeply troubling.  His delegation would vote against the text.

The representative of the Sudan said his delegation rejected the targeting of the human rights situations of developing countries, while ignoring such situations in developed countries.  He hoped that the new Human Rights Council would avoid such politicization.

The representative of Uzbekistan categorically rejected texts like the one under consideration and said the Committee should be ashamed for rejecting the no action motion.  He was disturbed that the countries sponsoring such texts seemed to have no interest at all in the willingness of the States whose human rights records were in question, to work to address the matter.  For that and other reasons, Uzbekistan would vote against the text.

The text was adopted by a vote of 70 in favour to 38 against, with 58 abstentions.  (See Annex VII.)

Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of Singapore said such resolutions were often driven by political rather than human rights considerations.  For that reason, Singapore had consistently abstained on such measures.  He also pointed to paragraph 1(b), which referred to the release of Jehovah’s witnesses who had made conscientious objections to military service, as well as concerns expressed elsewhere in the draft about conscientious objectors.  Singapore did not consider conscientious objection a right, much less a universally applicable one.  The right of national security must prevail.  How each State dealt with conscientious objectors was up to each individual State. 

The representative of Namibia said she had intended to abstain, rather than vote in favour of the resolution. 

ANNEX I

Vote on Defamation of Religions

The draft resolution on combating defamation of religions (document A/C.3/60/L.29), was adopted by a recorded vote of 88 in favour to 52 against, with 23 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Angola, Armenia, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, India, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, United Republic of Tanzania.

Absent:  Bahamas, Benin, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Fiji, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Mongolia, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Swaziland, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Zambia.

ANNEX II

Vote on Unilateral Coercive Measures

The draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/60/L.34) was adopted by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 52 against, with no abstentions as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  None.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Angola, Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Kiribati, Liberia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX III

Vote on Promotion of Peace

The draft resolution on the promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of human rights (document A/C.3/60/L.49) was adopted by a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 51 against, with 8 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States

Abstain:  Argentina, Armenia, Chile, Equatorial Guinea, India, Mexico, Samoa, Singapore.

Absent:  Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Iraq, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Respect for National Sovereignty

The draft resolution on respect for the principles of national sovereignty in electoral processes (document A/C.3/60/L.50) was adopted by a recorded vote of 106 in favour to 4 against, with 61 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Grenada, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX V

Vote on Right to Food

The draft resolution on the right to food (document A/C.3/60/L.52/Rev.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 171 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, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, 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, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Israel

Absent:  Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Kiribati, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Swaziland, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX VI

Vote on No-Action Motion

The motion to adjourn debate and action on the draft resolution on human rights in Turkmenistan (document A/C.3/60/L.46) was rejected by a recorded vote of 64 in favour to 70 against, with 26 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Eritrea, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, 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, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain:  Algeria, Brazil, Burundi, Cape Verde, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Iraq, Kenya, Mali, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay.

Absent:  Benin, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Gabon, Georgia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritania, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Human Rights in Turkmenistan

The draft resolution on human rights in Turkmenistan (document A/C.3/60/L.46) was adopted by a recorded vote of 70 in favour to 38 against, with 58 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Gambia, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nauru, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Philippines, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia.

Absent:  Benin, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Gabon, Georgia, Grenada, Kiribati, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mongolia, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Vanuatu.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record