THIRD COMMITTEE, TAKING ACTION ON 3 DRAFT RESOLUTIONS, APPROVES TEXT EXPRESSING DEEP CONCERN OVER HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN UZBEKISTAN

Sixtieth General Assembly

Third Committee

46^th Meeting (AM)

THIRD COMMITTEE, TAKING ACTION ON 3 DRAFT RESOLUTIONS, APPROVES TEXT

EXPRESSING DEEP CONCERN OVER HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN UZBEKISTAN

Measure Passed by 73 Votes in Favour, 38 Against, 58 Abstentions;

Reject Uzbek Representative’s Proposal Seeking ‘No Action’ Motion

Deeply concerned by the events that occurred in Uzbekistan’s eastern city of Andijan last May, and the subsequent response of the Uzbek authorities, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, Cultural) approved a draft resolution this morning by which the General Assembly would strongly call on the Uzbek Government to cooperate with United Nations human rights officials and grant permission for the establishment of an international commission of inquiry into the incident, in which massive street protests erupted into deadly violence.

The draft, one of three measures that the Committee approved today, passed by a vote of 73 in favour to 38 against, with 58 abstentions, marking the first time for the Committee to address the human rights situation in Uzbekistan.  (See Annex II.)  It was passed after delegates voted down a “no action motion” -- by a recorded 65 votes in favour to 75 against, with 28 abstentions -- following Uzbekistan’s proposal from the floor that the Committee adjourn debate on the matter.  (See Annex I.)

Expressing grave concern at “continuing and serious” human rights violations occurring in Uzbekistan, the draft, entitled “Situation of Human rights in Uzbekistan”, called strongly on the Government to, among other things, permit the full freedom of religious practice; register independent opposition political parties and allow them to participate in the electoral process; and lift restrictions on civil society, including non-governmental organizations.

[The text focused mainly on the events in Andijan, where hundreds of protesters were killed by Government forces on 13 May.  In a subsequent crackdown, hundreds of people fled to safety in neighbouring Kyrgyzstan.  Fifteen men have since been convicted in the first trial of 100 people accused of terrorism in connection with the unrest.  The fallout from the incident has been an ongoing concern for Louise Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, who said just last week that the trial had been marred by allegations of irregularities and that serious questions remained about its fairness.]

Rejecting the measure as a politically motivated attempt to “name and shame” the Uzbek Government, Alisher Vohidov, Permanent Representative of Uzbekistan, said the text was not based on credible fact, and it blocked the possibility for any State to maintain constitutional order within its own borders.  It neither described fully the events in Andijan nor mentioned that well-armed and organized terrorists, rather than innocent civilians, had initiated the confrontation.

Many delegations, particularly those belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement, also strongly opposed the text, and all other country-specific draft resolutions, saying that such measures routinely targeted developing countries while ignoring human rights abuses in the “mighty Powers”.  The politicized nature of such drafts created a confrontational and divisive atmosphere that was sure to carry over to wider discussions on the mandate of the new Human Rights Council, which was meant to replace the Geneva-based Commission on Human Rights, a body that had long been hamstrung by finger-pointing, selectivity and double standards.

Countering those arguments, Emyr Jones Parry, Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom and the draft’s main sponsor, said on behalf of the European Union that the text welcomed “limited positive steps” taken by the Uzbek Government over the past year.  But it also noted the “serious deterioration” of the wider human rights situation in Uzbekistan, as reported and documented by the Commission’s newly appointed independent human rights expert.

Emphasizing that no country, large or small, could be considered to be above or beyond consideration by international human rights bodies, he said the General Assembly was bound to act and could not “turn a blind eye” to the human rights situation in Uzbekistan or to the people of that country.

In other action today, the Committee approved by consensus a draft resolution on protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, which would have the Assembly stress that everyone was entitled to all the rights and freedoms recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and called upon States to raise awareness among national authorities about the importance of the obligations involved in combating terrorism.

The Committee also approved, without a vote, a draft resolution on the establishment of a United Nations human rights training and documentation centre for South-West Asia and the Arab region.  By that text, the General Assembly would welcome the initiative of the Government of Qatar to host the Centre, which would be supervised by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).  The Assembly would also request that the Secretary-General and the OHCHR support the Centre through an agreement with the host country and make resources available for its establishment.

By a draft resolution on the protection of and assistance to internally displaced persons, also approved by consensus, the General Assembly call upon Governments to protect, assist and reintegrate internally displaced persons and facilitate the efforts of relevant United Nations agencies and humanitarian organizations in that regard.

Other speakers today included the representatives of Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Norway, Azerbaijan, United States, India, Syria, Malaysia, Turkmenistan, Myanmar, Belarus, China, Canada, Barbados, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Sudan and the Russian Federation.

The Third Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 23 November, to take action on other outstanding draft resolutions.

Background

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

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 on Establishment of a United Nations human rights training and documentation centre for South-West Asia and the Arab region (document A/C.3/60/L.32), which would have the General Assembly take note with satisfaction of the continuing cooperation and assistance of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to further strengthen existing regional arrangements and machinery to promote and protect human rights, particularly through technical cooperation aimed at capacity building, public information and education.  The Assembly would also request that the Secretary-General and the OHCHR support the Centre through an agreement with the host country to set up and make resources available its establishment.

The draft on Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (document A/C.3/60/L.37/Rev.1) would have the Assembly deeply deplore violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the context of the fight against terrorism, as well as violations of international refugee law and international humanitarian law.  It would also deplore the suffering caused by terrorism to victims and their families.

By other terms of the draft, the Assembly would stress that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and call upon States to raise awareness among national authorities about the importance of obligations involved in combating terrorism.  Also, it would urge States to respect fully non-refoulement obligations under international refugee and human rights law, and request the Commission on Human Rights as well as United Nations human rights treaty bodies to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur.  It would encourage the Special Rapporteur to coordinate efforts with them, in order to promote a consistent approach.  It would also request all Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur and ask the High Commissioner to keep examining the question of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms while making general recommendations concerning the obligation of States on this issue and providing assistance to States and relevant United Nations bodies.

The draft on Protection of and assistance to internally displaced persons (document A/C.3/60/L.56/Rev.2) would have the Assembly encourage the Secretary-General’s Representative on the human rights of internally displaced persons to continue his analysis of the causes of internal displacement and the needs and rights of the displaced, as well as prevention, protection and assistance.  The Assembly would express particular concern over the violence and abuse, sexual exploitation, forced recruitment and abduction of many internally displaced women and children, and welcome the Representative’s commitment to pay closer attention to their protection and development needs, as well as those of severely traumatized individuals, older persons and disabled persons.

Further by that text, the Assembly would urge all Governments to continue to facilitate the Representative’s activities and seriously consider inviting the Representative to visit their countries so that he could advise them on internal displacement issues.  It would call upon Governments to protect, assist and reintegrate internally displaced persons and facilitate efforts of relevant United Nations agencies and humanitarian organizations in that regard.  In addition, the Assembly would emphasize the central role of the Emergency Relief Coordinator in coordinating inter-agency protection and assistance for internally displaced persons and the need to further strengthen inter-agency arrangements to meet humanitarian challenges facing such persons.  Further, it would encourage all relevant United Nations agencies and humanitarian assistance and development organizations to enhance collaboration through the Inter-Agency Standing Committee and in countries with internally displaced persons.

An amendment to the draft, as contained in document A/C.3/60/L.56/L.71, would have the Assembly express particular concern that many internal displacement situations are being paid insufficient attention owing to their protracted nature, and recognize the need for States and the international community to pay more systematic and in-depth attention to the assistance, protection and development needs of internally displaced persons in these situations.

Under its agenda item on human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives, the Committee was expected to take action on a draft relating to the Situation of human rights in Uzbekistan (document A/C.3/60/L.51), which would have the Assembly express its grave concern over allegations of serious human rights violations in Uzbekistan, particularly the Government’s use of indiscriminate and disproportionate force to quell the May 2005 Andijan demonstrations resulting in many civilian casualties; pressure to prevent Uzbek refugees from travelling to third countries; arbitrary arrest and detention; increasing restrictions on and harassment and censorship of journalists and civil society activities; continued blocking of opposition parties; lack of freedom of thought and religion; and serious constraints and harassment of non-governmental organizations and human rights defenders, including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Further by that text, the Assembly would deeply regret the Uzbek Government’s decision to reject repeated calls by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to set up an independent inquiry commission on the events in Andijan and request that the Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions visit Uzbekistan soon afterwards.  The Assembly would also strongly call upon the Uzbek Government to fully implement without delay the June 2005 recommendations of the report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, particularly authorizing the establishment of an independent inquiry commission into the events in Andijan; accede to the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol on refugee status; end harassment and detention of eyewitnesses to the Andijan events; ensure readily accessible and fair trials and full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and fully implement the recommendations of the Independent Expert on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.

By further terms, the Assembly would call upon the Government to permit religious freedom, fully implement the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, made following his 2002 visit to Uzbekistan, work closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and cooperate fully with the Commission on Human Rights and relevant United Nations treaty bodies.  It would also call upon the Government to give the ICRC access to Uzbek detainees, fully implement commitments undertaken in the framework of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), register independent opposition political parties and allow them to participate in the electoral process, and lift restrictions on civil-society activities.

Action on Draft Resolutions

The Committee Secretary read out a statement of the financial implications of the draft on Establishment of a United Nations human rights training and documentation centre for South-West Asia and the Arab region (document A/C.3/60/L.32).

The representative of Qatar, one of the main sponsors, then read out amendments to the draft, expressing the hope that it would be adopted without a vote.

The Committee then approved the text without a vote.

In a general statement after that action, the representative of Iran said that while pleased with the consensus, his delegation wished to disassociate itself from preambular paragraph 12.

Following that action, the representative of Mexico, the main sponsor of the draft on Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (document A/C.3/60/L.37), introduced several technical corrections to the text, saying that it not only reaffirmed the international community’s support for the protection of human rights in combating terrorism, but it also expressed support for the recently-appointed Special Rapporteur on that matter.

Speaking in explanation of position, the representative of Cuba said his delegation had some reservations about one of the amendments to the text, particularly regarding the overall United Nations anti-terrorism strategy, which was the subject of ongoing negotiations.   Cuba would stress that any resolution approved on the matter should not be seen to pre-judge the negotiations currently under way in the Sixth Committee (Legal).   Cuba would also oppose any unilateral attempts to define or outline the Organization’s counter-terrorism agenda.

The text was then approved without a vote.

Following that, the representative of Venezuela said her delegation did not support language in the draft that recognized the outcome of the 2005 World Summit.  Overall, matters regarding terrorism should remain in the purview of the Sixth Committee.

The Committee Secretary then read out a statement regarding financial provisions relating to the draft on Protection of and assistance to internally displaced persons (document A/C.3/60/L.56/Rev.2) and its amendments, contained in document A/C.3/60/L.71.

The representative of Norway, one of the draft’s main sponsors, read out amendments and said the text had traditionally been approved by consensus.  Based on the latest consultations, it was to be hoped that it would again be approved without a vote.

The representative of Azerbaijan, one of the main sponsors of the amendment contained in document A/C.3/60/L.71, said the amendment had been put forward to reflect situations of protracted displacement across the globe that especially had a long-term negative impact on children.  The issue should be given particular attention.  While appreciating Norway’s efforts to reach consensus, Azerbaijan wished to withdraw the amendment.

In a general statement before action, the representative of the United States said he welcomed the strong text and the actions that it called for from the United Nations and the international community.  The United States wholeheartedly joined others in deploring the practices of forced displacement, but had technical concerns about the language in preambular paragraph 10, which contained an incomplete description of conduct relating to deportation, displacement and forcible transport under the Rome Statute.  The paragraph said that the Statute defined such actions as crimes against humanity, but failed to address cases where the safety of a civilian population or military considerations were involved.  Such considerations were included in the Rome Statute and international and, subject to that understanding, the United States was pleased to join the consensus.

The Committee then approved the draft without a vote.

In a general statement after that action, the representative of India said that the issue of internally displaced persons belonged firmly to the humanitarian arm of the United Nations.  For that reason, it was good that the Committee had confined itself to human rights concerns.  Regarding operative paragraph 17, the information in the database on many countries was outdated.  India had reluctantly gone along with the resolution, but unless immediate steps were taken to update the database, the Indian delegation might not be able to accept such references to it in the future.

The representative of Syria said she had joined the consensus because it was necessary to pay attention to internally displaced persons, who were usually innocent victims of armed conflict and environmental disasters.  Given that States needed to negotiate while adopting documents concerning international cooperation, Syria wished to state its reservations over preambular paragraphs 6 and 11, as well as operative paragraphs 8 and 9.

Next, the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union, main sponsors of the draft on the Situation of human rights in Uzbekistan (document A/C.3/60/L.51), welcomed the positive steps taken to date by that country’s Government, but said he remained concerned by the steps it had taken in Andijan mid-May.  There had been a serious deterioration in Uzbekistan’s human rights situation and the Government had shown a reluctance to cooperate and address the serious concerns of the international community and the United Nations.  While it was the first time that a draft on the country’s human rights situation had been tabled, the scale of the deaths in Andijan, the Government’s reluctance to address the situation and the further deterioration of human rights called for action by the General Assembly.

In a general statement before action, the representative of Malaysia said his country’s position on country-specific resolutions was well known, but he would reiterate the view of the Non-Aligned Movement, which called for human rights issues to be addressed according to the principles of respect for State sovereignty and non-interference.  Malaysia was opposed to all such resolutions and would call on States tabling such texts to seek a collaborative and cooperative approach.

The representative of Cuba said the present exercise had nothing at all to do with the promotion of human rights on a global level.  Apparently, when the geopolitical winds changed, the motives of those who would promote such disingenuous measures changed as well.  Meanwhile, those same supporters of country-specific measures never tabled resolutions to address human rights situations in their own countries and regions.  Cuba feared that those same ills, geopolitical and ideological self-interests would be carried over to the new Human Rights Council currently under negotiation.

The representative of Turkmenistan said that the human rights situation in neighbourly Uzbekistan had come before the Committee only because of politically motivated posturing.  Indeed, it appeared that Non-Aligned Movement States members were being increasingly targeted by that practice, and that all Member States had a duty to reject such moves.

The representative of Venezuela reiterated her delegation’s opposition to the selective condemnation of human rights situations in developing countries, and deplored the fact that such politically motivated texts continued to be brought before the Committee.  That only served to undermine the body’s work, even at a time when wider organizational reform discussions were under way.  Venezuela would oppose the text.

The representative of Myanmar said that because of bilateral issues a country-specific draft resolution had been tabled under the pretext of human rights.  That subject should be addressed on a global level and not used as an instrument of political pressure.  Myanmar would stand in solidarity with Uzbekistan in opposing the draft.

The Permanent Representative of Uzbekistan said he had come to the meeting understanding that the rules of the game had been set:  the roles of who would beat and those who would be beaten had already been defined and would play out accordingly.  And Uzbekistan thanked the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom for his presence, its delegation asked, nevertheless, whether those condemning human rights in certain countries had really looked into the eyes of the condemned.  Had they taken a real look at the situations on the ground?  When such draft resolutions were acted upon, they were seen as expressions of the international community as a whole, but no one could say that they were ever approved by an outstanding majority of Member States.

He said he had also been struck by the not-so-subtle change in position of some States.  At regional meetings and conferences, political representatives had expressed opposition to country-specific texts, but when it came to action in the Assembly, those same representatives voted contrary to their prior expressed positions.  It was clear that political pressure was playing a part in that, but at the same time, everyone should realize that a text that “named and shamed” one country shamed all Member States.

As for the text under consideration today, its language was weak and not a single paragraph had been based on credible facts, he said.  It also blocked any possibility for a State to protect constitutional order within its own borders and did not describe the May incident in Andijan.  Neither did the text mention that the confrontation had been launched not by innocent civilians but by well-armed, well-organized terrorist groups.  Those delegations that usually abstained in such votes must stand in solidarity with Uzbekistan in opposing the draft.  “You well notice the difference; you will feel stronger”, he said, calling for an adjournment of the discussion.

Speaking in favour of the “no action motion” proposed by Uzbekistan, the representative of Belarus said that those who viewed the procedural motion as a sign that certain countries did not care about human rights were sorely mistaken.  Rather, a motion for no action was a “rule of last resort” for those that had no other choice.  Countries that invoked the rule did believe in human rights and wanted to engage not in divisive debates but in fair dialogue with all States.

Noting that country resolutions worked to promote the political agendas of those who sponsored them, he said they also worked to beat down and cow the national Governments of developing countries.  They also ruined whatever chance for negotiations that might have been possible as they gave the illusion that the “rubber stamp” of a venerable multilateral organization had taken care of perceived problems.  Delegations should not walk away or abstain from the vote, but support the no action motion.

The representative of China expressed support for the motion, saying that the protection of human rights should be addressed through dialogue and cooperation.  But in the United Nations and the Third Committee, certain countries always set themselves up as human rights arbiters, “naming and shaming” developing countries.  If those countries really cared about human rights, why had they never submitted resolutions concerning abuses in their own countries?

Opposing the use of procedural motions to stifle debate on serious human rights concerns, Canada ’s representative said that one of the Committee’s main tasks was precisely to address such difficult issues, particularly when international human rights norms were being ignored or flouted.  The Committee must send a signal to the international community that it would continue to examine the merits of human rights situations put before it.  Canada called on all delegations to vote against the motion.

The Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that no country, large or small, could be considered to be above or beyond consideration by international human rights bodies.  The General Assembly was bound to act.  Did the charge of double standards mean that the Assembly was never to address grave human rights abuses in some countries?  In fact, the text did recognize the “limited positive steps” taken by the Uzbek Government over the past year, but it also noted the serious deterioration of the wider human rights situation throughout the country, as reported and documented by the independent rights expert dealing with it.

Indeed, he said, he had missed in the Uzbek Permanent Representative’s statement any expression of willingness to cooperate with the High Commissioner for Human Rights.  The no action motion asked the Assembly to turn a blind eye to the situation of human rights in Uzbekistan, as well as to the people of that country.  The motion gave no hope to those whose governments would not respect international human rights and humanitarian norms -- basic rights that the United Nations was supposed to ensure and protect.  Delegations were urged to vote against the motion.

The motion was then rejected by a vote of 65 in favour to 75 against, with 28 abstentions (Annex I).

Before action on the draft, the representative of Belarus reiterated his delegation’s opposition to country-specific texts, which he said continued to politicize United Nations human rights mechanisms.  That trend had long hamstrung the work of the Geneva-based Commission on Human Rights, and Belarus rejected the trend of pressuring governments under the guise of “promoting and protection” human rights.  The sponsors of such drafts should rethink their approach and to seek dialogue and cooperation.

Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of Barbados said his delegation would abstain in the vote, particularly because of its opposition to divisive country-specific drafts.  That did not mean that it was not concerned about the protection and promotion of human rights in all countries.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said national interests should not be disguised as concern for human rights.  Uzbekistan had a sovereign right to maintain constitutional order within its borders and no country had a right to intervene in any way in its affairs.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would vote against the draft.

The representative of the Sudan rejected the use of human rights as a means to advance political agendas or settle old scores.  Such tactics targeted developing countries but turned a blind eye to human rights abuses in mighty States.  Hopefully, the new Human Rights Council could avoid such pitfalls.  The Sudan would vote against the text.

The representative of the Russian Federation said his delegation was also against the draft and had stressed from the beginning that the situation in Uzbekistan did not warrant the tabling of a resolution.  It appeared that the co-sponsors of the text had some sort of political agenda to promote, and other delegations should vote against it.

The representative of Turkmenistan said that voting on the draft had elicited much bitterness within the Committee, proving her delegation’s belief that such resolutions were not positive but led to divisiveness and distrust.  Turkmenistan would vote against the text.

The Permanent Representative of Uzbekistan reiterated that anyone wishing sincerely to address the human rights situation in his country would not find the true picture reflected in the lines of the text.  Further, the assertion that Uzbekistan was not cooperating with the international community on human rights matters was incorrect; the Government had been in close contact with the Commission on Human Rights.  The text had not been shown to the Uzbek delegation beforehand, even after it had proposed working together on an investigation into the events in Andijan.

From the very beginning, Uzbekistan’s good intentions had been rejected, he said, asking what type of cooperation the co-sponsors were referring to.  Indeed, it appeared that the co-sponsors were merely trying to push the draft through.  The text had created a confrontational atmosphere that would no doubt continue through to wider discussion on the mandate of the new Human Rights Council.  Uzbekistan urged all delegations to “show your true colours” and vote down the draft.

The draft resolution was then approved by a vote of 73 in favour to 38 against, with 58 abstentions (Annex II).

ANNEX I

Vote on Motion to Adjourn Debate in Draft Resolution

The motion to adjourn debate and action on the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Uzbekistan (document A/C.3/60/L.51) was rejected by a recorded vote of 65 in favour to 75 against, with 28 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, 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, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, 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:  Algeria, Brazil, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, Iraq, Kenya, Mali, Mauritius, Nauru, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay.

Absent:  Benin, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mongolia, Mozambique, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia.

ANNEX II

Vote on Human Rights in Uzbekistan

The draft resolution in the situation of human rights in Uzbekistan (document A/C.3/60/L.51) was approved by a recorded vote of 73 in favour to 38 against, with 58 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, 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, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, 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, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

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

Abstain:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Republic of Korea, 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, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mongolia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Ukraine.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record