HUMAN RIGHTS IN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO, ELIMINATION OF RACISM, GLOBALIZATION ADDRESSED IN THIRD COMMITTEE TEXTS

Sixtieth General Assembly

Third Committee

47^th & 48^th Meetings (AM & PM)

HUMAN RIGHTS IN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO , ELIMINATION OF RACISM,

GLOBALIZATION ADDRESSED IN THIRD COMMITTEE TEXTS

Concluding Current Session Also Recommends Draft Concerning

Rights to Development, UN Role in Elections, Protection of Migrants

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) today concluded its sixtieth session by approving nine drafts on a wide range of issues, including the elimination of racism and racial discrimination; human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms; human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives; and revitalization of the General Assembly’s work.

The text on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo -- approved by a recorded vote of 96 in favour to 2 against (Rwanda, Uganda), with 66 abstentions -- would have the General Assembly condemn ongoing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, particularly in North Kivu, South Kivu, northern Katanga and other eastern parts of the country, against civilians, United Nations peacekeeping troops and human rights workers, as well as urge all parties to the conflict to ensure the safe and free movement of such people, cease hostilities and support the transitional Government in re-establishing political and economic stability.  (See Annex IX.)

Over the objections of the representatives of Guinea-Bissau, Rwanda and Uganda, the Committee voted to retain a preambular paragraph in the draft that recalled previous resolutions on the subject, as well as those of the Commission on Human Rights and the Security Council, and an operative paragraph that encouraged the international community to keep up political pressure on concerned States and armed groups in the eastern part of the country, in order to limit their fund-raising capacity.  (See Annexes VII and VIII.)

The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s representative said those two paragraphs were key components of the resolution and that Uganda and countries which had fomented trouble in the Great Lakes region, and committed serious human rights violations in his country could not shirk on their responsibilities.  He added that, although he had reservations on parts of the draft, he had agreed to them in order to reach consensus.  Despite the draft’s weak wording, it clearly appealed for the enhancement of the rule of law and justice.  The task now was for emergency programmes to become support programmes of the judicial system, he said, stressing that without national structures to protect human rights there would be no genuine reconciliation or long-term peace.

The Committee also approved, by a recorded vote of 84 in favour to 79 against, with 12 abstentions, a motion by Nigeria’s representative to adjourn the debate on a draft on situation of human rights in the Sudan.  (See Annex V.)

Delegates supporting the motion said the text was like other country-specific resolutions before the Committee that aimed to name and blame select countries for human rights violations, and represented the kind of selectivity, double standards and politicization that the United Nations human rights reform was attempting to eliminate.  Notwithstanding, the representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union, and the main sponsor of the draft, said it was necessary to confront and make a stand on very grave situations on the ground, and that the situation in Darfur was the most serious and deserving case at present.  He appealed to all to give the issue the substantive discussion it deserved.

By a draft approved on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the Assembly would emphasize States’ responsibility to combat criminal acts motivated by such intolerance through effective measures, including fair immigration policies that were compatible with international human rights instruments, and educational curricula and social programmes that promoted respect for foreign cultures, peoples and countries.  The texts was approved by a vote of 122 in favour to 3 against ( Israel, Marshall Islands, United States), with 2 abstentions ( Australia, Canada).  (See Annex VI.)

A draft on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights would call for putting development at the forefront of the international economic agenda, through national development strategies aimed at creating inclusive, equitable globalization and achieving international development targets such as poverty reduction.  The text would also call for an equitable, transparent and democratic international system to strengthen and broaden developing countries’ participation in international economic decision-making and norm-setting, as well as continued analysis of globalization’s consequences on human rights.  The text was approved by a vote of 117 in favour and 51 against, with 4 abstentions ( Brazil, Chile, Iraq, Singapore).  (See Annex I.)

A text on the right to development would have the General Assembly call for greater international and national acceptance and implementation of the right to development and underscore the fact that the international community was far from meeting the millennium target of halving by 2015 the number of people living in poverty.  Further, it would urge developed countries to make good on their commitment to earmark 0.7 per cent of gross national product for official development assistance, and would stress the need to integrate children’s rights -- particularly in health and education -- into all policies and programmes, and for greater national and international efforts to fight corruption and HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases.  The draft was approved by a vote of 172 in favour to 2 against ( Marshall Islands, United States), with 5 abstentions ( Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Sweden.) (Annex II).

The text on strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine elections and the promotion of democratization, called for regular updates by the Department of Political Affairs Electoral Assistance Division on requests received and the nature of assistance provided, as well as adequate time to organize and carry out any United Nations electoral assistance mission to ensure free and fair elections and comprehensive and consistent reporting.  The text was approved by a vote of 173 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions ( Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libya, Myanmar).  (See Annex IV.)

Prior to the text adoption, the fifth preambular paragraph was approved by a vote of 123 in favour to none against, with 35 abstentions.  (See Annex III.)

The text on human rights and cultural diversity, approved without a vote, emphasized the link between respect for diversity and human rights promotion, peace and development, and called on all actors to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equality, and human dignity.  It also called for political and legal systems that reflected multicultural diversity within societies, improved democratic institutions and to end marginalization of any group.

The text on protection of migrants, also approved without a vote, strongly condemned racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against migrants -- including their access to employment, vocational training, housing, schooling, health and social services -- and called on States to apply existing laws to penalize such acts, as well as revise immigration policies to eliminate all discriminatory practices against migrants and their families.

The Committee also approved a draft on the programme of work of its sixty-first session. 

The representatives of Bahamas, Belgium, Botswana, Canada, China, Cuba,

Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Jamaica (on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China), Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Poland, Rwanda, Singapore, South Africa (on behalf of the Southern African Development Community), Turkey, Uganda, United States and Venezuela also made statements.

Background

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

Under its agenda item on elimination of racism and racial discrimination, the Committee was expected to take action on a draft on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/C.3/60/L.63/Rev.1), which would have the Assembly underline the importance of urgently eliminating violent trends involving racism and racial discrimination.  It would have the Assembly express its profound concern about and its unequivocal condemnation of all forms of racism and racial discrimination, while expressing deep concern at recent attempts to establish hierarchies among emerging and resurgent forms of racism and related intolerance. 

It would emphasize the responsibility of States to adopt effective measures to combat criminal acts motivated by such intolerance and urge States to adopt measures to address them.  It would further urge all States to review and, where necessary, revise their immigration policies so that they are free of racial discrimination and compatible with international human rights instruments.  It would condemn the misuse of media and new communication technologies to incite violence motivated by racial hatred, and call upon States to take all necessary measures to combat this form of racism in accordance with the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.  It would also encourage all States to include in their educational curricula and social programmes knowledge of and tolerance and respect for foreign cultures, peoples and countries. 

Further, it would urge the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human rights to maintain on its website a list of countries that have not yet ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and to commit to meeting the deadline for universal ratification as decided upon by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.  It would also express concern at the serious backlog caused by overdue reports submitted to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination while making a strong appeal to all States parties to comply with their treaty obligations.  In addition, it would call upon States that have not yet elaborated their national action plans on the combating of such ills, to comply with their commitments undertaken at the conference, and call upon all States to implement without delay plans of action at the national, regional and international levels. 

It would further express its concern at the increasing incidence of racism in various sporting events.  In that regard, it would invite the Fédération Internationale de Football Association to consider introducing a visible theme on non-racism in connection with the World Cup tournaments to be held in Germany in 2006 and in South Africa in 2010.

Additionally, it would recognize with deep concern the increase in violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed against communities of people of African, Asian and Arab descent, indigenous people, and Christian, Jewish, Muslim and various religious communities.  It would also recognize with deep concern the increase in anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and Islamophobia in various parts of the world, as well as the emergence of racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas. 

Under the 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 the draft on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/C.3/60/L.31), which would have the Assembly emphasize that development should be at the centre of the international economic agenda, and that coherence between national development strategies and international obligations and commitments was imperative to enable development and inclusive, equitable globalization.  The Assembly would also call upon Member States, relevant United Nations agencies, intergovernmental organizations and civil society to promote equitable and environmentally sustainable economic growth, to manage globalization in order to systematically reduce poverty and achieve international development targets.

Further, the Assembly would underline the urgent need to establish an equitable, transparent and democratic international system to strengthen and broaden developing countries’ participation in international economic decision-making and norm-setting, as well as the need to continue to analyze globalization’s consequences for the full enjoyment of all human rights.

The draft on the right to development (document A/C.3/60/L.36) would have the Assembly stress that poverty eradication is one of the critical elements in the realization of the right to development.  It would also stress the need to strive for greater acceptance and realization of the right to development at the international and national levels, and call upon States to institute the required measures.  It would further emphasize the critical importance of identifying and analyzing obstacles impeding the full realization of that right at both the national and international levels.  It would underline the fact that the international community is far from meeting the Millennium Goal of halving the number of people living in poverty by 2015, and emphasize the principle of international cooperation between developed and developing countries towards achieving the goal.

It would urge developed countries that have not yet done so to work towards meeting the targets of 0.7 per cent of their gross national product (GNP) for official development assistance (ODA) to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.2 per cent to least developed countries, while encouraging developing countries to ensure that the assistance is used effectively.  It would further call for the implementation of a desirable pace of meaningful trade liberalization.

The draft would stress the need for the integration of the rights of children in all policies and programmes, especially in health, education and full development of their capacity.  It would further stress that additional measures must be taken at the national and international levels to fight HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases.  It would also emphasize the urgent need for measures to fight corruption, as well as the need to strengthen the activities of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in promoting the right to development. 

The draft on strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine elections and the promotion of democratization (document A/C.3/60/L.43) would have the Assembly request the Electoral Assistance Division of the Department of Political Affairs to continue informing Member States regularly about the requests received and the nature of any assistance provided.  It would also request that the United Nations ensure, before undertaking to provide electoral assistance, that there is adequate time to organize and carry out an effective mission, that conditions exist for a free and fair election and that the mission’s results will be reported comprehensively and consistently.  Further, it would request the Secretary-General to provide the Electoral Assistance Division with adequate resources to carry out its mandate.  It would also ask him to ensure that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is able to respond to the numerous and increasingly complex requests from Member States for advisory services.  In addition, it would request the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to continue its governance assistance programmes in cooperation with other relevant organizations.

The draft on human rights mainstreaming in the United Nations system (document A/C.3/60/L.44/Rev.1), and amendments thereto contained in document A/C.3/60/L.73, would have the Assembly underline the need for wider knowledge within the entire United Nations system of human rights issues.  It would call upon Member States to integrate the promotion and protection of human rights into national policies and further contribute actively towards mainstreaming of human rights within the United Nations system.  It would also call upon Member States to consider urgently contributing to the joint initiative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Development Group, and the Executive Committee for Humanitarian Affairs, on strengthening support for national human rights protection and promotion systems worldwide.

The draft on human rights and cultural diversity (document A/C.3/60/L.55) would have the General Assembly express its determination to prevent and mitigate cultural homogenization, in the context of globalization, through cultural exchanges and the promotion and protection of cultural diversity, to emphasize the promotion of cultural pluralism at the national, regional, and international levels, enhancing respect for cultural diversity, and also emphasize that respect for diversity promotes human rights. 

Further to the text, the Assembly would urge all actors on the international scene to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equality, and human dignity, rejecting all forms of racism and intolerance.  It would also urge States to ensure that their political and legal systems reflect multicultural diversity within their societies, improve democratic institutions and avoid marginalization of any group.  Further, it would call upon States, international organizations, the United Nations and other non-governmental organizations to promote cultural diversity to advance the causes of peace development and human rights.

The draft on protection of migrants (document A/C.3/60/L.57/Rev.1) would have the Assembly strongly condemn acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them, and would urge States to apply the existing laws when such acts occur.  It would also call upon States to implement the commitments contained in the Durban Declaration and Program of Action.  Further, it would strongly condemn all forms of racial discrimination and xenophobia related to access to employment, vocational training, housing, schooling, health and social services.  It would call upon all States to consider reviewing and, where necessary, revising immigration policies to eliminate all discriminatory practices against migrants and their families. 

It would request States to promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, especially women and children.  It would urge States parties to the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and its two supplementing protocols, to implement them fully while calling upon States that have not ratified them to do so as a matter of priority.  It would reaffirm emphatically the duty of States parties to ensure full respect for the observance of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, particularly the right of all foreign nationals to communicate with a consular official of the sending State in the case of arrest or imprisonment, as well as reaffirm emphatically the obligation of the receiving State to inform without delay the foreign national of his or her rights under the Convention. 

It would further call upon States to facilitate family reunification in an expeditious manner.  It would call upon States to protect and promote all human rights of migrant children, particularly unaccompanied migrant children, and underline the importance of reuniting them with their parents.  It would request all States to enforce labour law effectively, including by addressing violations regarding migrant workers’ labour relations and working conditions.  It would call upon States to observe national legislation and applicable international legal instruments when enacting national security measures in order to respect the human rights of migrants.  Finally, it would call upon States that have not yet done so to enact domestic legislation and take further effective measures to combat and prosecute international trafficking in and smuggling of migrants. 

Under its agenda item on human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives, the Committee was expected to take action on the draft on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/C.3/60/L.41/Rev.1).  That text would have the Assembly condemn the ongoing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, particularly in North Kivu, South Kivu, northern Katanga and other eastern parts of the country, including armed violence against civilians and sexual violence against women and children, the killing of United Nations peacekeeping troops in the Ituri province and human rights worker Pascal Kabungulu Kibembi, harassment of human rights defenders, the continued illegal exploitation of natural resources in the east and related human rights abuses.

The Assembly would also urge all parties to the conflict to:  further implement the Global and All-Inclusive Agreement and immediately cease action impeding the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity; support the transitional Government in re-establishing political and economic stability; immediately stop recruitment of child soldiers; and implement without delay action plans called for in Security Council resolutions 1539 and 1612.  Further, the Assembly would urge parties to protect women and children from violence and condemn, in particular, the widespread use of sexual violence as a means of warfare, while urging parties to ensure the safe and free movement of all civilians, United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers and human rights defenders.

In addition, the Assembly would call upon the Government of National Unity and Transition to:  hold free and transparent elections within the specified time frame; restructure and ensure human rights training for the national army, national police force and other government institutions; ensure the surrender of light and heavy weapons; set up the Independent Electoral Commission; and improve the effectiveness of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Human Rights Monitoring Centre and the Haute-Autorité des Médias.

Further it would call upon the Government to re-establish stability and the rule of law, comply fully with international human rights obligations and continue to cooperate with United Nations human rights mechanisms, while ensuring that perpetrators of human rights violations and grave breaches of international humanitarian law are brought to justice.  It would also call upon the Government to carry out a comprehensive judicial and prison system reform, promote the full enjoyment of all human rights by women and children, continue to cooperate with the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and abolish the death penalty.  It would further call upon the Government to prevent the use of the media to incite hatred, protect human rights defenders from threats and harassment, accelerate its programme to demobilize, disarm and reintegrate former combatants, increase efforts to eliminate corruption and strengthen good governance and transparent economic management.

The draft would also have the Assembly call upon the region’s Governments to contribute to preventing armed groups operating in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo from perpetrating killings and other serious crimes, by tackling the illicit trade by these armed groups in illegally extracted natural resources and arms.  It would also call upon them to fully respect the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the country, and work with the United Nations mission there to urgently disarm and resettle or repatriate foreign armed groups, support the transitional process and adhere fully to the Principles on Good-neighbourly Relations and Cooperation between the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda.

In addition, it would call upon them to implement the Joint Verification Mechanism, work through the Tripartite Commission Plus One and respect the principles of the November 2004 Dar es Salaam Declaration.  Finally, it would call upon them to ensure the rights and well-being of internally displaced persons, returnees and refugee populations, peacefully repatriate members of the Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda returning to Rwanda, continue to cooperate with the Court and the Tribunal for Rwanda and swiftly pass legislation necessary for the Court’s investigations to proceed smoothly. 

The draft on situation of human rights in the Sudan (document A/C.3/60/L.47) would have the Assembly express concern at delays in the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and in the establishment of the Assessment and Evaluation Commission.  It would also express concern at the protracted humanitarian crisis in Darfur, the recent upsurge in violence and continuing climate of impunity there, and the forced relocation of displaced people.  It would condemn continued violations of the Ceasefire Agreement and the Abuja Protocols, as well as continued violence against civilians, humanitarian agencies, non-governmental organizations and African Union staff, and the imposition of the death penalty and cruel, inhuman punishments.

It would call on all parties to participate without preconditions at the Abuja talks, cease all acts of violence and respect fully the N’djamena Ceasefire Agreement and the Abuja Protocols.  It would further call on them to grant immediate, safe and unhindered humanitarian access to Darfur and elsewhere in the Sudan, to cooperate fully with humanitarian agencies and United Nations and African Union bodies, and to cooperate fully in the implementation of Security Council resolutions 1296 (2000), 1325 (2000), 1556 (2004), 1590 (2005), 1591 (2005) and 1593 (2005).  It would also call on them to grant the International Committee of the Red Cross access to all persons detained under their authority, and to avoid the spread of violence to other parts of the Sudan.

It would call on the Government of National Unity to comply fully with its international human rights obligations and fulfil commitments it has made to ratify treaties.  In addition, it would call on the Government to move forward with the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and cooperate fully with the International Criminal Court.  It would also call on the Government to stop human rights violations, strengthen the independence of the judiciary, guarantee freedom of expression, promote a peaceful solution in East Sudan, disarm the Janjaweeed militias, and continue its programme to demobilize, disarm and reintegrate former combatants, taking into account the special needs of women and children associated with those combatants. 

Under the agenda item on revitalization of the work of the General Assembly, the Committee was expected to take action on the draft on programme of work for the sixty-first session (A/C.3/60/L.72). 

Action on Draft Resolutions

The Committee Secretary began the meeting by reading out a correction to the draft resolution on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/C.3/60/L.31).

The representative of Egypt, the draft’s main sponsor, then read oral revisions to that draft and said the Committee was not able to reach consensus on some paragraphs.  He noted a strong determination to narrow the outstanding gaps and expressed hope that the Committee would do just that during its next session.

Speaking before the vote, representative of Venezuela said before any discussion of globalization could begin, poverty must be combated.   Venezuela could not co-sponsor the draft because globalization had not provided major opportunities.  Not enough was being done to integrate countries into the world economy or to ensure equitable distribution of globalization’s benefits. 

The Committee then approved the draft by a recorded vote of 117 in favour to 51 against, with 4 abstentions ( Brazil, Chile, Iraq, Singapore).  (See Annex I.)

The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of European Union, said changes made to this year’s draft did not reflect fundamental disagreements among delegations.  He could not support the resolution, nor was he convinced that globalization had an impact on all human rights.  Some rights were not affected by globalization.  The relationship between globalization and human rights should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The Committee Secretary then read out a statement of financial implications on the draft on the right to development (document A/C.3/60/L.36).

The representative of Malaysia, the draft’s main sponsor, speaking on behalf of the Non-aligned Movement, read out amendments to the draft.  He thanked delegates for their spirit of consensus and expressed hope that a positive vote would represent their commitment to the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.

The representative of the United States said her delegation opposed the resolution and therefore requested a vote.  The United States understood the right to development to mean that each individual should enjoy that right to the maximum extent through the full range of civil and political rights.  The draft’s reference to the Millennium Development Goals was inconsistent with the Summit Outcome and should not be repeated in this or any other resolutions.  The United States would vote against it.

The Committee then approved the draft by a recorded vote of 172 in favour to 2 against ( Marshall Islands, United States), with 5 abstentions ( Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Sweden).  (See Annex II.)

Following the vote the representative of Canada said Canada had abstained.  He supported the right to development as providing a framework among all civil, political and cultural rights.  Developing countries needed additional resources through the private sector, trade and ODA to achieve those rights.   Canada’s ODA provisions were both effective and focused.  However, Canada had reservations about the resolution because the Working Group on the Right to Development’s outcomes on development concerning to international trade and development policies were not consistent with current discussions on the issue in more appropriate fora.  Canada would continue to engage in constructive dialogue on this issue to reach consensus in the future.

The representative of Japan said Japan had also abstained from the vote, stressing that further discussion was needed in order to hammer out an equitable concept on the right to development.  The international community should extend cooperation to promote development through partnerships.   Japan had contributed 20 per cent of the world’s ODA during the past decade and would continue its efforts in that regard. 

In a general statement after the vote, the representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union, stressed the need for the full commitment of States to step up implementation of the right to development.  States were primarily responsible for creating national conditions conducive for implementation.  He strongly supported partnerships between developing and developed countries and the need for an enabling international economic environment.  The European Union had made several proposals to strengthen the text, but the document still contained paragraphs that it considered unnecessary and unbalanced.  Future texts should be streamlined and more narrowly focused on the Third Committee’s human rights agenda and the substantive work in Geneva. 

The representative of the United States, one of the main sponsors of the draft on strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine elections and the promotion of democratization (document A/C.3/60/L.43), read out revisions to the draft.  She said the draft recognized the vital role of the United Nations in electoral assistance and requested that it continue to provide such assistance on a case-by-case basis.  United Nations electoral assistance could support the fair and transparent administration of electoral laws and practices that met international standards.  She urged the Committee to support such important work by adopting the draft. 

In a general statement before action, the representative of Cuba said he wished to request a separate vote on preambular paragraph 5, which had just been orally revised by the representative of the Untied States.  The reason, he said, was because that paragraph, which included references to resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights, represented a selective view of democracy.  Those resolutions sought to promote one single model of democracy, as opposed to the important outcome of the 1993 Vienna Conference on Human Rights and other important documents and treaties.  The current draft would remove the right to freedom and self-determination of peoples.  His delegation had wished to include further references to Commission on Human Rights resolutions that provided a more balanced outlook on democracy, but its request was rejected. 

The committee then approved the orally revised preambular paragraph 5 of the draft by a vote of 123 in favour to none against, with 35 abstentions.  (See Annex III).

The representative of the United States said she would like to know who had requested a vote on the resolution.

The Secretary said that according to Rule 129, a general vote on a draft was required once a vote on an amendment had been requested.

Egypt said he thought rule 130 applied, since the vote had been on whether to retain a paragraph, and it had been retained.

The Secretary explained the interpretation of the Secretariat.  Cuba wanted to vote on a particular paragraph.  The Committee had debated at length last week whether to vote upon a paragraph or the request to delete a particular paragraph.  Whenever a delegation moved to divide a proposal, e.g., by voting on a particular paragraph or language, it was in accordance with Rule 129.  When a delegation moved to delete a paragraph, that constituted an amendment and therefore fell under Rule 130.  In the current case, Cuba wanted a vote on a paragraph, which therefore fell under Rule 129. 

The representative of Cuba said he wished to support what had been said by the Secretariat.  His delegation did not intend to submit the entire resolution to a vote.  He was flexible and could also accept the interpretation given by the representative of Egypt, namely that rule 130 would apply.  He said he was willing to follow the Committee on this. 

The Chairman said the rules were clear, and that the Committee would proceed to vote on the resolution as a whole.

The Committee then approved the measure by a vote of 173 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions ( Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libya, Myanmar).  (See Annex IV.)

The Secretary read out revisions to the draft on Human Rights and Cultural Diversity (document A/C.3/60/L.55).

The representative of Iran, one of the main sponsors of the draft, also read out revisions to the draft.  He thanked all delegations and said he hoped the draft would be adopted by consensus.

In a general statement before action, the representative of Iraq said she wished to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the second paragraph was not contained in the Arabic translation.

The Secretary said that issue would be addressed.

The Committee then approved the draft without a vote.

In explanation of position the representative of the United States said she was pleased to join consensus.  She noted that her delegation interpreted operative paragraph 3, as it had in the past, to incorporate the principle on mutually agreed terms.  The right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications could only be achieved in conjunction with the right of everyone to moral or material interest from scientific, literary and other production, as reflected in Article 27.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union, and as the main sponsor of the draft on the situation of human rights in the Sudan (document A/C/3/60/L.47), said the progress made in the last 18 months in the Sudan, against historical background, was very positive.  He paid tribute to the role of parties to the conflict to make progress, but expressed grave concern over the continuing human rights and humanitarian law violations in Darfur and more widely throughout the Sudan.  The draft called on the Government of National Unity and other parties to end such violations and the prevailing culture of impunity.  The Third Committee must consider the urgent situation of human rights violations and comment on them where appropriate.  Despite the African Union’s efforts in the Sudan, civilian killings, widespread sexual violence and displacement of people continued.

While the European Union recognized full well the arguments against country- specific resolutions, it was necessary to confront and make a stand on very grave situations on the ground.  He appealed to all to lift their heads to the victims and recognize that victims’ human rights needed to be respected.  The European Union was funding the African Union’s effort in Darfur, which he called the most serious and deserving case at present.  He appealed to all to give it the substantive discussion it deserved.

In a general statement before the action, the representative of Nigeria, speaking on behalf of African Group, then requested that no further action be made on the draft and that debate on the issue be adjourned.  The African Group did not support initiatives that would endanger peace agreements in the Sudan.  The African political leadership through the African Union was seized with developments in Sudan.  The comprehensive peace agreement had led to the formation of the Government of National Unity.  He urged the European Union and other co-sponsors that, rather then presenting divisive and destructive resolutions which did nothing to advance the peace process and distracted attention from real situation, they should take constructive action to overcome the many challenges in Sudan to reach peace.  This and other similar resolutions could set back current efforts to operationalize the Human Rights Council and would plant a seed of doubt over the collective determination that the Council would inherit only the best aspects of human rights.

The representative of Egypt said he was against voting on country-specific resolutions and had joined the consensus for a motion to not vote.  The draft over-criticized the human rights situations in the Sudan and hampered all creative efforts to deal with substantive aspects.  The African Union had effectively engaged with Sudanese officials, which had yielded positive results thus far. 
As the Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Sudan had noted, cooperation rather than confrontation was producing substantive results.

The representative of Uganda said human rights issues should not be politicized.  The principles of the United Nations Charter could not be overemphasized.  International cooperation was crucial to achieve any desirable sustainable results.  The culture of generating documents that had no positive impact was not constructive.  At a time when the United Nations was working to reform its human rights mechanism to avoid politicization and double standards, selectivity was not only contradictory, but also poisonous.

The representative of Nigeria then called for a motion to adjourn debate on the draft.

Supporting the motion, the representative of China said the practice of selectivity and double standards of human rights issues only led to greater divisions among Member States.  States should promote and protect human rights through dialogue and cooperation.  No country had the right to criticize another and, as Committee members had previously noted, no country had a perfect human rights record.  Still, country-specific resolutions had named and shamed developing countries.  Human rights reform in the United Nations would be misguided unless this question was adequately addressed.

Also supporting the motion to adjourn, the representative of Venezuela rejected the United Nations policy of sanctioning individual statements on human rights violations.  Such statements would in no way serve to promote and protect human rights.   Venezuela was opposed to politicization and double standards and condemned country-specific resolutions.

Objecting to the motion, the representative of United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the General Assembly must assume responsibility and consider all issues of human rights before it.  Ample, well-documented widespread abuse of human rights must be addressed.  While the Sudan situation was being considered in the Security Council and the International Court of Justice, the General Assembly should also have the opportunity to the consider situation in its appropriate body -- and that was the Third Committee.  The African Group had tabled a resolution on the Sudan in cooperation with European Union in the Commission on Human Rights.  He said he would have welcomed that same cooperative approach in the Committee.  Due to grave human rights violation on a daily basis, further action was needed.  It was the Committee’s responsibility to take notice and take action, and not to avoid discussion on important issues.

Also objecting to the motion, the representative of New Zealand, also speaking on behalf of Australia and Canada, said failure to sponsor resolutions in the Third Committee would mean that Governments felt no pressure to end human rights violations.  The international community would be acting in complicity, if it acted in silence.  Constructive dialogue was preferred.  But, such dialogue did not work on regimes that were brutalizing their own citizens.  Countries that had voted for the motion were not looking at the situation from the victims’ point of view.

The Committee then approved the motion to adjourn the debate by a recorded vote of 84 in favour to 79 against, with 12 abstentions.  (See Annex V.)

The representative of Turkey said the representative of the United Kingdom had mistakenly listed Turkey among the countries that had aligned themselves with his statement.  Turkey did not align itself with that statement. 

The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said he wished to rectify his vote.  He said he should have voted in favour of the no action motion.

The representative of Jamaica, the main sponsor of the draft on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (document A/C.3/60/L.63/Rev.1), read out revisions to the draft.  She thanked all delegations for their constructive participation in informal consultations and said she was very pleased that consensus had been reached on the various paragraphs.  She said she looked forward to the support of the delegations in the final adoption of the text.

The Secretary then read out a statement of financial implications relating to the draft.

In a general statement before action, the representative of South Africa, speaking on behalf of the Southern African Development Community, said he was pleased consensus had been reached and that the resolution contained constructive elements which would guide future work on the item.  As a region historically affected by the worst, most extreme forms of racism, southern Africa was resolute in its regional and international efforts to achieve non-racism, non-sexism, human dignity and equality.  He said he welcomed constructive dialogue with members of civil society based in his region, and strongly urged civil society formations from outside the region to work closely with all actors in the region, to ensure that their criticism was factual.  He said he wished to see the next session of the Committee take a decision on the five-year review of the implementation of the Durban Declaration.

The representative of Venezuela said she wished to thank Jamaica for presenting the draft resolution.  In order to combat racism and other such forms of intolerance, she said she wished to ensure that the needs of indigenous people, who had also fallen victims to such acts, were also enshrined.  She would have liked to have seen language to that effect included in the draft.

The representative of United States said her delegation wished to call for a recorded vote on the resolution.  In explanation of vote, before the vote, she said the United States opposed racism and related intolerance.  Its record of domestic legislation and policies demonstrated that commitment.  The Durban Conference, however, was deeply flawed and divisive.  The current draft endorsed the outcome of that flawed conference and was, therefore, irreparably flawed itself.  For that reason, she would vote against it.

The representative of Israel said her country had a long history of fighting prejudice.  Certain non-governmental organizations and other entities had used the Durban Conference to single out countries with hateful accusations, and Israel had been forced to pull out.  Her delegation would, therefore, be forced to vote against the current draft.

The representative of the United Kingdom said the European Union had repeatedly stressed that the international follow-up to the Durban Conference should be by consensus.  For that reason, his delegation had proposed several amendments during informal consultations and was pleased that many of them had been integrated.  He did have some concerns with the text.  Regarding complementary standards, he said it was fully in line with the Durban Declaration that States must implement existing obligations.  Failure to do so should serve as a guiding principle in discussions of new complementary standards.  He also questioned the value of a five-year review plan.  The follow-up to the conference and review of implementation was already ensured by several mechanisms.  Should an additional follow-up be viewed as necessary, his delegation would reflect further.  In recognition of all parties and having voiced questions of some aspects of text, he would vote for it. 

The Committee then adopted the measure by a vote of 172 in favour to 3 against ( Israel, Marshall Islands, United States), with 2 abstentions ( Australia, Canada).  (See Annex VI.)

In a general statement after the action, the representative of Jamaica said she wished to thank the delegations for their overwhelming support.  It was an important demonstration of international condemnation of racism and related intolerance.  She deeply regretted that a vote had once again been called.  The substance of the Durban Declaration and the action programme were not under question.  She hoped that delegations that had not been able to vote for the resolution would reflect further and consider reviewing their position for some future time when action would be taken on this very important issue.

The representative of Botswana said she was pleased at the consensus on the draft, and that her concerns regarding the Report of the Secretary-General had been addressed.  She thanked all delegations for their support in that regard. 

The Committee Secretary then read out a statement on financial provisions relating to the draft on protection of migrants (document A/C.3/60/L.57/Rev.1).

The representative of Mexico, the draft’s main sponsor, said the draft, as orally amended, was the result of lengthy negotiations in an attempt to reach the broadest possible consensus.

In a general statement before the action, the representative of the United States said legal migration benefited individuals, sending States and receiving States.  The United States recognized the importance of securing its borders and enforcing immigration laws through all lawful approaches and its interpretation of operative paragraph 20 was that in no way did it inhibit its ability to do so.  The United States already regulated unlawful conduct of private individuals or groups, and would continue to do so.  He expressed reservations about preambular paragraphs 7 and 8, saying that documents referenced in those paragraphs were not relevant and that the United States’ request to delete those references had not been accommodated.  Both paragraphs, as well as operative paragraph 9, addressed treaty rights and not human rights.

The Committee then adopted the draft without a vote.

The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that although he had not co-sponsored text, he did support it.  The European Union strongly rejected discrimination against migrants and supported application of existing laws.  The best way to ensure sustainable integration of communities was through legal migration.  He noted some useful new elements in the resolution, such as incorporating age and gender perspectives into migration policies. 

The representative of Venezuela supported the resolution, but expressed reservations over preambular paragraph 6, noting that it would have preferred that the paragraph reference the general commitments of Heads of States in this area, rather than referencing the Summit Outcome.

The representative of Singapore said migrants to Singapore enjoyed the same rights as citizens and were not subjected to any form of discrimination.  However, Singapore did require that people entered the country through legal channels.  Illegal immigrants were dealt with, as such, under Singaporean law.  Every country’s special circumstances must be taken into account.  It was inappropriate for the General Assembly to call for States to review immigration policies.  It was the sovereign right of States to set their own immigration policies.

The representative of the United Kingdom, the main sponsor of the draft on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/C.3/60/L.41/Rev.1), thanked all parties to the negotiations for their flexibility, and particularly the Democratic Republic of the Congo for its willingness to set itself clear goals for improving human rights.  He said he welcomed measures taken by the transitional Government to achieve stability and peace, as well as the substantial progress towards a new constitution next month and the holding of elections in 2006.  Despite political progress, the European Union was deeply concerned about the ongoing situation of human rights in the country, particularly in eastern areas. 

He said the draft had been tabled with the agreement, cooperation and support of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  The European Union’s aim had been to reach consensus on the draft resolution with all interested parties, but he regretted that he had not been able to reach full consensus on all aspects with all parties.  The remaining issues were few and relatively minor, so he hoped parties with outstanding issues would reconsider and take into account the positive message a consensus text would send.

In a general statement before action, the representative of Uganda said that she had called for separate votes on two paragraphs and regretted that the Secretariat had not brought that fact to the Chairperson’s attention. 

The Secretary said it was his understanding that Uganda had requested separate votes on preliminary paragraph 4 and operative paragraph 9(c).

In explanation of vote, before the vote, the representative of Uganda noted that the statement she was about to deliver applied to both paragraphs that were being voted on.  She said the authors of the draft had not fully recognized positive ongoing bilateral initiatives aimed at assisting the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  The Tripartite Joint Commission was supporting the transition to democracy and adhering to principles of Good Neighbourly Relations.  Member States in the region were engaged in a constructive process to work with each other and with the United Nations mission there.  In fact, the mission had been fully facilitated at Entebbe Airport.  Uganda’s president had advised the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the mission, to put in place air radar units to monitor the eastern part of the country, but those were still completely absent.  Disarmament was the responsibility of the country and the mission.  Uganda’s President had met with members of the Security Council earlier this month to express concerns that this had not taken place. 

References in preambular paragraph 2 subscribed to previous Assembly and Human Rights Commission resolutions, which heavily relied on falsehoods and faulty fact-finding.  Burdening the resolution with such language only took the process backwards and diverted attention from the issues.  In paragraph 9(c), the obligations applied only to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the mission there.  Therefore, she regretted that after lengthy, protracted negotiations, she would vote against the paragraphs and against the resolution.

The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said the two paragraphs were the keystone of the architecture of the entire resolution.  Preambular paragraph 4 recalled previous resolutions, and 9(c) called for political pressure to be exerted on the States concerned, especially Uganda.  He said the Tripartite Plus One Commission was a diplomatic initiative, but in no way could countries shirk their responsibilities.  They had fomented trouble in the Great Lakes region, and committed serious human rights violations on his country’s territory.  Uganda was also responsible for disarmament, as its nationals were members of armed groups in his country.  He would vote to retain the paragraphs, and called upon all delegations who set store by human rights protections to vote to retain both of them. 

The Committee then voted to retain preambular paragraph 4 by a vote of 92 in favour to 3 against ( Guinea-Bissau, Rwanda, Uganda), with 62 abstentions.  (See Annex VII.)

The Committee then voted to retain operative paragraph 9(c) by a vote of 92 in favour to 3 against ( Guinea-Bissau, Rwanda, Uganda), with 62 abstentions.  (See Annex VIII.)

In explanation of vote on the draft resolution before the vote, the representative of Rwanda said he regretted that, despite considerable efforts, no consensus had been achieved.  He was against the two paragraphs and would vote against the resolution as a whole.  In preambular paragraph 4, the draft recalled previous Assembly and Human Rights Commission resolutions, which were based upon unsatisfactory reports.  References to such resolutions were inappropriate, since they were adopted in a situation of conflict and a politicized context.  That situation had since changed, and positive developments should have been reflected in the draft.  Moreover, paragraph 9(c) referred to Sates other than the Democratic Republic of the Congo.   The issue of human rights was an issue of sovereignty and, therefore, depended on the internal policy of the State concerned.  References to countries in the region were not appropriate.  Rwanda would, however, continue to support all regional and international initiatives to ensure lasting peace and human rights in Africa, in general, and the Great Lakes region in particular.

The representative of Democratic Republic of Congo said his delegation had agreed to parts of the draft about which it had reservations in order to reach consensus.  That had now been undermined by the troublemakers in the region, Uganda and Rwanda.  The situation concerning human rights in his country was now improving, though concerns remained in the east.  Enhancement of the rule of law was a major challenge.  The Government understood that justice was essential for ending all forms of violence.  For that reason, it was prosecuting armed groups and also acting against warlords, who were organizing themselves in Rwanda and Uganda to undermine the process that was now taking place.  Of greater concern were the foreign armed groups threatening the peace in the east.  He said he hoped ongoing negotiations would enhance pressure on those forces to return home to Rwanda.

Never had the Democratic Republic of the Congo been so close to pluralistic, transparent elections to end the crisis of legitimacy, he continued.  Despite its decision to seek consensus, the text didn’t really meet all of its expectations.  With the end of the war, it should have reflected changes in human rights and the change in the Government’s approach.  Instead, it had just repeated entire paragraphs from previous Assembly resolutions, which sometimes made the text incoherent.  The text did not seem to take into account the Commission of Human Rights’ independent expert, and failed to mention anything about the expert’s proposal to create an independent tribunal. 

Impunity could not be ended if those who committed crimes before 2002 were still at liberty, he said.  The withdrawal of occupying forces had led to a reduction in the frequency of human rights violations.  Now that the election process was irreversible, the text should condemn incursions and threats of intervention by its neighbours.  Those actions aimed to undermine the electoral process and seize the country’s resources.  Unfortunately, there was no reference to that in the current text.  Even paragraph 9(c) had been changed to satisfy the troublemakers. 

Despite the draft’s weak wording, he felt the spirit had been maintained, since it clearly appealed for the enhancement of the rule of law and justice.  He welcomed the efforts of the international community to re-establish justice in his country.  Now that the process was coming to an end, emergency programmes should become support programs of the judicial system.  If national structures to protect human rights were not put in place there would be no genuine reconciliation, nor long-term peace.  He said he would vote in favour of the text and invited all peace-loving countries to follow suit.

The Committee then approved the draft by a recorded vote of 96 in favour to 2 against ( Rwanda, Uganda), with 66 abstentions.  (See Annex IX.)

After the vote, the representative of the United States strongly supported amelioration of the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but expressed concerned over operative paragraph 7(e), which called upon all Governments in the region to cooperate with the International Court of Justice.  The United States asked that the right of States not to become party to the Rome Statute be respected.  Operative paragraph 7(e) failed to give appropriate respect to States’ decisions not to join the Rome Statue.  The United States’ interpretation of operative paragraph 5(c) was such that it condemned only the recruitment and use of child soldiers that was in violation of international law.

The representative of Belgium, the main sponsor of a draft on human rights mainstreaming in the United Nations system (document A/C.3/60/L.44/Rev.1) and amendments thereto contained in document A/C.3/60/L.73, said the draft aimed to ensure greater awareness among Member States of the importance of mainstreaming human rights in the United Nations system and to emphasize initiatives already in place, as well as the importance of information dissemination to ensure an open and transparent process.  The draft’s co-sponsors had achieved its objectives to a certain extent, but other objectives had not been realized.  For that reason, they had decided not to push forward the original or revised draft.  The text was still an excellent basis for continued discussions to achieve renewed consensus, as soon as possible.

He then withdrew the draft and its amendments.

The Committee Secretary then proposed that the Committee take note, in accordance with General Assembly decision 55/448, of the following reports:  under sub-item 71(a), Report of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families on its second session (document A/60/48); Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture (document A/60/215); Report of the Secretary-General on the status of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment (document A/60/220); Report of the Secretary-General on the status of the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund on Contemporary Forms of Slavery (document A/60/273); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies on their seventeenth meeting:  effective implementation of international instruments on human rights, including reporting obligations under international instrument on human rights (document A/60/278); Report of the Secretary-General on the status of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (document A/60/284); Report of the Secretary-General on human rights and mass exoduses (document A/60/325); Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on equitable geographical distribution in the membership of the human rights treaty bodies:  analysis of the membership of the human rights treaty bodies since 1970 (document A/60/351 and Corr.1); and the Report of the Human Rights Committee (document A/60/40), Volumes I and II.

Under sub-item 71(b), the Secretary proposed that the Committee take note of the Report of the Secretary-General on strengthening United Nations action in the field of human rights through the promotion of international cooperation and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity (document A/60/134); Report of the Secretary-General on the right to development (document A/60/286); Report of the Secretary-General on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/60/305*); Report of the Secretary-General on human rights and terrorism (document A/60/326); Note by the Secretary-General on human rights defenders (document A/60/339 and Corr.1); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the right to everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (document A/60/348); Note by the Secretary-

General transmitting the report of the independent expert of the Commission on Human Rights on the effect of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights (document A/60/384); and the Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on freedom of religion or belief (document A/60/399).

Under sub-item 71(c), the Secretary proposed taking note of the Note by the Secretary-General on the Situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/60/221); Note by the Secretary-General on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (document A/60/271); Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the issue of Palestinian pregnant women giving birth at Israeli checkpoints (document A/60/324); Note by the Secretary-General on the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on assistance to Sierra Leone in the field of human rights (document A/60/349); Note by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Burundi (document A/60/354); Note by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in the Sudan (document A/60/356); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the human rights situation and the activities of her Office, including technical cooperation, in Nepal (document A/60/359); and the Note by the Secretary-General on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (document A/60/370).

Under sub-item 71 (e), the Secretary proposed taking note of the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (document A/60/36) and the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan and on the achievements of the technical assistance in the field of human rights (document A/60/343).     

The representative of South Africa then said his delegation would have joined consensus on that draft (document A/C.3/60/L.44/Rev.1)had it not been withdrawn.

The Committee then adopted its programme of work for the sixty-first session of the Committee (document A/C.3/60/L.72) and decided to bring it to the attention of the Plenary.

The Committee Chairman then proposed, on behalf of the Bureau, the following draft decision: “In order to rationalize further its methods of work, the Third Committee will endeavour to elect the Rapporteur of its subsequent session on the basis of his/her experience, of his/her personal competence, and on the basis of a rotation among the regional groups as follows:  African States, Asian States, Eastern European States, Latin American and Caribbean States, and Western European and other States.

“The Committee further decides to endeavour to elect a candidate nominated by the Western European and other States Group to serve as Rapporteur of the Third Committee at the sixty-first regular session of the General Assembly.” 

Representatives of regional groups thanked the Chairman for a good, productive session and the Bureau and the Secretariat staff for their support.

ANNEX I

Vote on Globalization

The draft resolution on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/C.3/60/L.31), was approved by a recorded vote of 117 in favour to 51 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, 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, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, 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, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, 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:  Brazil, Chile, Iraq, Singapore.

Absent:  Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Liberia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX II

Vote on Right to Development

The draft resolution on the right to development (document A/C.3/60/L.36), was approved by a recorded vote of 172 in favour to 2 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, 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, 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, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, 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:  Marshall Islands, United States.

Abstain:  Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Sweden.

Absent:  Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Kiribati, Liberia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX III

Vote on Preambular Paragraph 5/United Nations Role in Elections

Preambular paragraph 5, as orally revised, of the draft resolution on strengthening the role of the United Nations in elections (document A/C.3/60/L.43), was approved by a recorded vote of 123 in favour to none against, with 35 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Belarus, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Gambia, Ghana, Iran, Kazakhstan, Libya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Brunei Darussalam, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Liberia, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX IV

Vote on United Nations Role in Elections

The draft resolution on strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing periodic and genuine elections (document A/C.3/60/L.43), was approved by a recorded vote of 173 in favour to none against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, 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, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, 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, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libya, Myanmar.

Absent:  Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Kiribati, Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Syria, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX V

Vote on No Action Motion on Sudan Draft

The motion to take no action on the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Sudan (document A/C.3/60/L.47), was approved by a recorded vote of 84 in favour to 79 against, with 12 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, China, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, 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, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

Abstain:  Belize, Brazil, Cape Verde, Colombia, Guyana, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Cambodia, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Turkey.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Total Elimination of Racism

The draft resolution on global efforts for the total elimination of racism (document A/C.3/60/L.63/REV.1), was approved by a recorded vote of 172 in favour to 3 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, 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, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, 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:  Israel, Marshall Islands, United States.

Abstain:  Australia, Canada.

Absent:  Benin, Cambodia, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Kiribati, Liberia, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Swaziland, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Preambular Paragraph 4/Democratic Republic of the Congo

Preambular paragraph 4 of the draft resolution on the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/C.3/60/L.41/REV.1), was approved by a recorded vote of 92 in favour to 3 against, with 62 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, 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, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Zambia.

Against:  Guinea-Bissau, Rwanda, Uganda.

Abstain:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Belarus, Benin, Bolivia, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Cuba, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Malawi, Maldives, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Operative Paragraph 9(c)/ Democratic Republic of the Congo

Operative paragraph 9(c) of the draft resolution on human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/C.3/60/L.41/REV.1), was approved by a recorded vote of 92 in favour to 3 against, with 62 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, 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, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Zambia.

Against:  Guinea-Bissau, Rwanda, Uganda.

Abstain:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Belarus, Benin, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Cuba, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sudan, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam.

ANNEX IX

Vote on Human Rights in Democratic Republic of the Congo

The draft resolution on human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/C.3/60/L.41/REV.1), was approved by a recorded vote of 96 in favour to 2 against, with 66 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Rwanda, Uganda.

Abstain:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China, Colombia, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen.

Absent:  Belarus, Benin, Cambodia, Chad, Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mauritania, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Viet Nam.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record