Sixty-first General Assembly

Third Committee

43^rd Meeting (PM)

THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES DRAFT RESOLUTION ON TRAFFICKING OF WOMEN, GIRLS;

HEARS INTRODUCTION OF 15 TEXTS

 

Drafts Introduced Include Texts on Human Rights Situations in Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea, Myanmar, Uzbekistan, Iran, United States, Canada

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) today approved, by consensus, a draft resolution on trafficking in women and girls that called for a more gender-specific approach to the global problem of trafficking in persons.  It also heard the introduction of several draft resolutions that addressed the human rights situations in a number of countries, prompting discussion of the merits of such country-specific actions.

As highlighted by the representative of the Philippines, its main sponsor, the draft resolution on trafficking in women and girls would have the General Assembly recognize the need for a stronger gender- and age-sensitive approach to all efforts to fight trafficking and protect its victims, taking into account that women and girls are particularly vulnerable to trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation, as well as for forced labour or services.

It would call upon Governments to eliminate the demand for trafficked women and girls in all forms of exploitation; to devise, enforce and strengthen effective gender- and age-sensitive measures to combat all forms of trafficking in women and girls; and to take all appropriate measures to ensure that victims of trafficking are not penalized for being trafficked.  Governments would also be encouraged to take appropriate measures to eliminate sex tourism demand, especially of children, through all possible preventative actions, and to allocate resources to provide comprehensive programmes for the physical, psychological and social recovery of victims of trafficking.

Due to time constraints, action on a draft resolution on hostage-taking was postponed to Friday, 10 November.

The Committee also heard the introduction of 15 draft resolutions regarding human rights, the right of peoples to self-determination, and the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), including country-specific ones, addressing human rights situations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Myanmar, Uzbekistan, Belarus, Iran and the United States, and the situation of indigenous peoples and immigrants in Canada.

During the introduction of the draft texts, several delegations took the opportunity to challenge the legitimacy and effectiveness of country-specific resolutions.  Introducing a draft resolution on the situation of democracy and human rights in the United States of America, the representative of Belarus said it was a sad duty to introduce a document to which no self-respecting Government would listen.  It would take a politically naïve party to believe that blackmail, finger-pointing and name-calling could promote responsiveness, trust and cooperation, he said.  That had never happened with any country-specific resolution with any Government and would not be different with this one.  He submitted the draft as a warning sign to all Member States that there was still something deadly wrong in the way the global community engaged in the promotion and protection of human rights.

Similarly, the representative of Iran noted that her delegation was introducing a draft resolution on the situation of indigenous peoples and immigrants in Canada, despite its long-standing policy against country-specific resolutions.  In this case, however, Iran deemed it imperative to bring the issue to the attention of the international community for appropriate action.  Canada had long tried to cast itself in the role of a human rights defender, throughout the world, but suffered from a poor human rights record at home, particularly when indigenous peoples and immigrants were concerned, she said.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea objected to a resolution introduced by the representative of Finland, on behalf of the European Union, regarding the human rights situation in his country.  He said that his delegation would oppose and vote against all country-specific resolutions targeting developing countries.  He hoped that all countries would show solidarity and support for that position.

The representatives of Egypt, Finland (on behalf of the European Union), Belarus, Belgium, Sweden, the United States and Canada made statements introducing various draft resolutions.  The representatives of Myanmar, Uzbekistan and the Russian Federation also spoke.

Following the approval of the draft on trafficking in women and girls, the representatives of Belarus, Venezuela and Colombia made statements in support of the resolution, as did the observer of the Holy See.

The representative of Cuba made a short statement on programme planning.

The Committee was expected to reconvene on Friday, 10 November, at 3 p.m., when, besides taking action on the resolution on hostage-taking, it was expected to hear a statement from the President of the Human Rights Council.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today for a general discussion on programme planning and the introduction of a number of draft resolutions.  It was also expected to take action on two draft resolutions.

The Committee was expected to hear the introduction of draft resolutions relating to the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions (document A/C.3/61/L.52; title unavailable) and on the right of Palestinian people to self-determination (document A/C.3/61/L.51).

It was also expected to hear the introduction of draft resolutions on human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.  These included resolutions on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/C.3/61/L.20), elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief (document A/C.3/61/L.25), inadmissibility of human rights violations through the practice of secret detention and unlawful transfers while countering terrorism (document A/C.3/61/L.30), promotion of equitable and mutually respectful dialogue on human rights (document A/C.3/61/L.31), regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/C.3/61/L.32) and extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/61/L.45).

It was, moreover, expected to hear the introduction of draft resolutions on human rights situations and reports of Special Rapporteurs and representatives.  Those include drafts on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document A/C.3/61/L.37), situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/61/L.38), situation of human rights in Uzbekistan (document A/C.3/61/L.39), situation of human rights in Belarus (document A/C.3/61/L.40), situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (document A/C.3/61/L.41), situation of democracy and human rights in the United States of America (document A/C.3/61/L.42) and situation of indigenous peoples and immigrants in Canada (document A/C.3/61/L.43).

The Committee was expected to take action on draft resolutions on trafficking in women and girls (document A/C.3/61/L.11/Rev.1; text not available) and on hostage-taking (document A/C.3/61/L.44).  The latter would have the General Assembly call upon States to take all necessary measures, in accordance with international humanitarian law and human rights standards, to prevent, combat and punish acts of hostage-taking, including by strengthening international cooperation.  The Assembly would reaffirm that hostage-taking was a serious crime aimed at the destruction of human rights and unjustifiable under any circumstances.  It would condemn all acts of hostage-taking, anywhere in the world, and demand that all hostages be released immediately and without any preconditions.

Programme Planning

The Chairman of the Third Committee, HAMID AL BAYATI (Iraq), recalled that in a letter dated 12 October, the President of the General Assembly had informed him that Programme 19 of the proposed strategic framework for the 2008-2009 period, and the revised estimates relating to the 2005 World Summit Outcome, had been allocated to the Third Committee for review and action.  Documentation for the Committee’s consideration of those two topics had been listed in the Journal.

The Committee then heard from LAMIN FAATI ( Gambia), Vice-Chairman of the Committee, who reported on the progress of consultations he had held as Facilitator on agenda item 118, entitled Programme Planning.  He said that primary consultations had taken place on Wednesday, and that the next round of consultations would be on Monday; informal consultations would then follow.  He invited delegations to look out for announcements in the Journal and to be prepared to make proposals.

The representative of Cuba said that the consultations had to be as substantive as possible.  His country had made a number of proposals that it would maintain until the end of the discussions.  It was hoped that consultations would be as transparent as possible; the item required the greatest attention on the part of delegations.

Introduction of Draft Resolutions

The representative of Egypt introduced a draft resolution on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (document A/C.3/61/L.51), which his delegation presented annually, in order to highlight the need to fulfil the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to establish a State on occupied land in Gaza and the West Bank.  The draft resolution was a means for the international community to express support for the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.  The draft recalled the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, which concluded that the separation wall and other measures taken by the Israeli Government had severely impeded the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.  The text also recalled relevant United Nations declarations and international instruments, and reaffirmed the urgent need for the resumption of the peace process.  It further urged all States and specialized agencies of the United Nations system to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people.  He hoped that the draft resolution would contribute to alleviating the hardship and suffering of the Palestinian people under Israeli occupation and lead to the realization of the Palestinian people exercising their right to self-determination in an independent State, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

The representative of Egypt then introduced the draft resolution on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/C.3/61/L.20).  He said that in development cycles throughout history, the human aspect had always lagged behind, with human rights being relegated to a much later stage.  It had taken humanity centuries to abolish ugly practices undertaken by some humans against others.  That cycle had to be broken.  The draft resolution was not an attempt to pass judgement on globalization, which was a task better left to history; rather, its only aim was to better understand the process of globalization through comprehending modes of communication, technology and production on the one hand, and optimization of the enjoyment of all rights on the other.  The co-sponsors had decided not to introduce any changes to the resolution, compared to last year, apart from simple updating.  A margin existed for trying to bridge the different views and perspectives on the human rights aspects of globalization that had persisted over the years; it was hoped that coming sessions would provide an opportunity to bridge that gap.

The representative of Finland, also on behalf of the European Union, introduced a draft resolution on elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion and belief (document A/C.3/61/L.25), which was based on last year’s consensus text.  She said the draft was an important tool for the protection of everyone’s right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief.  The draft highlighted the role of education and dialogue as a constructive means to enhance mutual understanding, contained provisions dealing with the protection of freedom of religion and belief by States and encouraging the efforts of all actors in society to promote tolerance.  She recalled that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief had encouraged Member States “to take positive steps to create a tolerant and inclusive environment in which all religions can be exercised, free of discrimination or stigmatization.”  The draft resolution, before the Committee, was an indispensable tool for that purpose, she said.

The representative of Belarus introduced the draft resolution on the inadmissibility of human rights violations through the practice of secret detention and unlawful transfers while countering terrorism (document A/C.3/61/L.30), explaining that it was a new document.  The practice of secret detention and illegal detention had been investigated and denounced by the Council of Europe, among others.  The key objective of the resolution was to prevent the use of that practice on a global scale.

The representative of Belarus then presented, on behalf of his country and of Uzbekistan, the draft resolution on the promotion and equitable and mutually respectful dialogue on human rights (document A/C.3/61/L.31).  He said that there was no country that could escape criticism in the field of human rights.  Nevertheless, some countries had used human rights, in international organizations, to advance their own political interests -- for instance, through country-specific resolutions, a practice that should be replaced by a universal review, carried out by the Human Rights Council or with another strategic approach involving dialogue and constructive interaction.  The draft resolution took into account issues that were especially urgent, in light of the establishment of the Council.  Following publication of the draft resolution, paragraph four of the operative part had been reworded to stress the need “to avoid politically motivated and biased country specific resolutions, confrontational approaches, exploitation of human rights for political purposes, selective targeting of individual countries for extraneous considerations and double standards in the work of the United Nations on human rights issues.”

The representative of Belgium introduced a draft resolution on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/C.3/61/L.32), which recalled the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights, and took stock of progress made toward achieving the objectives agreed there.  The draft resolution welcomed the exchanges between the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and regional organizations, noting the importance of the cooperation and assistance provided, by the Office, to strengthen regional arrangements.  The draft also underscored the importance of the Office’s Programme for Technical Cooperation and recognized initiatives launched, by Member States, to hold regional meetings seeking to enhance cooperation for the protection and promotion of human rights.

The representative of Sweden introduced a draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/61/L.45), which would have the General Assembly call on all Governments to take effective action to combat and eliminate the phenomenon of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and to ensure that the practice was brought to an end.  The text highlighted various measures to be taken, by Governments, toward that objective.  The draft built on resolutions adopted in previous years on the same topic, he noted, but had been restructured in line with ongoing reform efforts and also included elements from reports of the Special Rapporteurs.

Introducing the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document A/C.3/61/L.37), the representative of Finland, also on behalf of the European Union, regretted that attempts to initiate a discussion with that country’s authorities had been rejected.  The European Union would have welcomed the opportunity for constructive dialogue on the text, she said.  The draft resolution highlighted the findings of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, who noted the huge gap between formal recognition and substantive implementation of human rights.  The draft drew attention, once again, to continued reports of the systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including violations of economic, social and cultural rights that had led to severe malnutrition and hardship for that country’s people.

She said the draft resolution also focused on the refusal of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to recognize the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, far less to cooperate with him or act on his recommendations.  Also regrettable was the Government’s failure to engage in any technical cooperation activities with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, despite her efforts to engage in dialogue.  The aim of the resolution was to promote improvement of the human rights situation on the ground in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, she said.  Only by continuing to draw attention to the situation could the plight of the people there be heard.

The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea then took the floor, noting that the draft resolution tabled by the European Union defied the will of the overwhelming majority of Member States of the United Nations that opposed the politicization of human rights, selectivity and double standards.  His delegation categorically rejected the “anti-DPRK” draft resolution.  The European Union had totally blocked the possibility of cooperation in the field of human rights, by tabling such a resolution again this year, he said, which only contributed to mistrust and confrontation.

His delegation rejected the draft resolution for three reasons, he said.  First, it pursued a dishonest political purpose, spreading misleading information about the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, with the aim of interfering in the country’s affairs and overthrowing the system.  Second, the draft applied double standards in its consideration of human rights.  If the European Union applied fair standards, it should take up the slaughter, by the United States in Iraq, or the armed invasion of Lebanon by Israel, under the patronage of the United States.  There was no more serious violation than the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, especially women and children, he said.  The European Union expressed “serious concern” about the abduction of Japanese nationals, but remained silent on the forced drafting of 8.4 million Koreans by Japan.  Third, the draft was based on false and fabricated reports by countries hostile to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, such as the United States and Japan, and rebel organizations fully devoted to “anti-DPRK” plots, he said.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would oppose and vote against all country-specific resolutions targeting developing countries, he said.  His delegation hoped all countries would show solidarity and support for that position, and vote against the resolution.

The representative of Finland, also on behalf of the European Union and other co-sponsors, introduced a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/61/L.38), as orally revised.  She noted that the draft included reference to some encouraging developments in the country, including the Government of Myanmar’s declared willingness to cooperate, with the United Nations and other international organizations, in addressing the issues of under-age recruitment and child soldiers, its efforts to combat impunity concerning forced labour and its launch of a fund to tackle HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

Unfortunately, there was still much cause for grave concern regarding the human rights situation in Myanmar, with the problems very similar to those recorded 14 years ago, when United Nations Special Rapporteurs first began their work there, she said.  There had been no progress toward genuine democratic reform, and restrictions on, and harassment of, politicians and human rights defenders continued unabated.  She noted that, in May, Aung San Suu Kyi’s house arrest had been prolonged by another 12 months, and that, as of the end of August 2006, there were an estimated 1,185 political prisoners in Myanmar.  She also highlighted the desperate situation of ethnic communities, whose members continued to be the victims of forced labour, sexual violence, extortion and expropriation.

She noted that neither the former Special Envoy of the Secretary-General nor the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar had been able to visit the country recently.  However, the fact that the United Nations Under-Secretary for Political Affairs had been allowed to visit, in May, and was due to go there again this week, offered a glimmer of hope.  Her delegation hoped that visit could pave the way for more systematic use of the Secretary-General’s good offices, through the appointment of a new Special Envoy allowed to visit Myanmar without restrictions.

The representative of Myanmar then took the floor to make a point of order regarding the consultative process mentioned by the representative of Finland.  While he fully appreciated Finland’s expressed intention to negotiate, he pointed out that the draft resolution had been given to his delegation only on 1 November, just one day before its submission to the Third Committee.  That fact made meaningful negotiations difficult, he said.  The draft resolution was completely unacceptable to his delegation.  He hoped that there would be meaningful negotiations, in good faith, between now and the time the Committee acted on the draft.

The representative of the United States introduced the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Uzbekistan (document A/c.3/61.L.39).  He said that, last year, a resolution on human rights in Uzbekistan had been passed with strong support.  However, the Government of Uzbekistan had failed to respond to that resolution, and the human rights situation there had continued to deteriorate.  The Government had not responded to repeated calls for an investigation into events in Andijan, in May 2005.  More than 200 civil society organizations had been closed since those events; the country office of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had been closed; and the mandate of the mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) had been reduced.  Independent journalists, human rights activists and members of certain religious groups had been imprisoned or faced persecution; those who had fled the country still faced harassment.  The co-sponsors of the draft resolution wanted the faltering dialogue between Uzbekistan and the international community, including the OSCE, to be revived.  Most of all, they wanted concrete results, including access for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to detainees.

The representative of the United States then introduced the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Belarus (document A/C.3/61/L.40), saying that Belarus had failed to respond to previous resolutions, or to untake recommendations of the Special Rapporteur.  The 2004 resolution had underscored the concern of the international community with the human rights situation in Belarus, where the Government had not responded to calls for basic democratic reform.  There had been concern regarding the conduct of recent presidential elections, the arbitrary use of State power, detention and disregard for basic rights.  There had also been arrests and show trials of political opponents of the Government.  The co-sponsors wanted to see an improved dialogue between Belarus and the international community, including the OSCE, that would yield results.

The representative of Belarus recalled that the resolution, tabled at the 59^th session, had not been adopted by Member States, and appealed to the delegation of the United States not to lead the world community astray.  The draft resolution that had just been introduced had nothing to do with the real situation of guaranteeing human rights in Belarus, which did not accept the resolution in form or content.  It was an attempt to intervene, in the crudest way, in the internal affairs of Belarus, on the pretext of imagined violations of human rights.  Belarus was convinced that the majority of member delegations, without any prompting on its part, would understand real motives behind that resolution.

United Nations Member States had recently taken part in complex discussions on ways to improve the United Nations human rights machinery, he said.  Some had been bound to admit that there was no future to the selective approach.  With the adoption of the General Assembly resolution on human rights, Member States had confirmed their resolve to ensure non-selectivity of human rights and the need to eliminate politicization.  The draft resolution undermined those principles and proved that its authors were not willing to embrace dialogue. Its sponsors had made a choice in favour of another approach, which plunged Member States into mistrust, unease and confrontation.  Belarus called upon the draft’s authors not to lead the world community astray and not to manipulate human rights issues for their own political interests.  Genuine respect and protection of human rights had to be promoted on a just and fair basis.

The representative of Uzbekistan said he was sorry to return to an item that had already been addressed, and which was clearly out of step with reality.  All of the elements contained in the draft resolution referring to his country were unjustified, lacked any foundation whatsoever, and were coloured with bias.  He said he would await the next session to provide specific information to demonstrate how there had been a distorted portrayal of the situation.  For the time being, paragraph 4(e) referred to issues currently being addressed, under the confidential 1503 procedure, and to an independent expert who, in fact, had not yet been appointed.  The draft resolution before the Committee was a clear duplication of issues before the Human Rights Council, thus creating an interesting precedent, by creating conditions that would undermine the work of a basic body of the United Nations.

The representative of the Russian Federation, referring to the draft resolution regarding Belarus, expressed concern over the absence of clear criteria regarding country situations in the Third Committee, especially as the Human Rights Council had been working out a method for universal periodic review.  The human rights situation in Belarus did not deserve the submission of a draft resolution in the Third Committee; its authors were pursuing a political step, dictated by temporary circumstances, and they were not concerned with the promotion of human rights in Belarus.  The draft resolution was also unacceptable because it had been submitted at a time when the Belarus authorities had been continuing dialogue with international and regional human rights organizations.

Introducing the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (document A/C.3/61/L.41), the representative of Canada recalled that a similar resolution had been adopted, by the General Assembly, last year, calling for a re-examination of the situation during the 61^st session of the Assembly.  There had been a continued deterioration in the Government of Iran’s performance in protecting the human rights and fundamental freedoms of its people.  Positive developments had been sporadic, and the lack of progress had been a cause for serious concern.  Many members of the international community shared that assessment.  The resolution had been carefully drafted to ensure accuracy and balance.  When a Government did not acknowledge that it faced serious human rights issues, it was necessary for the international community to express its view.  The General Assembly and its Third Committee had the jurisdiction and responsibility to address the most serious human rights situations.  Canada’s hope was that, by calling attention to the human rights situation in Iran, the resolution would encourage progress.

Introducing a draft resolution on the situation of democracy and human rights in the United States of America (document A/C.3/61/L.42) was both an honour and a sad duty, said the representative of Belarus.  It was an honour to introduce a righteous resolution, one which openly stated the truth, which took no heed of the whims or prompts of the high and mighty.  One which honestly drew attention to human rights abuses in one of most self-confident democracies in the world.  The draft resolution, in a most careful, diligent and comprehensive manner, had assigned some homework for the United States, which was how to remedy the grave faults and misdeeds, which endangered human rights and democratic principles in that country and the world over, he said.

However, it was a tainted honour to introduce a resolution that was also so wrong, he said, wrong as a method, wrong as a tone for human discourse and wrong as a solution.  It was a sad duty to introduce a document to which no self-respecting Government would listen.  It would take a politically naïve party to believe that blackmail, finger-pointing and name-calling could promote responsiveness, trust and cooperation.  That had never happened with any country-specific resolution, with any Government, he said, and would not be different with this one, of course.  He humbly submitted the draft as a warning sign to all Member States that there was still something deadly wrong in the way the global community addressed such a sensitive and delicate manner as the engagement of Governments in the promotion and protection of human rights.

The representative of Iran said the draft resolution on the situation of indigenous peoples and immigrants in Canada (document A/C.3/61/L.43) was submitted in response to the systematic violations of human rights in Canada, particularly those of Aboriginals and immigrants.  Despite its long-standing policy against country-specific resolutions, her delegation deemed it imperative to bring the issue to the attention of the international community for appropriate action.  The draft was based on reliable facts and information, reflected in various reports of the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, as well as in concluding observations of monitoring bodies of major international human rights conventions, she said.

The draft resolution called upon the Government of Canada to change its immigration law and policies that gave rise to the unjustified detention of immigrants; to intensify measures to close human development indicator gaps between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians; and to ensure that relevant human rights legislation was amended and the legal system enhanced to ensure that all disadvantaged groups, such as Aboriginals, African-Canadians and immigrants, enjoyed the rights recognized in those instruments.

The human rights situation in Canada required more attention and awareness, she said.  Canada had long tried to cast itself in the role of a human rights defender throughout the world, but suffered from a poor human rights record at home, particularly when indigenous peoples and immigrants were concerned, she said.  Her delegation hoped that the draft resolution would be a step toward helping Canada to improve its human rights record.

The representative of Sweden introduced a draft resolution on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (document A/C.3/61/L.52), whose purpose was to reaffirm the General Assembly’s support for the Office, allow the Assembly to provide policy directives and recall States responsibilities to the Office and its cause.  The draft welcomed the adoption, by the Executive Committee, this year, of conclusions on protection of women and girls at risk and on protection of stateless persons.  It also drew attention to the Office’s current activities related to internally displaced persons and encouraged the High Commissioner to continue his dialogue with States, on that issue.

Importantly, the draft resolution condemned all acts posing a threat to the personal security and well-being of refugees, asylum-seekers and internally displaced persons and called on all States and other parties involved in armed conflict to respect human rights and international humanitarian law.  It deplored refoulement and the unlawful expulsion of refugees and asylum-seekers and called for the respect of the principles of refugee protection and human rights.  The draft also called for a widened donor base for the Office, by reinforcing cooperation with traditional Governmental donors, non-traditional donors and the private sector, he said.

Action on Draft Resolutions

The representative of the Philippines, the main sponsor of the draft resolution entitled trafficking in women and girls (document A/C.3/L.11/Rev.1), explained that its primary objective was to highlight the gender dimensions of the problem of trafficking in persons.  Improvements had been made to the text which, for instance, strengthened its victim-centredness and its language regarding greater cooperation on all levels.

The Committee then approved the draft by consensus.

After the adoption of the draft, the representative of the Holy See said trafficking in persons was a shocking offence against human dignity and a violation of human rights.  Such situations were an affront to fundamental values shared by all cultures and people.  Its victims were often the poorest and most defenceless.  The Holy See encouraged all States to take seriously their obligations vis-à-vis trafficking and to provide care to the victims.

The representative of Belarus said there was a need to reduce demand for the victims of human trafficking; all States had failed to take adequate measures to deal with a trade that was based on blood and tears.  He also cited the importance of protecting women and girls who had suffered from trafficking and to ensure their rehabilitation.  It remained the case that women and girls had been held responsible for having been victims of trafficking; Belarus welcomed measures, foreseen in the draft resolution, in that regard.

The representative of Venezuela said the draft resolution, with its much-needed gender perspective, reaffirmed that trafficking in persons was a problem that had to be solved through shared responsibility between the countries of origin, transit and destination.

The representative of Colombia said the international community had to shoulder its responsibilities regarding trafficking in persons.  Shared action had to be undertaken to combat supply and demand.  It was hoped that, in two years, when the resolution was reviewed, operative paragraphs could be added, regarding repatriation, so that the rights of victims of trafficking would be protected, throughout the process of return to their countries of origin.

The Chairman then announced that, due to the late time, action on the draft resolution on hostage-taking (document A/C.3/61/L.44) would be postponed until Friday, 10 November.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record