Sixty-first General Assembly

Third Committee

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

THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES DRAFT RESOLUTIONS ON EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS,

PALESTINIAN SELF-DETERMINATION, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, RIGHT TO FOOD

Texts also Approved on Globalization, Missing Persons,

Terrorism, Religious Freedom, Staffing of Human Rights Office

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) took action today on draft resolutions that would have the General Assembly take positions on issues as varied as the right to food; extrajudicial executions; the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination; racial discrimination; the effects of globalization and, the staffing of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Resuming its work after a two-day adjournment, the Committee also heard the introduction of three draft resolutions on the new international humanitarian order; assistance to refugees in Africa, and protection of human rights while countering terrorism.

By a vote of 107 in favour to 3 against, with 53 abstentions (annex I), the Committee adopted a draft that would have the General Assembly -- alarmed at the spread in many parts of the world of various extremist political parties, movements and groups -- express deep concern over the glorification of the Nazi movement and note with deep concern the increase in racist incidents in several countries.  The Assembly would also reaffirm that States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination are obliged to declare as an offence the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, the incitement to racial discrimination and acts of violence directed at any race or group of another colour or ethnic origin.

The main sponsor of the draft was the Russian Federation, whose representative said it was a thematic draft focused on promoting dialogue in the face of various extremist groups, such as neo-Nazis and skinheads who perpetrated violence against those whose skin was of a different colour, those of a different religions and immigrants.  The representative of the United States said that, while the promotion of Nazism and racism were repugnant, his country -- which had called for the draft to be put to a vote -- would vote against, on the grounds that Governments should not sanction speech, even hateful speech.

By a vote of 162 in favour to 4 against, with 4 abstentions (annex II), the Committee adopted a draft that would have the Assembly reaffirm the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, including the right to an independent State.  Speaking before the vote, the representative of Egypt said it was his country’s sincere hope that it would be adopted by consensus, so as to send a message of solidarity to the Palestinian people.

Israel’s representative said that his country had always supported the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, but that the Palestinian leadership had to fulfil its responsibilities by recognizing Israel, renouncing terrorism and accepting previous agreements.

The representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, urged the Palestinian leadership to work for national unity and for Israel to desist from actions that would threaten the viability of the two-State solution.

After the vote, the representative of the United States said his country also had no quarrel with the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people, but that the draft reflected an outdated approach, whereby the Palestinians looked to the United Nations to resolve their problem.  He said that such a one-sided resolution would make no contribution to resolving the conflict, and that, therefore, the United States had voted against it.

The observer of Palestine, on the other hand, expressed utmost thanks and appreciation for the vote, noting that the draft had -- for the first time -- more than 115 co-sponsors.  She added that it was unfortunate that the United States had opposed the resolution and that the real problem lay with the Israeli position.

The Committee went on to approve a draft on globalization and human rights that would have the Assembly call for environmentally sustainable economic growth for managing globalization and underline the urgent need for an equitable, transparent and democratic international system with wider participation from developing countries.  The representative of Egypt asked that it be put to a vote, which was 113 in favour to 53 against, with 4 abstentions (annex III).  The representative of Finland said that European Union member States and aligned Member States would vote against the draft, as it inaccurately generalized that globalization had a negative effect on human rights.

In its afternoon session, the Committee adopted, by a vote of 112 in favour to 6 against, with 54 abstentions (annex IV), a draft resolution that would have the Assembly raise concerns about the geographic composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

A draft on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order was adopted by a vote of 117 in favour to 56 against, with 3 abstentions (annex V), while a draft on respect for the fight to universal freedom of travel and importance of family reunion was adopted with 116 in favour to 3 against, with 58 abstentions (annex VI).

A draft on the right to food -- driven by a Special Rapporteur’s revelation that a child under five dies from hunger ever five second -- was adopted by a vote of 175 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions (annex VII).  The resolution would have the Assembly call upon Member States and the United Nations system to support efforts to respond to food crises across Africa.  The lone objector was the United States, whose representative stated that that the attainment of the right to food and the right to be free from hunger did not give rise to international obligations, or diminish the responsibility of Governments to their citizens.

The Committee then moved on to adopt a draft on the promotion of equitable and mutually respectful dialogue on human rights, with 77 voting in favour to 63 against, with 26 abstaining (annex VIII).  The representative of Belarus, the main sponsor, said it addressed the need to avoid politically motivated and biased country-specific resolutions, but several of his colleagues -- United States, Finland (on behalf of the European Union), Mexico, Canada, Brazil and Japan -- expressed reservations, saying that there was a place for country-specific resolutions, that they questioned the motivations behind the draft and that the topic needed more comprehensive study.

Following prolonged discussion and votes on selected paragraphs, the Committee adopted a draft resolution, as orally revised, on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, which would have the Assembly strongly condemn all such executions and demand that all States end such practices, by a vote of 129 in favour to none against, with 42 abstentions (annex XIII).  Amendments proposed in a separate draft were rejected.

Also today, the Committee adopted, without votes, draft resolutions on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination; missing persons; eliminating discrimination based on religion, and the protection of human rights while countering terrorism.

The Committee also heard the introduction of draft resolutions on the new international humanitarian order; assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa; and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.  These were introduced by the representatives of Jordan, Namibia and Mexico respectively.

Also speaking today were the representatives of Finland, Costa Rica, Mauritania, Qatar, Venezuela, Israel, Argentina, Australia, Rwanda, Libya, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Cuba, Singapore, South Africa, Colombia, Sweden, Kuwait, Gabon, Botswana, the United Republic of Tanzania and Ukraine.

The Committee is to reconvene at 10 a.m. on Friday, 17 November to take action on a number of draft resolutions and to discuss programme planning.

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met today to take action on 14 drafts and to hear the introduction of three draft texts.

By the term of a draft on the inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/C.3/61/L.48), the General Assembly, alarmed at the spread, in many parts of the world, of various extremist political parties, movements and groups, would express deep concern over the glorification of the Nazi movement and former members of the Waffen SS organization and note with deep concern the increase in racist incidents in several countries.  It would reaffirm that such acts might fall within the scope of activities described in article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and stress that those acts did injustice to the memory of the victims of crimes against humanity in the Second World War, poisoned young minds and fuelled contemporary forms of racism.

The draft would also have the Assembly reaffirm that States parties to the Convention were obliged to declare as an offence the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, the incitement to racial discrimination and acts of violence directed at any race or group of another colour or ethnic origin, and to declare illegal organizations that promoted racial discrimination.  It would also call on States that had made reservations to article 4 of the Convention to give serious consideration to withdrawing those reservations.

The Committee also had before it a draft resolution on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/C.3/61/L.46), which would have the Assembly reaffirm that the right of all peoples to self-determination was a fundamental one; declare firm opposition to foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation and call on States responsible to cease immediately their military intervention.  It would further deplore the plight of millions of refugees and displaced persons and ask the Human Rights Council to continue to give special attention to the violation of human rights, especially the right to self-determination, resulting from foreign military intervention, aggression or occupation.

A draft on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (document A/C.3/61/L.51) would have the Assembly, expressing the urgent need for the resumption of negotiations within the Middle East peace process and for the speedy achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement between the Palestinian and Israeli sides, reaffirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine, and urge all States and the specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of that right.

The Committee was also expected to take action on a draft resolution on missing persons (document A/C.3/61/L.19), which would have the Assembly call on States that were parties to an armed conflict to take all appropriate measures to prevent persons from going missing, to account for those who were reported missing and to cooperate with the International Committee of the Red Cross to establish the fate of missing persons.

A draft on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/C.3/61/L.20) would have the Assembly reaffirm the commitment to create an environment, at both the national and the global levels, that was conducive to development and to the elimination of poverty.  The Assembly would further call upon Member States, relevant agencies of the United Nations system, intergovernmental organizations and civil society to promote equitable and environmentally sustainable economic growth for managing globalization.  It would also underline the urgent need to establish an equitable, transparent and democratic international system to strengthen and broaden the participation of developing countries in international economic decision-making and norm-setting.

A draft resolution on the composition of the staff of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (document A/C.3/61/L.23) would have the Assembly decide, while considering the report of the Joint Inspection Unit, to allow, in the effort to redress the specific geographic imbalance of the Office, the establishment of a temporary mechanism whereby recruitment of staff in the Office at the P-2 level would not be restricted to successful candidates from the national competitive examination, and to re-evaluate the financing of human rights activities with a view to increasing the support from core resources.  It would further encourage participation from a broader range of Member States in the associate experts programme and urge participants to increase sponsorship of associate experts from developing countries.

A draft resolution on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order (document A/C.3/61/L.24) would have the Assembly call upon all Member States to fulfil their commitment expressed in Durban, South Africa, during the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance to maximize the benefits of globalization, through increasing the quality of opportunities for trade, economic growth and sustainable development, global communications through the use of new technologies, and increased intercultural exchange through the preservation and promotion of cultural diversity.

The Assembly would further stress that it was the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as urge all international actors to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equality and equity, human dignity, mutual understanding and promotion of, and respect for, cultural diversity and universal human rights, and to reject all doctrines of exclusion based on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

The Assembly also had before it a draft resolution on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief (document A/C.3/61/L.25), which would have the Assembly condemn all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief and urge States to ensure adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.  Further to the draft, the Assembly would recognize, with deep concern, an overall rise in instances of intolerance and violence against members of many religions, including cases motivated by Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia.

It would further condemn any advocacy of religious hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence by any media.  Also, it would invite States and the United Nations system to address the rise of religious extremism, violence and discrimination against women as a result of religion or belief, as well as the use of religion or belief for ends inconsistent with the United Nations Charter.  By the draft, the Assembly would emphasize the importance of dialogue among and within religions and that equating any religion with terrorism should be avoided.

A draft resolution on respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the vital importance of family reunification (document A/C.3/61/L.26) would have the Assembly once again call upon all States to guarantee freedom of travel to all foreign nationals legally residing in their territory and reaffirm that all Governments, in particular those of receiving countries, must recognize the vital importance of family reunification and promote its incorporation into national legislation.  The Assembly would further call upon all States to allow the free flow of financial remittances by foreign nationals residing in their territory to relatives in the country of origin and to refrain from enacting, and to repeal if it already existed, legislation intended as a coercive measure that discriminated against individuals or groups of legal migrants by adversely affecting family reunification and the right to send financial remittances to relatives in the country of origin.

A draft resolution on the right to food (document A/C.3/61/L.27) would have the Assembly consider it intolerable that every five seconds, a child under the age of five died from hunger or hunger-related diseases somewhere in the world; that there were about 854 million malnourished people; and that, while the prevalence of hunger had diminished, the absolute number of malnourished people had been increasing in recent years when, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization, the planet could produce enough food to feed 12 billion people -- or twice the world’s present population.

The Assembly would further express its concern that women and girls were disproportionately affected by hunger, food insecurity and poverty, and stress that improving access to productive resources and public investment in rural development was essential for eradicating hunger and poverty, in particular in developing countries.  In addition, it would call upon Member States, the United Nations system and other relevant stakeholders to support national efforts aimed at responding rapidly to the food crises currently occurring across Africa.

The Assembly was also expected to take action on a draft resolution on the promotion of equitable and mutually respectful dialogue on human rights (A/C.3/61/L.31/Rev.1), which would have the Assembly call upon Member States to base their approaches towards development of international dialogue on human rights on the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action and other relevant international human rights instruments, while refraining from approaches that were inconsistent with that international framework.

The Assembly would further stress the need to avoid politically motivated and biased country-specific resolutions on the situation of human rights, 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.  It would also stress the continuing need for unbiased and objective information on the situation of human rights in all countries and the need to present that information in an impartial manner.

A draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/61/L.45/Rev.1), would have the Assembly strongly condemn once again all extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and demand that all States ensure that the practice of such executions was brought to an end.  The Assembly would further call upon all States, in which the death penalty had not been abolished, to comply with their obligations under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments.

Further to the draft, the Assembly would urge all States to prevent loss of life during public demonstrations, internal and communal violence, civil unrest, public emergencies or armed conflicts, and to ensure the protection of the right to life of all persons under their jurisdictions.  It would also urge all States to investigate, promptly and thoroughly, all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation, and to bring those responsible to justice before a competent, independent and impartial judiciary and ensure that such killings were neither condoned nor sanctioned by State officials or personnel.

Amendments to the above draft, contained in document A/C.3/61/L.59, would replace text calling upon all States, in which the death penalty had not been abolished, to comply with their obligations under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments, with text that instead called upon States to prevent extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and to comply with all their obligations under the relevant international human rights instruments, while reaffirming the importance of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty.

Also, instead of urging all States to investigate all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation, and to bring those responsible to justice, it would call upon Governments concerned to investigate all cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, including for any discriminatory reasons, and to bring those responsible to justice.

The Committee was also scheduled to take up a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document A/C.3/61/L.37), by which the Assembly would express very serious concern at continuing reports of systemic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in that country, including torture; the situation of refugees expelled or returned; severe restrictions on the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, opinion and expression; peaceful assembly and association, and limitations on travel abroad.  The Assembly would also express very serious concern about ongoing violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of women; unresolved questions relating to the abduction of foreigners in the form of an enforced disappearance; violations of economic, social and cultural rights leading to severe malnutrition and hardship for the population, and continuing reports of violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of those with disabilities, especially regarding the use of collective camps and collective measures that targeted disabled persons.

By the draft, the Assembly would express very deep concern at the precarious humanitarian situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, compounded by mismanagement on the part of the authorities, in particular the prevalence of infant malnutrition.  It would urge the Government to respect fully all human rights and fundamental freedoms and to grant full, free and unimpeded access to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the country.  It would also ask the Secretary-General to submit a comprehensive report for the next session of the Assembly, where examination of the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would continue.

A draft on the United Nations African Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (document A/C.3/61/L.14/Rev.1) would have the Assembly, noting that the Institute’s financial situation had greatly affected its capacity to deliver its services to African Member States, urge the States members of the Institute to make every possible effort to meet their obligations to the Institute.  It would also call upon all Member States and non-governmental organizations to continue supporting the Institute in the development of the requisite capacity and the implementation of its programmes and activities.  It would further request the Secretary-General to intensify efforts to mobilize all relevant entities of the United Nations system to provide the necessary financial and technical support to the Institute and to continue his efforts to mobilize the financial resources necessary to maintain the Institute with the core professional staff required to enable it to function effectively.

Draft resolutions expected to be introduced today included texts on the new international humanitarian order (document A/C.3/61/L.54), assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa (document A/C.3/61/L.55), and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (document A/C.3/61/L.36/Rev.1).

Introduction of Draft Resolutions

The representative of Jordan introduced a draft resolution on the new international humanitarian order (document A/C.3/61/L.54).  She said it aimed to enhance efforts to promote a new international humanitarian order by inviting stakeholders -- including States, the United Nations system and non-governmental organizations, including the Independent Bureau for Humanitarian Issues -- to reinforce their activity and cooperation with a view to developing an agenda for international humanitarian action.  The representative read aloud a number of revisions to the draft, which this year had been streamlined with two preambular and three operative paragraphs.  It was hoped that, like the 17 previous drafts, it would be adopted without a vote.

The representative of Namibia, speaking on behalf of the African Group, Azerbaijan and Luxembourg, introduced a draft on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa (document A/C.3/61/L.55).  He said that Africa continued to host large numbers of refugees and displaced persons.  The issues surrounding that problem were complex.  The draft drew special attention to conclusions adopted by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ Executive Committee on women and girls at risk and on identification, prevention and reduction of statelessness and protection of stateless persons.  It highlighted the need for the High Commissioner to ensure the civilian and humanitarian character of refugee camps and emphasized the importance of the High Commissioner’s promoting sustainable return.  It also encouraged the High Commissioner to continue to collaborate with other relevant actors by leading clusters on protection, camp coordination and management and emergency shelter.  He expressed the hope that the draft would be adopted by consensus, as it had been in previous years.

The representative of Mexico introduced a draft resolution entitled protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (document A/C.3/61/L.36/Rev.1).  She said the draft had been the outcome of an open process of consultation, incorporating suggestions from various delegations, which had strengthened it.  Terrorism was a serious problem; however, the need of Member States to protect their citizens did not justify the derogation of human rights of individuals under their jurisdiction.  Violations of human rights were also counterproductive when fighting terrorism.  The draft reaffirmed the duty of the international community to guarantee that all measures taken to fight terrorism must be compatible with international law, and guarantee due process and the rights of all prisoners at all detention centres.  The co-sponsors welcomed the creation of the Human Rights Council and had confidence that it would protect human rights in all circumstances.  It was hoped that the draft would be adopted by consensus.

Action on Draft Resolutions

Speaking on the draft concerning the inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/C.3/61/L.48), the representative of the Russian Federation said that the relevance of the draft was not in dispute.  The international community could not help but be concerned by various extremist actions, such as neo-Nazis and skinheads who perpetrated violence against those whose skin was of a different colour, those of a different religion and immigrants.  The world had witnessed incidents of Negrophobia, Arabophobia and Islamophobia.  It was inadmissible to have such practices perpetrated, including actions related to the SS and units of Waffen SS.  The aim of the resolution was not to bring any specific State to trial.  It was a thematic draft focused on promoting dialogue.  Adoption of the draft would send a clear signal to those advocating purity of races and discrimination.

The representative of the United States said his country had called for a vote on the draft and would vote no.  While he shared the repugnance of the Third Committee at the promotion of Nazism and racism, freedom of speech must, nevertheless, be protected.  The resolution failed to distinguish between actions and statements that represented free expression and those that incited violence, which should be prohibited.  Freedom of expression was essential to other rights.  No country abhorred racism, xenophobia and related intolerance more than the United States, but, Governments should not sanction speech, even hateful speech.  Such hateful ideas would fail on account of their own intrinsic lack of merit.

The representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that those countries maintained a firm commitment to eliminating racism and neo-Nazism, but, comprehensive efforts to fight those ills must take place at the national and regional levels.  Last year, his delegation had not supported the draft because of its selective approach, and those concerns had not been addressed in the current session.

Under the Convention against Racism, efforts to combat it could not limit fundamental freedoms, the European Union representative said.  Regrettably, especially in operative paragraph 4, the draft did subject the enjoyment of human rights to unacceptable conditions, by violating the rights to associate, and assemble, as well as other general rights.  Instead of focusing on skinheads, Nazis and former members of the Waffen SS, the draft should have taken a more fundamental approach.  It would also have been preferable if the draft had rectified inaccurate citations of the Nuremberg tribunal.  For all of the above reasons, he would abstain on the draft.

The Committee, then, approved the resolution by a vote of 107 in favour to 3 against ( Federated States of Micronesia, Japan, United States), with 53 abstentions.  (See annex I.)

Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Japan said racism and xenophobia needed to be tackled, but, operative paragraphs 4 and 8 imposed unacceptable conditions and undermined the right to associate, assemble, and express opinions.  For that reason, he had voted against the draft.

The representative of Costa Rica said that, due to its nature, the initiative should have been adopted by consensus.  Unfortunately, such hopes had once again been shattered because of a lack of resolve to negotiate on a text that condemned the SS as a criminal organization, rather than merely criminalizing one of its components.  Meanwhile, operative paragraph 4 represented a clear abuse of the rights to freedom of assembly and other rights.  It also seemed to restrict or eliminate the scope of action of national authorities.

The representative of Mauritania said that he had voted in favour of the draft, which was not reflected on the board.

The Secretary said the vote could not be altered but that the Secretariat took note of Mauritania’s statement and would reference it in the Committee’s report.

The representative of Qatar said that he had been unable to vote in favour of the draft because of a technical difficulty concerning the voting screen.  Qatar was in favour of the draft, and he hoped that the change would be noted in summary record.

Speaking on the draft resolution on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/C.3/61/L.46), the representative of Pakistan said the right to self-determination enjoyed primacy in international law and was the cornerstone of the Charter of the United Nations.  It had been subsequently upheld at the 2005 World Summit.  The adoption of the resolution, which had been first introduced in the 1980s, would send a strong message with regards to acts of foreign aggression.  It was hoped that the resolution would be adopted by consensus, in manifestation of the United Nations’ commitment to uphold the right to self-determination.

The Committee then approved the draft without a vote.

Speaking afterwards, the representative of Argentina said the text should be applied in accordance with relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Special Committee on Decolonization pertaining to the situation in the Malvina Islands.

The representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the thrust of the resolution had been too narrow.  It would have been preferable for it to have more clearly reflected the practice of self-determination under international law.  The text also contained a number of inaccuracies under international law; the right itself as stated in the International Covenants was a right attached only to “peoples” and not to “nations.”  Furthermore, while the European Union firmly believed that self-determination was closely associated with respect for all human rights, it was incorrect to suggest that self-determination as such was a precondition for the enjoyment of other human rights.

The European Union also would have liked to have seen the right of return reflected in accordance with article 13, paragraph 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the representative said.  It feared that such weaknesses in the draft would undermine the quality of debate that should have been taking place on such a central issue; it also regretted that this year, the main sponsors had not even attempted to initiate any discussion of the draft, which did not reflect developments in the field, such as jurisprudence of treaty bodies.

The representative of Venezuela said his country had always spoken out for sovereignty and self-determination.  He added that the final document of the 2005 World Summit did not lay down a mandate for his republic in any way.

The representative of Egypt, the main sponsor of the draft resolution on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (document A/C.3/61/L.51), said that it was his delegation’s sincere hope that the draft would be adopted by consensus, so as to send a strong message of solidarity to the Palestinian people.

The representative of the United States requested a recorded vote.

The representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union wanted to restate its firm commitment to enabling the Palestinian people to fulfil their unconditional right to self-determination.  It reiterated the goal set out in the Quartet Road Map, envisioning a two-State solution.  The European Union urged the Palestinians to work for national unity; a Palestinian Government with a platform that reflected the Quartet principles would present a partner for the international community to support in the re-launching of the peace process.  The European Union calls on Israel to desist from any actions that threatened the viability of an agreed two-state solution, including settlement activities in and around east Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley.

The representative of Israel said his country supported the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.  The impasse in Middle East did not come from Israel denying that right.  Israel and the international community had been quite clear that the Palestinian leadership had to fulfil its national responsibilities by recognizing Israel, renouncing terrorism and accepting previous agreements.  The Hamas-led Palestinian Authority and brutal terrorist attacks against Israel had undermined the national rights of the Palestinian people.  The Palestinian Government funded and supported terrorism, and opposed Israel.  How could the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination be invoked when the same right for Israel was being so blatantly denied?  Israel would vote against the draft, which was flawed and one-sided and which ignored history.  Both Israelis and Palestinians had the right to live in peace and security.

The draft resolution was then adopted by a vote of 162 in favour to 4 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Palau, United States), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Canada, Georgia, Haiti).  (See annex II.)

After the adoption of the draft, the representative of Argentina said the right to self-determination required an active subject, that is, a people free from foreign domination.  Without such an active subject, there could be no right to self-determination.

The representative of the United States said his country had no quarrel with the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people.  However, the Palestinian Authority had continued to create hardships for the Palestinian people and had postponed the opportunity to reinvigorate the Road Map and the two-State solution.  The United States could not support the draft as it reflected an outdated approach whereby the Palestinian people thought the solution to their problem lay in the United Nations.  There was a role for the United Nations, but it was in supporting the two parties to resolve their conflict.  Such resolutions undermined the credibility of the United Nations, which had to be seen as an honest broker in the conflict.  One-sided resolutions would make no contribution to resolving such conflicts.

The representative of Australia explained that her delegation had voted to abstain, as the draft contained unbalanced language that would no nothing to help resolve the dispute.

The representative of Canada reiterated his country’s strongest possible support for the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination as part of a two-State solution.  However, as it could not fully support the draft resolution, it had chosen to abstain.

The representative of Rwanda explained that his delegation had been out of the meeting room when the vote took place.  Had they been present, they would have voted in favour.

The representative of Libya said the vote represented a very, very historic victory for the international community.  If those who had voted in favour of the draft had not been a clear representation of the international community, then where was the international community?

The representative of the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine expressed her delegation’s utmost thanks and appreciation for the vote.  Such overwhelming support was a clear reaffirmation of the international community’s commitment and support for the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination.  For the first time, such a draft resolution had had more than 115 co-sponsors.  Its tremendous support represented a step towards the Palestinians’ goal of their own independent State.  It was unfortunate that the United States had chosen to oppose the resolution.

She said the real problem remained with the Israeli position.  Israel had been voting in the same manner every year, even during the years of the peace process.  She would not respond to the Israeli representative’s statement, as the vote spoke for itself.  The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination was a natural and inalienable right; today’s resolution made that fact even more clear.

Speaking on a draft resolution on missing persons (document A/C.3/61/L.19), the representative of Azerbaijan read out several revisions to the text.  She extended her thanks to the co-sponsors and expressed the hope that growing international support of the issue would contribute to its resolution.  She thanked the International Committee of the Red Cross for its expertise in improving the text.  The draft would once again send a timely message, calling for efforts to address the issue at all levels.  She hoped that it would be adopted by consensus.

The Committee then approved the resolution without a vote.

The representative of the United States said he was pleased to join consensus on the draft, but wished to make several clarifications.  In operative paragraph 3, he had interpreted the reference to the “right to know the fate of missing relatives” to be based on article 32 of Additional Protocol 1 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which were binding only on States parties to that Protocol.  He had interpreted operative paragraph 4 to mean that States should take reasonable and appropriate measures to search for missing persons.  In operative paragraphs 2, 4, and 6, references to human rights laws during armed conflicts were understood to refer only to those provisions, if any, which might be applicable.  The law of war was the applicable law governing armed conflict.  Regarding operative paragraph 9, the establishment of commissions and working groups was taken to mean at the national and regional level, with no financial impact on the United Nations system.

The Committee then took up a draft on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/C.3/61/L.20).  The Secretary noted that a recorded vote had been requested.

The representative of Egypt asked who had requested the vote.

The Secretary responded that Finland, on behalf of the European Union, had requested the vote.

The representative of Finland, on behalf of the European Union, explained that the European Union would vote against the draft resolution.  Dealing with globalization and its effect was high on the European Union’s agenda, but as in the past, the draft inaccurately generalized that globalization had a negative effect on the enjoyment of all human rights.  Globalization was a multidimensional phenomenon; while its benefits had not, at present, been evenly shared, it could offer the means to tackle extreme poverty and other acute problems.

The European Union was also not convinced that globalization had an impact on all human rights, as there were such rights and fundamental freedoms that had not been affected by globalization.  In voting against a similar draft last year, the European Union had hoped that the gap could be bridged between the main sponsors and other delegations; however, it was noted with regret that the main sponsors had shown a lack of will to engage in consultations on the draft, the representative said.

The Committee then approved the resolution by a vote of 113 in favour to 53 against, with 4 abstentions ( Brazil, Chile, Haiti, Singapore).  (See annex III.)

The representative of Armenia said that, for technical reasons, he had been unable to vote, and wished it to be recorded that his delegation was in favour of the draft.

The Secretary said that, while the vote could not be changed once the machine had been locked, the statement had been noted and would be contained in the summary of the Committee’s proceedings.

Speaking on a draft resolution on the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (document A/C.3/61/L.23), the representative of Cuba said that he wished to reaffirm the importance of the issue, as well as of the equitable distribution of staff.  He read out a series of revisions to the draft.  As further sign of constructive spirit that his country had demonstrated throughout the process, as evidenced by recent consultations, and noting that it was 1 p.m., he said he would be prepared to postpone action on the draft until after lunch.  He wished to note, however, that one delegation that had not participated in any consultations on the draft and that had expressed no interest in the topic had been exercising procedural manoeuvres to delay adoption of the draft.  He wanted to make it clear that any such manoeuvring was an act of bad faith and he firmly insisted upon the need to take action on the draft during the afternoon session.

Resuming in the afternoon, the Committee again took up a draft on the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (document A/C.3/61/L.23).

The representative of United States said that, oral revisions to the draft, as read out by the Secretary in the morning, had left him confused.  Those revisions seemed to say the draft was not in the competency of the Third Committee, but of the Fifth.  That should have been a big red flag that something unusual was happening.  Amendments to the draft had requested bringing it before the Fifth Committee, but the Plenary would have to pass the draft and it would need to go to the Fifth Committee first.  That presented an illogical sequence of events.  Normally, the General Committee would decide such an issue, but it would also be appropriate if the matter were handled by the Bureau of the Assembly or through consultations between the chair of the Third Committee and either the chair of the Fifth Committee or the President of the General Assembly.  He said he was not trying to delay action, but as it stood, he would vote against the draft.

The representative of Cuba said that he was not surprised by the comments from the United States, which gave the impression that it wanted the Committee to waste its time on procedural matters.  The question had been considered for years in the human rights machinery and at the Human Rights Commission.  The geographic imbalance of the staff of Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) continued to be a question of importance for a great number of Member States.  The United States was just offering a new delaying tactic.  It had not expressed any interest in seeing even one of the paragraphs of the resolution considered and spoke of procedural measures when Cuba spoke of matters of political connotation.  Cuba had accommodated the concerns of all delegations that had shown interest in the text and had not received one comment from the United States delegation.  He reiterated that he was prepared to continue with the decision-making process on the draft.

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Finland, on behalf of the European Union, said that he actively supported the efforts of the High Commissioner to improve the gender balance and geographical distribution in the composition of her staff; however, any cross-cutting issues, such as human resource policy, were for the Fifth Committee to take forward, not the Third.  It was also not appropriate for the United Nations intergovernmental machinery to separately manage the human resource policy of the Office of the OHCHR, which formed part of the Secretariat.  By adopting the resolution in the Third Committee, the General Assembly was about to violate its own rules and regulations.  The European Union could only abstain from the vote.

The representative of Canada, speaking also on behalf of Australia, said that administrative and budgetary matters should only be addressed by organs with the proper jurisdiction and expertise.  Canada’s opposition to the draft was not based on the merits of issue, but on the principle of rules of procedure and rules of responsibility of the Main Committees.  For those reasons, Australia and Canada would vote no on the draft.

The representative of Japan said that he also felt the draft should be dealt with by the Fifth Committee.  The content of operative paragraph 1 (b) appeared to be contrary to the current recruitment system and would suffocate the function of the national competitive exam.  Therefore, he would vote against the draft.

The Committee then approved the draft by a vote of 112 in favour to 6 against (Australia, Canada, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Japan, United States), with 54 abstentions.  (See annex IV.)

The representative of Singapore said that he had abstained on the draft.  Singapore was a firm supporter of equitable distribution, but it was also a firm proponent of meritocracy; hence, it was not convinced that establishing an alternative mechanism to the national competitive exam was an appropriate remedy.  The suggestion of a contradiction between meritocracy and equitable distribution denigrated developing countries, whose candidates could succeed and thrive in competition.  Efforts should be focused on eliminating bias in the national competitive exam system, rather than circumventing it.

The representative of United States said that, operative paragraph 5 seemed to constitute a referral to the Fifth Committee in a way yet to be determined.  He looked forward to discussing the issues at that time and in that venue.

The representative of South Africa said that geographic imbalance in the High Commissioner’s staff was of great concern and must be addressed.  She stressed the importance of the mandates and rules of committees.  The Fifth Committee was the body to consider administrative and budgetary measures.  The new preambular paragraph 6 and operative paragraph 5 would ensure that the Fifth Committee considered measures under its purview.

The representative of Costa Rica said that he had voted in favour of the draft, but that he did share concerns that it might lead to the erroneous conclusion that a temporary mechanism, such as the one proposed, would denigrate or undermine the understanding of the capacity of the persons applying to those posts from developing countries, particularly from his region.  He understood that administrative and budgetary matters were clearly under the purview of the Fifth Committee.

The representative of Cuba said that he was satisfied with the approval of the draft and the strong message of support it demonstrated for efforts to redress geographic staff imbalance in the staff of OHCHR.  He said he was not surprised by the commentary of some delegations, especially those whose geographic region was overrepresented in the High Commissioner’s staff.  The comments of the United States showed contradiction.  Initially, he referred to the text’s limitations, and then ended up interpreting it to mean that the matter would be referred to the Fifth Committee.

The Committee then took action on a draft resolution on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order (document A/C.3/61/L.24).  The representative of Cuba, its main supporter, said the draft, which had 44 cosponsors, was intended to draw attention to the close relationship between socio-economic conditions at the international level and their impact on human rights.  Cuba respectfully asked that all delegations vote in favour of the draft, so as to express support for a democratic and equitable international order that would lead to the protection and promotion of human rights.

The Chairman announced that a request for a vote had been made.

Speaking before the vote, the representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union believed that several elements in the text had moved far beyond the scope of the Committee and had not been dealt with in a comprehensive and holistic way.  The draft underlined the international obligations to control the mechanisms of globalization, but omitted the duties and obligations of States in that regard; a consideration to which the European Union attached great importance.  Moreover, the European Union did not consider the language of operative paragraph 12 to prejudge the outcome of the review process by the Working Group of the Human Rights Council.  For those reasons, the European Union would vote against the draft resolution.

The draft was then adopted by a vote of 117 in favour to 56 against, with 3 abstentions ( Argentina, Mexico, Peru).  (See annex V.)

The Committee then took action on the draft resolution on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief (document A/C.3/61/L.25).  The representative of Finland, the main sponsor, speaking on behalf of the European Union, noted that the draft had 95 co-sponsors.  While the draft had been led by the European Union, it was of common ownership and had reflected a spirit of moderation.  Consensus would give it a seal of credibility.  The draft reaffirmed freedom of thought, religion and belief and highlighted the role of education and dialogue as a means to enhance knowledge and mutual understanding.  The European Union had been in discussions with a broad range of countries on the resolution and would continue to do so.  It was hoped that, like last year, all delegations would join consensus on the draft.

The draft resolution was then adopted without a vote.

Speaking afterwards, the representative of Syria said her country rejected all forms of intolerance or discrimination based on religion or belief.  The stress in the draft not to equate religion with terrorism was welcomed.  However, sub-paragraph A of operative paragraph 4 contradicted the provisions of the Islamic religion and therefore, Syria wanted to place that reservation on the official record.

Speaking on a draft resolution on respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the vital importance of family reunification (document A/C.3/61/L.26), the representative of Cuba said that the family continued to be considered the basic unit of society.  It was the duty of all to promote the reunification of families.  Restrictions on families and on their ability to send remittances hindered that.  He called on States to refrain from enacting laws that violated the rights of immigrants to send money to relatives in their country of origin.

The representative of the United States said that, if no other delegation had already done so, he wished to request a recorded vote.  He would vote against the draft because its reference to the universal right to travel confused the right to leave any country and to enter and leave one’s own country with the sovereign power to determine who could enter a country.  Although the United States supported family reunification, there was no such right under international law.  No country in the room recognized such a right or incorporated it into immigration law.  The family was the basic unit of society.  For that reason, the United States had generous immigration policies.

While working to reduce the transfer costs of remittances, the United States recognized no right to such remittances, which were private flows of capital.  States could determine the scope of their economic relations with other States, and citizens and residents were expected to act accordingly in their own financial transactions, the representative said.

The Committee then approved the resolution by a vote of 116 in favour to 3 against ( Israel, Palau, United States), with 58 abstentions.  (See annex VI.)

The representative of Colombia said that, the next time the draft was taken up, the General Assembly should have a report from the Secretary-General or the High Commissioner for Human Rights, regarding its information and content, and which took into account the views of Member States, inter-governmental organizations and non-governmental organizations.

Speaking on a draft resolution on the right to food (document A/C.3/61/L.27), the representative of Cuba said that the draft included several valuable recommendations of the Rapporteur.  He hoped that the draft would contribute to eliminating the scourge of hunger.

The representative of the United States said that he wished to request a recorded vote on the draft.  His country, which was the world’s largest food donor, had shown, by its actions, that it was committed to food security around the world.  While he agreed with the sentiment expressed in the draft – the world food situation was a problem of profound significance -- he could not support it as drafted.  Attainment of the right to food and the right to be free from hunger should be realized progressively, but it did not give rise to international obligations, nor did it diminish the responsibility of Governments to their citizens.  The draft contained numerous inaccuracies, including in its description of underlying rights.  He hoped that, in future years, the sponsors would work to accommodate those concerns, so that the United States could join in the consensus on such a very important topic.

The Committee then approved the draft by a vote of 175 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions.  (See annex VII.)

The representative of Cuba said that he had noticed that, in some of the language versions, Cuba’s name had been omitted from the list of co-sponsors.  He would appreciate it if the Secretariat could make sure that Cuba’s name was included in all versions.  He also thanked all those who had shown overwhelming support of the text and had contributed to fighting hunger in the world.

The Committee then went on to take action on the draft resolution entitled promotion of equitable and mutually respectful dialogue on human rights (document A/C.3/L.31/Rev.1).  The representative of Belarus, its main sponsor, said that the pivotal paragraph was operative paragraph 4, which stressed the need to avoid politically motivated and biased country-specific resolutions on the situation of human rights, 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.  Such an idea -– approved at the fourteenth Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Havana -- was the spirit of a process that had begun in the spring, when the General Assembly took a decision on creating the Human Rights Council.  It was noted that the last three words in paragraph 3 of the preamble had now been deleted.

The Vice Chairman announced that a vote had been requested.  The representative of Belarus asked to know who had requested the vote; the Vice Chairman replied that the United States had requested a vote.

The representative of the United States, explaining how his delegation would vote, said that the resolution had much to recommend it; its most meaningful paragraph called for the elimination of politically motivated or biased country-specific resolutions.  Israel had been the subject of such resolutions that had no balance or regard for the actual causes of suffering in the Middle East.  On the other hand, on many occasions, country-specific resolutions had given hope to the oppressed and had encouraged reform from Governments.  Such resolutions had been politically motivated, as they attempted to bring about political change, and they had been biased, but only against those who had violated internationally agreed upon norms and standards.  The two original sponsors of the resolution had both been long-term abusers of human rights.  For that reason, and because the text could be misinterpreted to call for limitations on country-specific resolutions, the United States would vote against it.

The representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that an approach, based on dialogue and cooperation, was successful only insofar as the country concerned was willing to cooperate and was open to dialogue.  That was not always the case.  Belarus, one of the co-authors of the draft, had failed to cooperate fully or to enter into meaningful dialogue with the United Nations human rights machinery.  The true objection of the resolution appeared to be to stifle all legitimate expressions of concern by the United Nations about the human rights situations in particular countries.  The European Union had engaged in last-minute negotiations on the draft and had made a number of proposals, only a small number of which had been considered by the sponsors.  The European Union would vote against the resolution.

The representative of Mexico said it would be premature to prejudge the results of the Working Group that was considering the universal periodic review mechanism.  Her country also had serious doubts about the real motivations behind the submission of the resolution; rather than contributing to true dialogue, it would move away from that very goal.  Mexico would vote against.

The representative of Canada said that her country did not agree with the intent of the resolution or the thesis on which it had been based.  Country-specific resolutions were important tools.  Canada strongly agreed that the resolution was politically motivated; at its root it sought to circumscribe the ability to bring forward serious human rights issues.  Canada would be voting no.

The draft resolution was then adopted by a vote of 77 in favour to 63 against, with 26 abstentions.  (See annex VIII.)

The representative of Brazil, in an explanation of vote, said that his country had abstained, and that such an important subject should be submitted to comprehensive study prior to any decision being taken by the General Assembly.

The representative of Japan, explaining his delegation’s decision to vote against, said that, while the draft had been adopted by a very small margin, it did not stop any country from submitting country-specific resolutions, which could be a good basis for dialogue and consultation so long as all parties had the goodwill to do so.

Speaking on a draft on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (document A/C.3/61/L.36/Rev.1), the representative of Mexico said she hoped the draft would be adopted by consensus.

The Committee then approved the resolution without a vote.

Speaking on a draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/61/L.45/Rev.1), the representative of Sweden said that changes made to the text had addressed the main concerns expressed during informal consultations.  Based on bilateral consultations that had continued up to today, co-sponsors had agreed to change operative paragraph 13 to delete “on-site” before “country visits” and replace “indispensable component” with “one of the tools for the fulfilment”.  While full consensus on the draft had not been reached, the discussions had been a good starting point for future negotiations on the topic.

The chair then drew the delegates’ attention to the proposed amendments to the above draft contained in document A/C.3/61/L.59.

The representative of Sweden said that, given the intensive negotiations on the main draft, it was with regret that he had to say that the proposed amendments were not acceptable.  He requested a recorded vote on the proposed amendments, as well as separate votes on the two paragraphs contained in L.59.

The representative of Egypt said that the resolution should be adopted by consensus, since it dealt with such an abhorrent practice.  All should reject such a crime.  Unfortunately, there was a legacy of overloading the draft with issues that it was not possible to reach agreement on.  Operative paragraph 4 equated the death penalty with arbitrary executions, which Egypt rejected.  As for operative paragraph 5(b), it should not have been introduced, since it did not include one of most important reasons for that practice, namely foreign occupation.

The representative of Sweden said that the difficulty of operative paragraph 4 was not in its content, but in the way it was interpreted.  It was not intended to judge countries that carried out the death penalty.  He would vote against the amendment to that paragraph.

The representative of Kuwait said that he had hoped for consensus on the draft.  There had been no need for the selectivity reflected in operative paragraphs 4 and 5.  Regretfully, the co-sponsors did not take into account the considerations of other delegations, including the Islamic Group.  He did not accept the idea of including certain types of executions in extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

The Committee then rejected operative paragraph 1 of document A/C.3/61/L.59 by a vote of 62 in favour to 71 against, with 23 abstentions.  (See annex IX.)

The Committee then rejected operative paragraph 2 of document A/C.3/61/L.59 by a vote of 57 in favour to 69 against, with 25 abstentions.  (See annex X.)

The representative of Sweden said that operative paragraph 5(b) of L.45/Rev.1 was a simple paragraph, which called on States to protect all people in their jurisdiction.  Its focus was on the State and responsibilities were clearly spelled out in the text.  It was not the case that the groups mentioned there were more deserving of protection than other persons; it called for the same level of protection for them as for others.  The text did not contain value judgments related to groups.  There was no hidden agenda, only a call on States to protect all persons, regardless of their background or status.  He would be voting in favour of both operative paragraphs 4 and 5(b) and called on all others to do the same.

The Committee then voted to retain operative paragraph 4 of document A/C.3/61/L.45/Rev.1 by a vote of 89 in favour to 38 against, with 26 abstentions.  (See annex XI.)

The representative of Japan said that operative paragraph 4 should have required all Member States, regardless of whether they had the death penalty or not, to cooperate with all human rights instruments to prohibit all extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.  For that reason, he had abstained.

The Committee then voted to retain operative paragraph 5(b) of document A/C.3/61/L.45/Rev.1 by a vote of 93 in favour to 30 against, with 28 abstentions.  (See annex XII.)

The representative of Sweden said that he hoped that, in future years, full consensus would be restored for the resolution as a whole.  The votes just taken had shown that it had the support of the majority of those present.  He hoped that the differences would not hinder the commitment of all to the core of the resolution, the practice of extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions.  On the last regrettable vote, which came as a surprise to the co-sponsors, he would vote in favour and urged all others to do the same.

The representative of Egypt asked the Chair which delegation had requested a vote on L.45/Rev.1 as a whole.

The Chair said it was the United States that had requested the vote.

The Committee then approved draft resolution L.45/Rev.1, as orally revised, by a vote of 129 in favour to none against, with 42 abstentions.  (See annex XIII.)

The representative of Algeria said that she had voted for the amendments to the draft in the hope that the resolution would receive the broadest possible support to take into account the constantly evolving legal reality.  She hoped for new wording next year to take into account legal reality in all countries and to reach consensus.

The representative of United States said that he abhorred and condemned in strongest terms such executions.  His country carefully tracked and exposed such killings in its annual human rights reports.  Regarding its domestic legal system, the United States Constitution had numerous provisions to prevent such practices.  His country’s criminal justice system provided unparalleled protections for defendants.  Unfortunately, the resolution had strayed into areas beyond its original scope and could be misunderstood as blurring the deeply rooted separation between human rights law and international humanitarian law.  International human law was the body of law that applied in armed conflicts.  Preambulatory paragraphs 3 and 6 had failed to recognize that important distinction.  The resolution failed to recognize the separate applicability of laws in armed conflict.

He said that the resolution also had politicized contents.  Operative paragraph 7 welcomed the International Criminal Court.  Even supporters of the Court could see that the language was factually inaccurate, as the Court had no jurisdiction over the types of executions under consideration.  Reference to the Court only politicized the topic and made it difficult for the international community to speak with one voice.  The draft went beyond its scope in such a way that it did not provide helpful guidance to the international community, risked confusion and deflected a variety of other issues.

The representative of Gabon said that he had been talking to another delegate when the vote on the overall text took place.  He would have voted for the draft.

The representative of Botswana said that she condemned in strongest terms all such executions, but completely disassociated herself from operative paragraph 4, which should apply to all countries, not only those with the death penalty, and also disassociated herself from the words “sexual orientation” in operative paragraph 5(b).

The Secretary then asked that the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania be invited to explain her delegation’s vote on draft resolution L.23, as he had not seen her earlier due to a poor line of sight.  The Vice Chairman proceeded to invite the representative to speak.  She said that her country was a firm believer in equal geographic distribution of staff and that it was deeply concerned by the imbalance at OHCHR.  However, her country had abstained, as it believed that the Fifth Committee was the competent place to address the issue.

The representative of Ukraine expressed regret for his delegation not having been present for votes that had taken place in the morning, due to technical reasons.  Had the delegation been present, his country would have abstained on L.48 and voted in favour of L.51.

The Secretary announced that the Committee would resume its proceedings at 10 a.m. sharp on Friday, 17 November to take action on six draft resolutions.  He added that consultations on item 118 (programme planning) would take place in the afternoon at a time and place to be announced.

ANNEX I

Vote on Practices Contributing to Racism

The draft resolution on practices contributing to racism (document A/C.3/61/L.48) was approved by a recorded vote of 107 in favour to 3 against, with 53 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chile, 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, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Japan, Micronesia (Federated States of), United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Chad, Dominica, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Montenegro, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Vanuatu.

ANNEX II

Vote on Palestinian Right to Self-Determination

The draft resolution on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (document A/C.3/61/L.51) was approved by a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 4 against, with 4 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, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United States.

Abstain:  Australia, Canada, Georgia, Haiti.

Absent:  Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Vanuatu.

ANNEX III

Vote on Globalization’s Impact on Human Rights

The draft resolution on the impact of globalization on human rights (document A/C.3/61/L.20) was approved by a recorded vote of 113 in favour to 53 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, 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, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, 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 Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain:  Brazil, Chile, Haiti, Singapore.

Absent:  Armenia, Burundi, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Staff Composition – Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights

The draft resolution on the composition of the staff in the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (document A/C.3/61/L.23) was approved by a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 6 against, with 54 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, Central African Republic, Chile, 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, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Micronesia (Federated States of), United States.

Abstain:  Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania.

Absent:  Cape Verde, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX V

Vote on Promotion of Democratic International Order

The draft resolution on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order (document A/C.3/61/L.24) was approved by a recorded vote of 117 in favour to 56 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

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

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

Abstain:  Argentina, Mexico, Peru.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Freedom of Travel, Family Reunification

The draft resolution on respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and family reunification (document A/C.3/61/L.26*) was approved by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 3 against, with 58 abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  Israel, Palau, United States.

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

Absent:  Bahamas, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Right to Food

The draft resolution on the right to food (document A/C.3/61/L.27) was approved by a recorded vote of 175 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

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

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  None.

Absent:  Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Georgia, Guinea, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Promotion of Dialogue on Human Rights

The draft resolution on the promotion of equitable dialogue on human rights (document A/C.3/61/L.31/REV.1) was adopted by a recorded vote of 77 in favour to 63 against, with 26 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain:  Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Brazil, Costa Rica, Dominica, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, Iraq, Jordan, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Rwanda, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania.

Absent:  Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Mongolia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu, Zambia.

ANNEX IX

Vote on Amendment to Draft on Extrajudicial Executions

The amendment to operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/61/L.59) was not approved by a recorded vote of 62 in favour to 71 against, with 23 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Djibouti, Dominica, Egypt, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Abstain:  Angola, Belarus, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Mauritius, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, United States.

Absent:  Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Marshall Islands, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX X

Vote on Amendment to Draft on Extrajudicial Executions

The amendment to operative paragraph 5(b) of the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/61/L.59) was not approved by a recorded vote of 57 in favour to 69 against, with 25 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Colombia, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Abstain:  Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Fiji, Guinea-Bissau, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, Mauritius, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania.

Absent:  Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.

ANNEX XI

Vote on Operative Paragraph 4 of Text on Executions

Operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/61/L.45/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 89 in favour to 38 against, with 26 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Dominica, Egypt, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Trinidad and Tobago, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo, Guinea-Bissau, India, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Mongolia, Morocco, Niger, Palau, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Zambia.

Absent:  Algeria, Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Haiti, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Nauru, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX XII

Vote on Amendment to Text on Executions

Operative paragraph 5(b) of the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/61/L.45/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to 30 against, with 28 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against:  Afghanistan, Bahrain, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Cambodia, Congo, Dominica, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guyana, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Niger, Philippines, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia.

Absent:  Algeria, Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Myanmar, Nauru, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

ANNEX XIII

Vote on Extrajudicial Executions

The draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/C.3/61/L.45/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 129 in favour to none against, with 42 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Zambia.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Absent:  Azerbaijan, Chad, Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Nauru, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record