Sixty-second General Assembly

Plenary

76^th & 77^th Meetings (AM & PM)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS LANDMARK TEXT CALLING FOR MORATORIUM ON DEATH PENALTY

Adopts 54 Resolutions, 12 Decisions Recommended by Third Committee

The General Assembly today adopted 54 resolutions and 12 decisions recommended by its Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), including a landmark text calling for a moratorium on executions to be established in all States that still maintain the death penalty, as well as a resolution strongly condemning rape against women and girls in all its forms, including in conflict situations.

The resolution calling for “a moratorium on the death penalty”, was passed by a vote of 104 in favour to 54 against, with 29 abstentions.  (See annex VI.)  It called on all States that still allowed capital punishment to “progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and reduce the number of offences for which it may be imposed”.  Those countries were also called on to provide the Secretary-General with information on their use of capital punishment and to respect international standards that safeguard the rights of condemned inmates.

Echoes of the intense two-day debate that preceded approval in the Committee of the resolution on a moratorium on executions reverberated in the Assembly hall, with a number of delegations arguing that the death penalty was not illegal under international human rights legislation and that it was the sovereign right of each and every State to determine its own judicial system.  Two similar proposals had reached the Assembly in 1994 and 1999; in the first case, it was defeated by eight votes, while in the second, it was withdrawn at the last minute.

Among those delegations opposing the resolution, the representative of Barbados said the European Union and other main sponsors were trying to impose their will on other countries.  “Capital punishment remains legal under international law and Barbados wishes to exercise its sovereign right to use it as deterrent to the most serious crimes,” he said just ahead of the vote.

Singapore’s representative said it was unfortunate that the resolution’s co-sponsors had handled the issue not as a debate, but as a lecture.  There had never been any attempt to reach consensus.  They had ignored the diversity of States and their judicial systems.  In addition, they had resorted to pressure tactics and demarches.  While the co-sponsors would celebrate their victory, it had come at the expense of acrimony in the Third Committee.  Each State had a sovereign right to choose its own political, criminal and judicial systems, he said, stressing that Singapore would continue to follow its own course in the matter.

Among the 17 resolutions adopted by recorded vote, were country-specific texts addressing the situation of human rights in Belarus (72 in favour to 33 against, with 78 abstentions, annex XX), the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (101 in favour to 22 against, with 59 abstentions, annex XVI), and Iran (73 in favour to 53 against, with 55 abstentions, annex XIX).

As in years past, the country-specific resolutions prompted heated debate, with several delegations -– notably from the developing world -– contending that they were selective and politically motivated, and that the Human Rights Council was the better venue to address such issues.  Other representatives maintained that, as the only international body with universal membership, the Assembly was an essential forum for illuminating the world’s most critical human rights situations.

The stark divisions played out in a series of close recorded votes over the text on the human rights situation in Iran.  While the resolution as a whole was ultimately adopted, before action was taken, Iran’s representative called for a motion of no action on the text, countering that his country and the majority of the international community believed the Human Rights Council was the most competent body to consider and monitor human rights.  The Assembly’s consideration of questions such as that contained in the resolution was unwarranted.  The motion was defeated by a vote of 84 against to 80 in favour, with 19 abstentions.  (See annex XVII.)

Immediately following that action, Venezuela’s representative called for a recorded vote on operative paragraph 5 of the text, which requested the Secretary-General to examine the situation of human rights there and submit a comprehensive report to the Assembly. 

He said that, endorsing such a request would set a dangerous precedent, undermining the work of the Human Rights Council, whose universal periodic review mechanism would deal with those matters.  Furthermore, in reference to specific country reports, it was the practice within that mechanism for such reports to be drafted by a special envoy.  It was therefore unnecessary to make that request to the Secretary-General.  He requested that the last part of operative paragraph 5, from the words “to this end” through the end of the paragraph, be removed.  The oral amendment was rejected by a vote of 70 against to 57 in favour, with 45 abstentions.  (See annex XVIII.)

By a text on eliminating rape and other forms of sexual violence in all their manifestations, including in conflict and related situations, the Assembly, acting without a vote, urged States to take special measures to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual violation.  It further urged them to end impunity by ensuring that all rape victims were equally protected under the law with equal access to justice and by prosecuting violators including Government officials. 

By another text, adopted by a recorded vote of 127 in favour to 52 against, with 6 abstentions (Switzerland, Tonga, Liechtenstein, China, New Zealand and Tunisia), the Assembly reaffirmed that the use, recruitment, financing and training of mercenaries was not only a grave concern, but also violated the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.

The Assembly also adopted by recorded vote resolutions on the Rights of the Child; the inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; the Report of the Human Rights Council on the preparations for the Durban Review Conference; the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination; strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine elections and the promotion of democratization; globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights; combating defamation of religions; the right to development; human rights and unilateral coercive measures; the promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of all human rights by all; the right to food; and respect for the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations.

Speaking in explanation of position were the representatives of Syria, Qatar, Egypt, United States, Israel, Russian Federation, Portugal (on behalf of the European Union), Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Singapore, Mexico, Nigeria, Malaysia, China, Bangladesh, United Kingdom, Bahamas, Colombia, Belarus, Venezuela, Pakistan, San Marino and Lao People’s Democratic Republic.

The Rapporteur of the Third Committee introduced that body’s reports.

The Sudan’s delegate spoke on a point of order. 

Background

The General Assembly met today to take action on the reports of the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural).

Refugees

The Committee’s Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions (document A/62/431) contains three draft resolutions.

Draft resolution I (document A/C.3/62/L.64), titled Enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, approved without a vote on 19 November, would have the Assembly decide to increase the number of members of this Committee from 72 to 76 States, and request the Economic and Social Council to elect the additional members at its resumed 2008 organizational session.  For more information see Press Release GA/SHC/3908.

Draft resolution II (document A/C.2/62/L.67) on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), approved without a vote as orally revised on 19 November, would have the Assembly encourage UNHCR to pursue its efforts to strengthen its capacity to adequately respond to emergencies, and thereby ensure a more predictable response to inter-agency commitments in case of emergency.  Further, it would strongly condemn attacks on refugees, asylum-seekers and internally displaced persons, as well as acts that pose a threat to their personal security and well-being.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3908)

Draft resolution III on Assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa (document A/C.3/62/L.82), approved without a vote as orally revised on 21 November, would have the Assembly condemn all acts that pose a threat to the personal security and well-being of refugees and asylum-seekers, such as refoulement, unlawful expulsion and physical attacks.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3910)

Social Development

The Committee’s report on Social development (document A/62/432) contains six draft resolutions and one draft decision.

Draft resolution I (document A/C.3/62/L.7/Rev.1) on Policies and programmes involving youth:  youth in the global economy, approved without a vote as orally corrected on 21 November, would have the Assembly stress that progress in achieving the internationally agreed target of full and productive employment, as well as decent work, for young people should be a central objective of national and international efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3910)

Draft resolution II (document A/C.3/62/L.5/Rev.1), entitled Implementation of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons:  realizing the Millennium Development Goals for persons with disabilities, approved without a vote as orally revised on 14 November, would have the Assembly call upon all parties involved in discussions of United Nations system-wide coherence in the areas of development, humanitarian assistance and environment to ensure that the disability perspective is appropriately incorporated in the examination of options, decisions and evaluations related to the implementation of internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3905)

Draft resolution III (document A/C.3/62/L.6) on Cooperatives in social development, approved without a vote as orally revised on 1 November, would have the Assembly urge Governments, international organizations and specialized agencies, in collaboration with national and international cooperatives, to fully utilize and develop the potential and contribution of the latter to meet social development goals, such as poverty eradication; generate full and productive employment; and enhance social integration.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3899)

Draft resolution IV (document A/C.3/62/L.8) on the Follow-up to the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family and beyond, approved without a vote as orally revised on 1 November, would have the Assembly urge Member States to create a conducive environment to strengthen and support all families, while recognizing that equality between women and men, as well as respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all family members, are essential to family well-being and society at large.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3899)

Draft resolution V on the Follow-up to the International Year of Older Persons:  Second World Assembly on Ageing (document A/C.3/62/L.9), approved without a vote as orally revised on 25 October, would have the Assembly call upon Member States to actively take part in the bottom-up approach of the review and appraisal of the Madrid Plan of Action on Ageing, adopted in 2002.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3894)

Draft resolution VI, entitled Implementation of the Outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly (document A/C.3/62/L.10/Rev.1), approved without a vote as orally revised on 27 November, would have the Assembly urge developed countries that have not yet done so, in accordance with their commitments, to make concrete efforts towards meeting the targets of 0.7 per cent of their gross national product (GNP) for official development assistance to developing countries, and 0.15 to 0.2 per cent of their GNP to least developed countries.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3911)

The draft decision, proposed by the Chair and approved without a vote on 27 November, would have the Assembly take note of the Report on the World Situation 2007:  The Employment Imperative (document A/62/168).  (Press Release GA/SHC/3911)

Advancement of Women

The Committee’s report on Advancement of women (document A/62/433) contains seven draft resolutions and three draft decisions.

Draft resolution I on Violence against women migrant workers (document A/C.3/62/L.14/Rev.1), approved without a vote on 16 November, would have the Assembly urge concerned Governments to enhance bilateral, regional, interregional and international cooperation to address violence against women migrant workers, in accordance with internationally agreed human rights standards, as well as to strengthen efforts to reduce their vulnerability and to provide sustainable development alternatives to migration for countries of origin.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3907)

Draft resolution II on Intensification of efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women (document A/C.3/62/L.15/Rev.1), approved as orally amended without a vote on 1 November, would have the Assembly call on the international community, including the United Nations, regional and subregional organizations, to support national efforts to promote the empowerment of women and gender equality, and to enhance national efforts to eliminate violence against women and girls.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3899)

Draft resolution III on Eliminating rape and other forms of sexual violence in all their manifestations, including in conflict and related situations (document A/C.3/62/L.16/Rev.2), approved without a vote as orally revised on 15 November, would have the Assembly urge States to take special measures to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual violation.  They would also be urged to end impunity by ensuring that all rape victims have equal protection under the law and equal access to justice, as well as by investigating, prosecuting and punishing any person responsible for rape and other forms of sexual violence, including Government officials.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3906)

Draft resolution IV on the United Nations Development Fund for Women (document A/C.3/62/L.17/Rev.1), approved without a vote as orally revised on 16 November, would have the Assembly call upon Member States, intergovernmental bodies and the United Nations to address the fragmentation and lack of adequate coordination, inadequate status, and under-resourcing of the existing gender entities, which hampers the gender equality work of the United Nations, both at Headquarters and at global, regional and national levels.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3907)

Draft resolution V on the Improvement of the situation of women in rural areas (document A/C.3/62/L.19/Rev.1), approved without a vote as orally revised on 8 November 2007, would have the Assembly declare that 15 October of each year be proclaimed and observed as the International Day of Rural Women.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3903)

Draft resolution VI on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (document A/C.3/62/L.20/Rev.1), approved by a recorded vote of 173 in favour to 1 against (United States) on 27 November, would have the Assembly urge States parties to comply fully with their obligations under the Convention and its Optional Protocol, and to take into consideration the concluding comments and general recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.  It would also have the Assembly strongly urge States parties to the Convention to take appropriate measures so that acceptance of the amendment to article 20, paragraph 1, of the Convention by a two-thirds majority of States parties can be reached as soon as possible, and the amendment can enter into force.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3911)

Draft resolution VII on the Follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly (document A/C.3/62/L.89), approved without a vote on 27 November, would have the Assembly call upon Governments, the United Nations system and other international and regional organizations, and all sectors of civil society, to fully commit themselves and to intensify their contributions to the implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session.  It would also call upon States parties to comply fully with their obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and its Optional Protocol.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3911)

The draft decisions on the Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (document A/62/38) and the Report of the Secretary-General on the future operation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (document A/62/173) would have the Assembly take note of both those documents.

The draft decision on the Term of office of the members of the Consultative Committee on the United Nations Development Fund for Women (document A/C.3/62/L.18/Rev.1), approved without a vote on 16 November, would have the Assembly decide to grant full three-year terms to two new members of that Committee, commencing on 1 January 2008, with the remaining three members to continue to serve their three-year terms through 31 December 2009.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3907)

Promotion, Protection of Children’s Rights

The Committee’s report on Promotion and protection of the rights of children (document A/62/435) contains four draft resolutions and one draft decision.

Draft resolution I on Supporting efforts to end obstetric fistula (document A/C.3/62/L.21/Rev.1), approved without a vote on 19 November, would have the Assembly stress the need to address the social issues that contribute to the problem of obstetric fistula, such as early pregnancy, lack of or inadequate girls’ education, and poverty, as well as low status of women and girls.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3908)

Draft resolution II on World Autism Awareness Day (document A/C.3/62/L.22), approved without a vote on 1 November, would have the Assembly designate 2 April as World Autism Awareness Day, to be observed every year beginning in 2008.  It would also encourage Member States to take measures to raise awareness about children with autism throughout society.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3899)

Draft resolution III on The girl child (document A/C.3/62/L.23/Rev.1), approved without a vote as orally revised on 28 November, would have the Assembly stress the need for full and urgent implementation of the rights of the girl child, as guaranteed to her under all human rights instruments, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and all the related Optional Protocols, and would urge States to consider signing, ratifying or acceding to those human rights instruments.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3912)

Draft resolution IV on the Rights of the child (document A/C.3.62/L.24/Rev.1), approved by a recorded vote of 176 in favour to 1 against ( United States) on 27 November, would see the Assembly urge States that had yet to do so to become parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3911)

The draft would also have the Assembly call upon all States to take immediate steps to eliminate child hunger.  All countries, particularly those in which the death penalty has not been abolished, would be called upon to abolish the death penalty for those under the age of 18, and to criminalize and penalize all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of children, including paedophilia.  The abduction of children, particularly in situations of armed conflict, would be condemned.  Finally, the Assembly would recommend that the Secretary-General appoint a Special Representative on violence against children, for a period of three years, to act as a high-profile and independent global advocate for the prevention and elimination of all forms of violence against children.  

The draft decision would have the Assembly take note of the Report of the Secretary-General on the girl child (document A/62/297) and the Report of the Secretary-General on the follow-up to the special session of the General Assembly on children (document A/62/259).

Indigenous Issues

The Committee’s report on Indigenous issues (document A/62/436) contains one draft decision.

The draft decision on the Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people would have the Assembly take note of this note.

Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination

The Committee’s report on the Elimination of racism and racial discrimination (document A/62/437) contains four draft resolutions.

Draft resolution I on the Inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/C.3/62/L.61), approved by a recorded vote of 122 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 52 abstentions, as orally revised on 21 November, would see the Assembly express deep concern over the glorification of the Nazi movement, including the erection of monuments and the holding of public demonstrations in the name of neo-Nazism.  It would note with concern the increase in number of racist incidents in several countries and the rise of skinhead groups, which have been responsible for many of those incidents, as well as the resurgence of racist and xenophobic violence targeting members of ethnic, religious or cultural communities and national minorities.

The Assembly would stress that such practices fuel contemporary forms of racial discrimination and xenophobia, as well as contributing to the spread of extremist movements, including neo-Nazism.  It would call on States to take more effective measures to combat those phenomena, while reaffirming that States parties to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination are obliged to condemn all propaganda and all organizations that are based on ideas of racial superiority; to adopt measures to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, discrimination; to declare the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing, as a punishable offence; and to prohibit public authorities from promoting or inciting racial discrimination.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3910)

Draft resolution II, entitled Global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, approved by a recorded vote of 119 in favour to 45 against, with 6 abstentions (Armenia, Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland), as orally revised on 28 November, would have the Assembly express its “profound concern and unequivocal condemnation” at all forms of racism and racial discrimination.  The misuse of the media and the Internet to incite violence motivated by racial hatred would be condemned, with States called upon to combat that form of racism.  The central role of the Human Rights Council in monitoring the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action would be reaffirmed.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3912)

Draft resolution III on the Report of the Human Rights Council on the preparations for the Durban Review Conference, approved by a recorded vote 169 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Cambodia, Canada, Fiji), on 20 November, would have the Assembly welcome the report of the Preparatory Committee on its first session, particularly the decisions adopted by the organizational session of that Committee.  It would also endorse the decisions adopted by this session.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3909)

The draft decision on the Report of the Secretary-General on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action would have the Assembly take note of this document.

Right of Peoples to Self-Determination

The Committee’s report on the Right of peoples to self-determination (document A/62/438) contains three draft resolutions.

Draft resolution I, entitled Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/C.3/62/L.56), approved without a vote on 16 November, would have the Assembly reaffirm that the universal realization of the right of all peoples -- including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination -- to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights, as well as for the preservation and promotion of such rights.  The Assembly would declare its firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, and call upon those States responsible to immediately cease their military intervention or occupation of foreign countries and territories, as well as all acts of repression, discrimination, exploitation and maltreatment, in particular the brutal and inhuman methods reportedly employed for the execution of those acts against the peoples concerned.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3907)

Draft resolution II, on The use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/C.3/62/L.62), approved by a vote of 122 in favour to 51 against, with 6 abstentions (Chile, Fiji, Lichtenstein, New Zealand, Switzerland, Tunisia), on 21 November, would have the Assembly reaffirm that the use of such persons and their recruitment, financing and training are causes for grave concern, and violate the purposes and principles of the Charter.  It would once again urge States to take legislative measures to ensure their territories, and those under their control, are not used to recruit mercenaries for the planning of activities designed to impair the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign States.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3910)

Draft resolution III on The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (document A/C.3/62/L.63), approved by a recorded vote 172 in favour to 5 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 5 abstentions (Australia, Canada, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji), on 20 November, would have the Assembly express the urgent need for the resumption of negotiations within the Middle East peace process, and reaffirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine.  It would also urge all States and the United Nations to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3909)

Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

The Committee’s report on the Promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/439) contains a draft decision, which would have the Assembly take note of the following:  Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (document A/62/36); Report on the implementation of human rights instruments (document A/62/439/add.1); Report of the Secretary-General on the status of the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund on Contemporary Forms of Slavery (document A/62/180); Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture (document A/62/189); Report of the Secretary-General on the status of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (document A/62/273); Report of the Secretary-General on the protection of migrants (document A/62/299); Note by the Secretary-General submitting the report of the chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies on their nineteenth meeting (A/62/224).

Also, the Report of the Secretary-General on the right to development (document A/62/183); Report of the Secretary-General on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/287); Report of the Secretary-General on the Khmer Rouge trials (document A/62/304); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers (document A/62/207); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the independent expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/62/212); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (document A/62/214); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants (document A/62/218); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/62/265).

Also, a Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the independent expert on the situation of human rights in Burundi (document A/62/213); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (document A/62/275); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the independent expert on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/62/313); Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan (document A/62/354); and Report of the Secretary-General on the status of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol thereto (document A/62/230).

Implementation of Human Rights Instruments

Addendum 1 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/439/Add.1) contains two draft resolutions on implementation of human rights instruments.

Draft resolution I on the International Covenants on Human Rights (document A/C.3/62/L.25), approved without a vote on 1 November, would see the Assembly strongly appeal to all States that have not yet done so to become parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  The Assembly would also call for the strictest compliance by States parties with their obligations under those two instruments.  It would emphasize that States must ensure that any measure to combat terrorism complies with obligations under relevant international law, including obligations under the International Covenants on Human Rights.  The Assembly would also stress the importance of avoiding the erosion of human rights by derogation.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3899)

Draft resolution II on Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (document A/C.3/62/L.29/Rev.1), approved as orally revised without a vote on 21 November, would have the Assembly condemn all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including intimidation.  It would call upon all States to fully implement the absolute prohibition of those practices.  The Assembly would also condemn any action or attempt by States or public officials to legalize, authorize or acquiesce to such practices, including grounds that cite national security or judicial decisions.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3910)

Human Rights Questions, Including Alternative Approaches for Improving the Effective Enjoyment of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Addendum 2 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/439/Add.2) contains 19 draft resolutions and one draft decision on human rights questions.

Draft resolution I on a Moratorium on the use of the death penalty (document A/C.3/62/L.29), approved by a recorded vote of 99 in favour to 52 against, with 33 abstentions, on 15 November, would have the General Assembly express its deep concern about the continued application of the death penalty, and call upon States that still maintain this penalty to progressively restrict its use and reduce the number of offences for which it might be imposed.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3906)

Draft resolution II on Strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine elections and the promotion of democratization (document A/C.3/62/L.30/Rev.1), approved by a recorded vote of 173 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions (Syria, Zambia), on 21 November, would have the Assembly recommend that, throughout an entire electoral process, including before and after voting, and based on needs assessment missions, the United Nations continue to provide technical advice and other assistance to requesting States and electoral institutions to help strengthen their democratic processes.  It would also request the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to continue its governance assistance programmes in cooperation with other relevant organizations, particularly those that strengthen democratic institutions and links between civil society and Governments.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3910)

Draft resolution III on Globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/C.3.62/L.31), approved by a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 52 against, with 3 abstentions (Brazil, Chile, Senegal), on 19 November, would have the Assembly call upon Member States, the United Nations, intergovernmental organizations and civil society to promote equitable and environmentally sustainable economic growth for managing globalization, so that poverty may be systematically reduced and the international development targets achieved.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3908)

Draft resolution IV on Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (document A/C.3/62/L.33/Rev.1), approved without a vote as orally revised on 21 November, would have the Assembly condemn all human rights violations committed against persons engaged in promoting and defending human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world.  Further, the Assembly would urge States to take all appropriate actions to eliminate such human rights violations.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3910)

Draft resolution V on Protection of and assistance to internally displaced persons (document A/C.3/62/L.34/Rev.1), approved without a vote as orally revised on 21 November, would have the Assembly express particular concern at the grave problems faced by many internally displaced women and children, including violence and abuse, sexual exploitation, forced recruitment and abduction.  Furthermore, the text would have the Assembly call upon Governments to provide protection and assistance, including reintegration and development assistance, to internally displaced persons, and to facilitate the efforts of relevant United Nations agencies and humanitarian organizations in these respects by further improving access to internally displaced persons, among other things.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3910)

Draft resolution VI on Combating defamation of religions (document A/C.3/62/L.35), approved as orally revised by a recorded vote of 95 in favour to 52 against, with 30 abstentions, on 20 November, would have the Assembly express deep concern about the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief, still in evidence in some regions of the world.  The Assembly would emphasize that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which should be exercised with responsibility and may therefore be subject to limitations, according to law and necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others; protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals; and respect for religions and beliefs.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3909)

Draft resolution VII on Human rights and cultural diversity (document A/C.3/62/L.39), approved without a vote as orally revised on 19 November, would have the Assembly urge all actors on the international scene to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equality and equity, human dignity, mutual understanding, and the promotion of and respect for cultural diversity and human rights, and to reject all doctrines of exclusion based on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3908)

Draft resolution VIII on Protection of migrants (document A/C.3/62/L.40), approved without a vote on 28 November, would have the Assembly call upon States to promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, and to address international migration through cooperation and dialogue.  Concern would be expressed about legislation and measures adopted by some States that may restrict the human rights and fundamental freedoms of migrants.  In addition, the Assembly would strongly condemn racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against migrants, and the stereotypes often applied to them, and urge States to apply existing laws when xenophobic or intolerant acts, manifestations or expressions against migrants occur.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3912)

Draft resolution IX on Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief (document A/C.3/62/L.42), approved without a vote as orally revised on 21 November, would condemn all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief, as well as violations of freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief.  It would stress that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion be applied equally to theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, and that all believers and non-believers are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3910)

Draft resolution X on the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa (document A/C.3/62/L.44), approved without a vote on 28 November, would see the Assembly welcome the activities of this Centre, note with satisfaction the support provided for its establishment by its host country, Cameroon, and take note of the adoption of its new three-year strategy.  It would go on to reiterate its request to the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights for additional funds and human resources to be provided to the Centre to enable it to meet growing needs in the promotion and protection of human rights, and in developing a culture of democracy and the rule of law in the Central African subregion.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3912)

Draft resolution XI on Human rights in the administration of justice (document A/C.3/62/L.45), approved without a vote on 19 November, would have the Assembly invite States to make use of technical assistance offered by the relevant United Nations programmes to strengthen national capacities and infrastructures in the field of the administration of justice.  The Human Rights Council and the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, as well the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), would be invited to closely coordinate their activities on administration of justice.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3908)

Draft resolution XII on the Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (document A/C.3/62/L.47/Rev.1), approved without a vote on 27 November, would have the Assembly reaffirm that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism comply with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.  While deploring the suffering caused by terrorism, it would also call upon States to continue to implement the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, which reaffirms respect of human rights for all, with the rule of law being the fundamental basis of the fight against terrorism.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3911)

Draft resolution XIII on Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (document A/C.3/62/L.48), approved without a vote on 19 November, would have the Assembly urge all actors on the international scene 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; they would also be urged to reject all doctrines of exclusion based on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.  Member States, specialized agencies and intergovernmental organizations would be called upon to pursue a constructive dialogue for the enhancement of understanding and the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3908)

Draft resolution XIV on The right to development (document A/C.3/62/L.49), approved as orally revised by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 52 against, with 1 abstention (Vanuatu), on 28 November, would have the Assembly call upon the Human Rights Council to agree on a programme of work that would lead to raising the right to development to the same level as all other human rights and fundamental freedoms.  It would stress that primary responsibility for the promotion and protection of all human rights lies with States, which have primary responsibility for their own economic and social development.  It would also underline the fact that the international community was far from meeting the Millennium Development Goal of halving the number of people living in poverty by 2015, and urge developed countries that have yet to do so to make concrete efforts towards meeting the targets of committing 0.7 per cent of their gross national product for official development assistance to developing countries.  In addition, the Assembly would call for the implementation of a desirable pace of meaningful trade liberalization.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3912)

Draft resolution XV on Human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/62/L.50), approved by a recorded vote of 122 in favour to 52 against on 19 November, would have the Assembly strongly object to the extraterritorial nature of such measures, which also threaten the sovereignty of States.  The text would have the Assembly condemn the continued unilateral application and enforcement by certain Powers of unilateral coercive measures.  It would reject these measures with all their extraterritorial effects as tools for political or economic pressure against any country, particularly developing nations, adopted to prevent these States from exercising their right to decide, of their own free will, their own political, economic and social systems.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3908)

Draft resolution XVI on Promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of all human rights by all (document A/C.3/62/L.52), approved by a recorded vote on 19 November of 114 in favour to 52 against, with 6 abstentions (Argentina, Armenia, Chile, Mexico, Samoa, Singapore), would have the Assembly solemnly declare that the world’s peoples have a sacred right to peace, and that the preservation and promotion of peace is a fundamental obligation of each State.  It would further have the Assembly call upon the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to carry out a constructive dialogue and consultations with Member States, the specialized agencies and intergovernmental organizations on how the Human Rights Council could work for the promotion of an international environment conducive to the full realization of the right of peoples to peace, and encourage non-governmental organizations to contribute actively to this endeavour.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3908)

Draft resolution XVII on The right to food (document A/C.3/62/L.53), approved as orally revised on 21 November by a recorded vote of 176 in favour to 1 against (United States), would have the Assembly consider it intolerable that more than 6 million children still die every year from hunger-related illness before their fifth birthday; that there are about 854 million undernourished people in the world; and that the absolute number of undernourished people has been increasing in recent years when, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the planet could produce enough food to feed 12 billion people, which is twice the world’s present population.  The draft would further have the Assembly express concern that women and girls are disproportionately affected by hunger, food insecurity and poverty, partly due to gender inequality and discrimination.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3910)

Draft resolution XVIII on Strengthening United Nations action in the field of human rights through the promotion of international cooperation and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity (document A/C.3/62/L.54), approved without a vote on 19 November, would have the Assembly call upon all Member States to base the promotion and protection of human rights on the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other relevant international instruments, and to refrain from activities that are inconsistent with this international framework.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3908)

Draft resolution XIX on Respect for the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms and in solving international problems of a humanitarian character (document A/C.3/62/L.37/Rev.1), approved by a recorded vote of 102 in favour to 53 against, with 11 abstentions, on 19 November, would have the Assembly reaffirm that responsibility for managing worldwide economic and social development, the promotion and protection of human rights, and threats to international peace and security should be exercised multilaterally, with the United Nations playing the central role.  Member States would be called upon to refrain from enacting or enforcing unilateral coercive measures as tools of political, military or economic pressure against any country, in particular against developing countries, which would prevent those countries from exercising their right to decide, of their own free will, their own political, economic and social systems.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3908)

The draft decision on Effective promotion of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities would have the Assembly decide to continue consideration of this question at its sixty-third session, under the item entitled “Promotion and protection of human rights.”

Human Rights Situations and Reports of Special Rapporteurs and Representatives

Addendum 3 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/439/Add.3) contains three draft resolutions on human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives.

Draft resolution I, entitled Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document A/C.3/62/L.37), approved by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to 23 against, with 60 abstentions, on 20 November, would have the Assembly express its very serious concern at continuing reports of systematic, widespread and grave violations of civil, political, economic, and sociocultural rights in that country, including torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; the situation of refugees and asylum-seekers; severe restrictions on the freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion and expression, peaceful assembly, and association; limitations imposed on the free movement of every person within the country, as well as on travel abroad; and violations of economic, social and cultural rights that have led to severe malnutrition, widespread health problems and other hardships.  The Government would be strongly urged to fully respect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3909)

By the terms of a draft entitled Situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/62/L.41/Rev.1), approved as orally revised by a recorded vote of 97 in favour to 23 against, with 60 abstentions, on 20 November, the Assembly would strongly condemn the use of violence against peaceful demonstrators who had been exercising their rights to freedom of opinion and expression.  Grave concern would be expressed about ongoing systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, arbitrary detentions, repeated violations of international humanitarian law, discrimination suffered by persons of ethnic nationalities, the absence of genuine participation by representatives of the National League for Democracy (NLD) and other political parties, and the continuous deterioration of living conditions, as well as increasing poverty.  The Government in that country would be strongly called upon to ensure full respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to give serious consideration to recommendations and proposals put forward by the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General during his visit in October 2007.

According to the text, the Assembly would strongly call upon the Government to desist from further arrests and violence against peaceful protesters, and to release all political prisoners without conditions, including the leaders of the NLD, Aung San Suu Kyi and Tin Oo.  The Government would also be called upon to lift all restraints on peaceful political activity, to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur, and to immediately ensure safe and unhindered access to all parts of Myanmar for the United Nations and international humanitarian organizations.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3909)

Draft resolution III on the Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (document A/C.3/62/L.43), approved as orally revised on 20 November by a recorded vote 72 in favour to 50 against, with 55 abstentions, would have the Assembly express deep concern at ongoing systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people of that country.  Very serious concern would be expressed about a number of developments since the adoption of Assembly resolution 61/176 (2006).  The Government would be called upon to fully respect its human rights obligations in a number of ways, including:  the elimination of amputations, flogging and other forms of torture and inhuman punishment; the abolition of public executions; the abolition of stoning as a method of execution; the abolition of executions of persons who at the time of their offence were under the age of 18; the elimination of all forms of discrimination and violence against women and girls; the elimination of all forms of discrimination and other human rights violations against persons belonging to religious, ethnic, linguistic or other minorities; the implementation of a 1996 report of the Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance, which recommended ways in which Iran could emancipate the Baha’i community; an end to the harassment, intimidation and persecution of political opponents and human rights defenders, including the release of persons imprisoned arbitrarily or on the basis of their political views; upholding due process of legal rights; and ending impunity for human rights violations.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3909)

Draft resolution IV on the Situation of human rights in Belarus (document A/C.3/62/L.51), approved by a recorded vote of 68 in favour to 32 against, with 76 abstentions, on 21 November, would have the Assembly express concern about the continued use of the criminal justice system to silence political opposition and human rights defenders, which include arbitrary detention, lack of due process, and closed political trials of leading opposition figures and human rights defenders.  It would also have the Assembly urge the Government to release, immediately and unconditionally, all individuals detained for politically motivated reasons and others detained for exercising or promoting human rights.  Further, the draft would have the Assembly insist that the Government cooperate fully with the Human Rights Council, as well as with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).  (Press Release GA/SHC/3910)

Comprehensive Implementation of and Follow-Up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action

Addendum 4 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/439/Add.4) states that no action was taken by the Third Committee under its sub-item on comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Addendum 5 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/439/Add.5) contains one draft resolution.

The draft on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol (document A/C.3/62/L.36/Rev.1), approved without a vote on 19 November, would have the Assembly ask the United Nations, as well as invite intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, to continue efforts to disseminate accessible information on the Convention and its Optional Protocol, to promote their understanding, to prepare for their entry into force, and to assist States parties in implementing their obligations under these instruments.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3908)

Celebration of the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Addendum 6 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/439/Add.6) contains one draft resolution.

The draft on the International Year of Human Rights Learning (document A/C.3/62/L.28/Rev.1), approved without a vote as orally revised on 9 November, would have the Assembly proclaim the year commencing on 10 December 2008 to be the International Year of Human Rights Learning, devoted to activities to broaden and deepen human rights learning.  In addition, the Assembly would decide to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in a plenary meeting to be held on 10 December 2008, and would encourage the participation of Member States at the highest level possible.  A special meeting would also be held at the end of the year, during the sixty-fourth session of the Assembly, to review the activities undertaken by Member States, relevant United Nations agencies and civil society.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3904)

Report of the Human Rights Council

The Committee’s report on the report of the Human Rights Council (document A/62/434) contains one draft resolution and one draft decision.

The draft on the Report of the Human Rights Council (document A/C.3/62/L.21/Rev.1), approved as amended (by document A/C.3/62/L.84) by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 3 abstentions (Equatorial Guinea, Nauru, Swaziland), on 16 November, would have the Assembly endorse the Human Rights Council resolutions 5/1, entitled “Institution-building of the United Nations Human Rights Council”, and 5/2, entitled “Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Mandate-holders of the Human Rights Council”, of 18 June 2007, including their annexes and appendices.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3907)

The draft decision would have the Assembly take note of the report of the Human Rights Council on its second, third, fourth and fifth sessions, its first organizational meeting, and its third and fourth special sessions.

Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice

The Committee’s report on Crime prevention and criminal justice (document A/62/440) contains four draft resolutions and one draft decision.

Draft resolution I on Technical assistance for implementing the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism (document A/C.3/62/L.2), approved without a vote on 18 October, would urge Member States to strengthen international cooperation “to the greatest extent possible” to prevent and suppress terrorism, and would ask that the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to provide, “subject to the availability of extrabudgetary resources”, assistance to that end.  It would also ask the Secretary-General to provide the UNODC with sufficient resources for its activities, including in the area of counter-terrorism.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3889)

Draft resolution II on the Follow-up to the Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice and preparations for the Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (document A/C.3/62/L.3), approved as orally revised without a vote on 18 October, would reiterate an invitation to Member States to implement the Bangkok Declaration on Synergies and Responses:  Strategic Alliances in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, and the recommendations that had been adopted by the Eleventh Congress, where appropriate.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3889)

Draft resolution III on the United Nations African Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (document A/C.3/62/L.11), approved as orally revised without a vote on 1 November, would have the Assembly reiterate the need to further strengthen the capacity of the Institute to support national mechanisms for crime prevention and criminal justice in African countries, while urging States members of the Institute to continue making every possible effort to meet their obligations to the entity.  The Assembly would also call upon all Member States and non-governmental organizations to continue adopting concrete practical measures to support the Institute in the development of capacity and in the implementation of its programmes and activities.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3899)

Draft resolution IV on Strengthening the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme, in particular its technical cooperation capacity (document A/C.3/62/L.12/Rev.1), approved without a vote on 1 November, would have the Assembly reaffirm the importance of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme, as well as the work of UNODC.  It would invite Member States to identify best practices in combating trafficking in persons, and would urge UNODC to increase collaboration with intergovernmental, international and regional organizations.  It would go on to draw attention to emerging issues such as urban crime, child sexual exploitation, fraud and identity theft, and international trafficking in forest products, including timber, wildlife and other forest biological resources.  Member States and relevant international organizations would also be urged to develop strategies, in cooperation with the Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme, to address transnational organized crime, including trafficking in persons, smuggling of migrants and illicit manufacturing of, and transnational trafficking in, firearms, as well as corruption and terrorism.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3899)

The draft decision on documents considered by the General Assembly in connection with the question of crime prevention and criminal justice would have the Assembly take note of the Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime on its third session (document A/62/84).

International Drug Control

The Committee’s report on International drug control (document A/62/441) contains one draft resolution.

The draft on International cooperation against the world drug problem (document A/C.3/62/L.13/Rev.1), approved as orally revised without a vote on 1 November, would have the Assembly reaffirm that countering the world drug problem is a common and shared responsibility that must be addressed in a multilateral setting, with an integrated and balanced approach, and must be carried out in full conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and other provisions of international law.  Such approaches would also have full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of States, and for all human rights and fundamental freedoms.  The Assembly would also urge States that have not done so, to consider ratifying or acceding to all the provisions of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 (as amended by the 1972 Protocol); the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971; the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988; the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its Protocols; and the United Nations Convention against Corruption.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3899)

Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly

The Committee’s report on the Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly (document A/62/442) contains one draft decision.

The draft on the Programme of work for the Third Committee for the sixty-third session of the General Assembly (document A/C.3/62/L.86), approved without a vote on 28 November, subject to modifications by the Secretary of the Committee, would have the Committee take up 11 agenda items during its sixty-third session.  They would include social development, including implementation of the outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly; social development, including questions relating to the world social situation and to youth, ageing, disabled persons and the family; Follow-up to the International Year of Older Persons:  Second World Assembly on Ageing; and United Nations Literacy Decade:  Education for All.  They would also include crime prevention and criminal justice; international drug control; the advancement of women, including implementation of the outcome of the Fourth World Conference on Women and of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly; promotion and protection of the rights of children, including follow-up to the outcome of the special session on children; and indigenous issues, including the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People.

Also included on the agenda would be promotion and protection of human rights, including implementation of human rights instruments; human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms; human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives; and comprehensive implementation and follow-up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.

Further, the agenda would include items on elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, including comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; the right of peoples to self-determination; the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions; and revitalization of the work of the General Assembly.  (Press Release GA/SHC/3912)

Programme Planning

The Committee’s report on Programme planning (document A/62/443) states that no action was required by the Committee on the Assembly item entitled “programme planning” at the sixty-second session of the Assembly.

Action on the Reports of the Third Committee

Ms. TEBASTO FUTURE BALESENG, of Botswana, Rapporteur of the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), introduced that body’s reports.

Refugees

The Assembly first took up the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions (document A/62/431), which contained three draft resolutions.

Draft resolution I on “Enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees” was adopted without a vote.

Draft resolution II on the “Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)” was adopted without a vote.

Draft resolution III on “Assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa” was also adopted with a vote.

After action, the representative of Syria said her delegation had joined the consensus on the text on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights because it believed that refugees and displaced persons deserved a dignified life until they returned home.  Her delegation believed the resolution was mainly a political one, but had nevertheless joined the consensus.

Although Syria was not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, it reaffirmed that it would cooperate with United Nations agencies, including UNHCR, to help refugees and displaced persons, according to its laws.  The international community was well aware of how helpful her country was to displaced persons, which made up some 2 per cent of its population, but had never reached out to assist Syria in its efforts.

Social Development

Next, the Assembly took up the Committee’s report on Social development (document A/62/432), which contained six draft resolutions and one draft decision.

Before action, the representative of Qatar took the floor in explanation of position on draft resolution I on policies and programmes involving youth.  Noting that this was the first time her delegation had co-sponsored a youth resolution, she said that reflected her country’s hopes for the future.  Yet, its main concern was the resolution’s reference to the terminology “sexual and reproductive health”.  This reference had many interpretations, some of which were counter to Qatar’s legislation and religious beliefs.  Thus, it would interpret this resolution and its terminology in accordance with these laws. 

Draft resolution I on “Policies and programmes involving youth:  youth in the global economy” was adopted without a vote.

Draft resolution II on “Implementation of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons:  realizing the Millennium Development Goals for persons with disabilities” was adopted without a vote.

Also without a vote, the Assembly adopted Draft resolution III on “Cooperatives in social development”.

Draft resolution IV on “Follow-up to the tenth anniversary of the International Year of the Family and beyond” was also adopted without a vote.

Draft resolution V on “Follow-up to the International Year of Older Persons:  Second World Assembly on Ageing” was adopted without a vote.

Finally, draft resolution VI on “Implementation of the Outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly” was adopted without a vote.

Approving the draft decision proposed by the Chair of the Committee, Raymond Wolfe ( Jamaica), the Assembly took note of the Report on the World Situation 2007:  The Employment Imperative (document A/62/168).

Advancement of Women

The Committee’s report on Advancement of women (document A/62/433) contained four draft resolutions and three draft decisions.

Draft resolution I on “Violence against women migrant workers” was adopted without a vote.

Draft resolution II on “Intensification of efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women” was adopted without a vote.

The Assembly then adopted without a vote draft resolution III on “Eliminating rape and other forms of sexual violence in all their manifestations, including in conflict and related situations”.

Draft resolution IV on the “United Nations Development Fund for Women” was adopted without vote.

The representative of Syria, speaking on the resolution on the elimination of rape and other forms of sexual violence in all their manifestations, including in conflict and related situations, said her delegation had joined consensus on the draft out of a belief in the importance of remedying the issue.  The document was of a legal nature, and should have covered all forms of legal accountability.  Her understanding of preambular paragraph 5 and paragraph 1 of the main text was that they were not “in harmony”.  They should be dealt with in light of international law, especially the Geneva Conventions relating to armed conflict.

Draft resolution V on “Improvement of the situation of women in rural areas” was adopted without a vote.

Draft resolution VI on the “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women” was postponed to a later date, to allow time for the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) to review its programme budget implications.

Next, draft resolution VII on “Follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly” was adopted without a vote.

The Assembly then adopted, without a vote, the draft decisions in the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (document A/62/38) and the report of the Secretary-General on the future operation of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (document A/62/173).

The draft decision on the “Term of office of the members of the Consultative Committee on the United Nations Development Fund for Women” was adopted without a vote.

After action, the representative of the United States said that his delegation would dissociate itself from the decision taken on the draft resolution on follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women and full implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly, for the reasons it had stated in the Third Committee sessions.

Report of the Human Rights Council

The Assembly then took up the Committee’s report on the Report of the Human Rights Council (document A/62/434), which contained one draft resolution and one draft decision.

Action on the draft on the “Report of the Human Rights Council” was postponed until a later date.

The Assembly then adopted the draft decision, by which it would take note of the report of the Human Rights Council on its second, third, fourth and fifth sessions, its first organizational meeting, and its third and fourth special sessions.

After the draft decision was adopted, the representative of Israel said that her delegation would dissociate itself from matters related to the report of the Human Rights Council.

The representative of the United States said his delegation would also dissociate itself from the non-institution-building sections of the Human Rights Council’s report.

Promotion, Protection of Children’s Rights

The Assembly then took up the Third Committee’s report on Promotion and protection of the rights of children (document A/62/435), which contained four draft resolutions and one draft decision.

Draft resolution I on “Supporting efforts to end obstetric fistula” was approved without a vote.

Draft resolution II on “World Autism Awareness Day” was adopted without a vote.

The Assembly then adopted without a vote draft resolution III on “The girl child”.

Draft resolution IV on the “Rights of the child” was adopted by a recorded vote of 183 in favour to 1 against ( United States).  (See annex I)

Adopting the draft decision, the Assembly took note of the report of the Secretary-General on the girl child (document A/62/297) and the report of the Secretary-General on the follow-up to the special session of the General Assembly on children (document A/62/259).

After action, the representative of Syria said her delegation had voted in favour of the resolution on efforts to eliminate obstetric fistula, and wanted to correct the Arabic text to bring it in line with the English text.  In operative paragraph 2, she highlighted the expression “not accessing sexual and reproductive health services” and said her delegation wished to delete the word “services”.

On the draft resolution on the rights of the child, she said Syria had voted in favour of the resolution, and reaffirmed that her country worked practically to promote child rights.   Syria had signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and appreciated the efforts of the resolution’s co-sponsors, particularly in addressing children under foreign occupation.  She said operative paragraph 61 gave the Secretary-General’s Special Representative the means to deal with all forms of violence against children under foreign occupation.   Syria reserved the right to interpret operative paragraphs 15, 17, 18 and 32 in a manner that would be endorsed by national legislation and laws.

Indigenous Issues

The Assembly next turned to the Committee’s report on Indigenous issues (document A/62/436), which contained one draft decision.

The Assembly adopted the draft decision, taking note of the note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people.

Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination

The Assembly then took up the Third Committee’s report on the Elimination of racism and racial discrimination (document A/62/437), which contained three draft resolutions.

Ahead of action, the representative of the Russian Federation, speaking on the resolution on the inadmissibility of practices that contribute to fuelling racial discrimination and related intolerance, said unfortunately in the Third Committee vote, not all had demonstrated the political will to support the resolution and oppose those committing violence against those with a different skin colour.  In that connection, he discussed the “glorification” of Nazism, saying there had been instances of dedication of monuments to Nazis, and the awarding of public pensions to those involved.  He called on all those hoping to prevent Nazism to vote for the resolution.

The Assembly adopted draft resolution I on “Inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” by a recorded vote of 130 in favour to 2 against ( United States, Marshall Islands), with 53 abstentions.  (See annex II)

Draft resolution II on “Global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action” was postponed until a later date, to allow time for review of its programme budget implications.

Draft resolution III on the “Report of the Human Rights Council on the preparations for the Durban Review Conference” was adopted by a recorded vote of 177 in favour to 3 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, United States), with 3 abstentions (Norway, Australia, Canada).  (See annex III)

Adopting a draft decision without a vote, the Assembly took note of the report of the Secretary-General on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

Right of Peoples to Self-Determination

Next, the Assembly took up the Committee’s report on the Right of peoples to self-determination (document A/62/438), which contained three draft resolutions.

Draft resolution I on “Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination” was approved without a vote.

Draft resolution II on “The use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination” was adopted by a vote of 127 in favour to 52 against, with 6 abstentions ( Switzerland, Tonga, Liechtenstein, China, New Zealand, Tunisia).  (See annex IV)

Draft resolution III on “The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” was adopted by a recorded vote of 176 in favour to 5 against (Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, United States, Palau, Israel), with 4 abstentions (Nauru, Australia, Cameroon, Canada).  (See annex V)

Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

The Assembly then took up the Third Committee’s report on the Promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/439), containing a draft decision, which would have the Assembly take note of the following:  report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (document A/62/36); report on the implementation of human rights instruments (document A/62/439/add.1); report of the Secretary-General on the status of the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund on Contemporary Forms of Slavery (document A/62/180); report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture (document A/62/189); report of the Secretary-General on the status of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (document A/62/273); report of the Secretary-General on the protection of migrants (document A/62/299); and a note by the Secretary-General submitting the report of the chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies on their nineteenth meeting (A/62/224).

Also, the report of the Secretary-General on the right to development (document A/62/183); report of the Secretary-General on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/287); report of the Secretary-General on the Khmer Rouge trials (document A/62/304); note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers (document A/62/207); note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the independent expert on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/62/212); note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (document A/62/214); note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants (document A/62/218); and a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (document A/62/265).

Also, a note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the independent expert on the situation of human rights in Burundi (document A/62/213); note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (document A/62/275); note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the independent expert on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/62/313); note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan (document A/62/354); and the report of the Secretary-General on the status of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol thereto (document A/62/230).

The Assembly then adopted the draft decision without a vote.

Implementation of Human Rights Instruments

The Assembly then took up Addendum 1 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/439/Add.1), which contained two draft resolutions on implementation of human rights instruments.

Draft resolution I on the “International Covenants on Human Rights” was adopted without a vote.

Draft resolution II on “Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” was adopted without a vote.

Human Rights Questions, Including Alternative Approaches for Improving the Effective Enjoyment of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Addendum 2 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/439/Add.2) contained 19 draft resolutions and one draft decision on human rights questions.

Ahead of action, the representative of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union, asked that the report A/C.3/62/439/Add.2 include Burundi and Cote d'Ivoire in the list of co-sponsors of the resolution on the elimination of all forms of intolerance based on belief.

The representative of Antigua and Barbuda, speaking on behalf of 13 Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries on the draft resolution concerning the moratorium on the use of the death penalty, reiterated that Caribbean States were committed to the promotion and protection of all human rights, in line with international law.  Her delegation supported efforts to reaffirm all human rights, as well as the non-selectivity of consideration of those rights.  States must provide an environment conducive for protecting human rights.

Her country was fully committed to the rule of law, and had implemented in domestic laws the provisions of international human rights instruments, she explained.  In that context, she reiterated her delegation’s difficulty with the tone of the resolution, as its provisions were unbalanced and contrary to law.  It was regrettable that Caribbean States had not been given the opportunity to air their views or contribute to revisions of the text.

Caribbean nations upheld the independence of the judiciary as a guard against the deprivation of human rights.  Such an approach was supported by the enforcement of the principle that no citizen could be deprived of human rights, except through due process of law.  She regretted the perception that the death penalty would be applied arbitrarily, saying that it was employed only in cases of murder or treason, with the executive arm of the Government upholding the decisions of courts.  States complied with judicial decisions of the final court, and had commuted death sentences.  Further, they were committed to ensuring the rights of those facing capital punishment.

There appeared to have been scant interest in collaborating with Caribbean States in the development of the resolution.  Those countries were therefore forced to question the intent of the draft’s co-sponsors.  They had also not violated international laws.  And just as her delegation respected the rights of States wishing to abolish the death penalty, so too should the wishes of Caribbean States be respected.  She therefore reiterated their right to uphold or abolish the death penalty.

Speaking in explanation of vote on the same text, the representative of Barbados said the death penalty existed in legal statutes in Barbados, and his Government had the right to retain or abolish it.

He wished to highlight serious shortcomings in the co-sponsors’ approach to the resolution, saying Barbados attached the highest importance to the issue of human rights and democracy –- in domestic and foreign policy.  Since independence, his country had based its development on the provision of free health care for all, free education and the empowerment of women, as well as “development with a human face”.   Barbados was signatory to all of the major regional and international human rights conventions and treaties.  Moreover, it was a stable, vibrant democracy, which maintained an independent judiciary and system of due process.

Inclusion of the death penalty in the legal code as a punishment was inherited from one of the main co-sponsors, he explained.  The death penalty could only be applied after an exhaustive appeals process within the courts, and was subject to strict guidelines.   Barbados operated within a rational system of laws, checks and balances.  The Privy Council had ruled that his country’s death penalty sentence was lawful.

The death penalty was not prohibited in international law, and Barbados’ retention of it in its statutes was not contradictory to its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.  It was interesting that many co-sponsors that had signed the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 had preserved the death penalty in their statutes.  Capital punishment was legal under international law, and Barbados wished to exercise its sovereign right to use it as a deterrent for the most serious crimes.  His delegation would therefore vote against draft resolution I.

The representative of Singapore, noting that the co-sponsors of the resolution on the moratorium on the death penalty had declared victory, stressed that a significant number of States had not voted in its favour in the Third Committee.  This fact proved that the issue was not universally accepted and was, in fact, quite divisive.  For many delegations, capital punishment was a criminal rather than a human rights issue.  Many countries that had signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights still had the death penalty on their books.

Moreover, it was unfortunate that the resolution’s co-sponsors had handled the issue not as a debate, but as a lecture.  There had never been any attempt to reach consensus.  They had opposed selective quotations of relevant documents, and then quoted selectively themselves.  They had also ignored the diversity of States and their judicial systems.  In addition, they had resorted to pressure tactics and demarches.  While the co-sponsors would celebrate their victory, it had come at the expense of acrimony in the Third Committee.  Each State had a sovereign right to choose its own political, criminal and judicial systems, he said, stressing that Singapore would continue to follow its own course in the matter.

The representative of Mexico, speaking on behalf of 87 delegations, representing all regional groups, that had co-sponsored this resolution, expressed the wish that this text would impel the Assembly to move forward in the struggle to improve human rights.  The matter had been a source of concern in the international community, and the co-sponsors were pleased, after so many years, that the Assembly was adopting the resolution to establish a moratorium on the death penalty.  There had been a great deal of dialogue throughout the process of approving the text in the Committee, he said.

It was the beginning of a process that would involve the United Nations more in the matter of the death penalty, he said.  It was hoped that this would mark the beginning of a discussion among all Member States on the use of the death penalty in society.  The resolution was not intended to interfere and impose views, but to promote and strengthen the growing trend towards the elimination of capital punishment.  He urged other States to support the text by voting in favour of it.

Nigeria’s representative, also speaking on that text, said his Government upheld the rule of law, including the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.  The death penalty had been retained in his country’s laws to serve the purposes of criminal and penal codes, and as a deterrent to criminals that threatened civilians and State security.

He said capital punishment had been meted out only in cases where human life had been taken, and where the security of the State was at risk.  In any case, there was always resort to the Supreme Court.  The death penalty had not been carried out in recent year.   Nigeria believed that the moratorium on its use could not be imposed by a group of States.  It was inflexible and subjective, and it imposed on the internal jurisdiction of States.   Nigeria would vote against the text.

Draft resolution I on a “Moratorium on the use of the death penalty” was adopted by a recorded vote of 104 in favour to 54 against, with 29 abstentions.  (See annex VI) 

Next, the Assembly took up draft resolution II on “Strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine elections and the promotion of democratisation”.

It first held a separate recorded vote on preambular paragraph 5, which was retained by a vote of 168 in favour to none against, with 13 abstentions.  (See annex VII)

Then the draft as a whole was adopted by a recorded vote of 182 in favour to none against, with 2 abstentions ( Swaziland, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea).  (See annex VIII)

Draft resolution III on “Globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights” was adopted by a recorded vote of 129 in favour to 54 against, with 4 abstentions ( Brazil, Chile, Equatorial Guinea, Singapore).  (See annex IX)

Draft resolution IV on the “Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” was then adopted without a vote.

The Assembly then adopted without vote draft resolution V on “Protection of and assistance to internally displaced persons”.

Draft resolution VI on “Combating defamation of religions” was adopted by a recorded vote of 108 in favour to 51 against, with 25 abstentions.  (See annex X)

Draft resolution VII on “Human rights and cultural diversity” was adopted without a vote.

Also adopted without a vote was draft resolution VIII on “Protection of migrants”.

Draft resolution IX on “Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief” was adopted without a vote.

Draft resolution X on the “Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa” was postponed, pending review by the Fifth Committee.

Next the Assembly adopted without a vote draft resolution XI on “Human rights in the administration of justice”.

Draft resolution XII on “Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism” was adopted without a vote.

Draft resolution XIII on “Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights” was adopted without a vote.

Draft resolution XIV on “The right to development” was adopted by a recorded vote of 136 in favour to 53 against.  (See annex XI)

Draft resolution XV on “Human rights and unilateral coercive measures” was adopted by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to 54 against.  (See annex XII)

Draft resolution XVI on “Promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of all human rights by all” was adopted by a recorded vote of 126 in favour to 54 against, with 6 abstentions ( Argentina, Armenia, Chile, Mexico, Samoa, Singapore).  (See annex XIII)

Draft resolution XVII on “The right to food” was adopted by a recorded vote of 186 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with 1 abstention (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea).  (See annex XIV)

The Assembly then adopted without vote draft resolution XVIII on “Strengthening United Nations action in the field of human rights through the promotion of international cooperation and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity”.

Draft resolution XIX on “Respect for the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms and in solving international problems of a humanitarian character” was adopted by a recorded vote of 120 in favour to 55 against, with 10 abstentions (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Kazakhstan, Nauru, Peru, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga, Uruguay).  (See annex XV)

The Assembly then adopted without a vote a draft decision on effective promotion of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, by which it decided to continue consideration of that question at its sixty-third session under the item entitled “Promotion and protection of human rights”.

After action, the representative of Egypt took the floor in explanation of vote on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty.  His delegation had voted against the resolution because it was in contradiction to religious, practical and legal norms that were agreed upon.  The death penalty was only imposed according to due process of law and the provisions of Islamic law.  This was done in such a way as to ensure that the punishment was in line with legal and religious obligations.

Moreover, the death penalty was only imposed for the most serious of crimes, in accordance with laws applicable at the time of the crime, he said.  There were provisions to seek pardon or to appeal.  The key element there, he said, should have been due process and sound implementation of legal measures, instead of the imposition of a restriction on the use of the penalty.  Its use in Egypt reflected the belief that capital punishment could only be imposed against adults cognizant of their responsibility.  The prohibition of the death penalty against pregnant women was a recognition that death should not be imposed against those who had no choice, and who should not be deprived of their right to life.  In the same vein, Islamic sharia law also prohibited abortion, he noted. 

A call had been made, prior to the adoption of the resolution, that it did not correspond to relevant international legal instruments; that call, however, had gone unheeded, he said.  The resolution stressed specific social conditions, while disregarding other cultural situations.  While some States had voluntarily eliminated the death penalty, there were still many others that maintained it in full accordance of their sovereign rights.  No side was more right than the other, he said.  Each side would continue to choose its own path to maintain social order, security and peace.  His delegation was convinced that the divergent legal and human rights arguments could only be reconciled through a comprehensive debate at the multilateral level.

While Egypt had voted against the resolution, it recognized that it was the responsibility of States, in the case of serious crimes, to execute the death penalty in a system based on due process of law.

The representative of Malaysia then took the floor to discuss the resolution on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty, saying that his delegation firmly believed in the promotion and protection of human rights, and upheld the rule of law.  But each State had the right to take decisions on the use of the death penalty, without outside interference.

Capital punishment was a fundamental issue of the criminal justice system, used only for the most serious crimes, he explained.  The results of the voting had indicated that the global community was divided on the issue, with many States showing opposition to the resolution’s content.  Indeed, it was an unbalanced resolution and did not take into account the views of those using capital punishment.  The resolution upheld the views of those States wishing to impose their beliefs on others.  For that reason, Malaysia had voted against the text.

The representative of China said her delegation regretted that the Assembly must discuss the issue of a moratorium on the death penalty at plenary level.  That moratorium was an end result “achieved through pressure”.  The fact that the Third Committee had resorted to a vote reflected the level of disagreement on the issue.   China was dissatisfied at the imposition of the views of some States over others, and regretted that some countries had blocked amendments.

She reiterated that in today’s world, the issue was a matter of judicial process to decide on the use of or a moratorium on the death penalty, and not a matter of human rights.  It was each country’s right, on the basis of cultural background and other factors, to decide when to use that punishment.  Each State should be able to exercise that right without interference.  The issue should be resolved through dialogue.   China was opposed to the resolution, and had questions about its effectiveness.

Also addressing the text on the death penalty, the representative of Bangladesh said the application of capital punishment in his country was restricted to very selective cases of the most heinous crimes.   Bangladesh had safeguards in place and exercised restraint.  The resolution just adopted was representative of the growing trend against the death penalty.  His country believed, however, that the time was not right for its total abolition.  Such an act would require a review of world judicial systems.

The representative of Syria said her delegation had voted against that same text because Syria believed in the Charter of the United Nations, which called for mutual respect and non-interference in the sovereignty of States.   Syria believed that the text was a blatant interference into State matters.  The resolution mainly affected sovereignty, as it demanded that States change their political and judicial systems.  It undermined human dignity because it ignored the rights and values of the victims.

Moreover, the use of the death penalty was supported by judicial authorities in many countries, including her own.  If her Government was not authorized to enter into the judicial affairs of other States, then how could a group of States tell Syria and other States how their judicial systems should perform?  A group of States could not impose their values and ideals on others.  She added that the text actually rewarded criminals “who may not have taken just one life, but many”.   Syria had voted against the text. 

The representative of the United Kingdom took the floor in explanation of vote on the draft resolution on the right to food.  While he welcomed the adoption of that important resolution, his delegation wanted to place on record its considerable concerns with operative paragraph 12.

As his delegation had stated at the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the United Kingdom did not recognize the concept of collective human rights in international law, he said.  Its interpretive statement at the time had made clear that it fully supported the Declaration’s provisions, which recognized that indigenous individuals were entitled to the full protection of their human rights and fundamental freedoms under international law, on an equal basis to all other individuals.

Yet the United Kingdom did not accept that some groups within society should benefit from human rights that were not available to others.  Therefore, with the exception of the right to self-determination, it did not accept the concept of collective human rights.  That position, he said, was without prejudice to his country’s recognition that the Governments of many States with indigenous populations had granted them various collective rights.

He said that for those reasons, his delegation did not support the language in operative paragraph 12, even though it had voted in favour of the resolution on the right to food.  It would also be unable to support that or similar language in future resolutions, and reserved the opportunity to continue to negotiate it further in subsequent discussions.

The representative of the Bahamas took the floor in explanation of vote on the death penalty.  Her delegation firmly believed such a penalty was a matter of national sovereignty.  As a proud supporter of human rights, the Bahamas prided itself in adhering to the rights of the individual, as guaranteed in chapter III of its Constitution.  Because it continued to consider the exercise of the death penalty to be a legal matter, as determined by sovereign States, her delegation had voted against the resolution.

The representative of Colombia said his country had abstained from voting on resolution VI on combating defamation of religions, and had voted in favour of resolutions XIV and XVII, on the right to development and the right food, respectively, taking into account, in all cases, his delegation’s interpretations of presentations made on all of those issues in the Third Committee.

The representative of Syria said she had not finished explaining Syria’s vote on the resolution on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the context of counter-terrorism.  Her country had joined the consensus on the resolution, as it believed in combating all forms of terrorism and addressing its impact on States’ right to self-determination, and the rights of people living under foreign occupation.

She reaffirmed that, because Syria had not signed the Refugee Convention or its Protocol, her delegation’s understanding of operative paragraph 6 of the text was that it reinforced her country’s continued cooperation on the issue, within the context of its national laws.

Human Rights Situations and Reports of Special Rapporteurs and Representatives

Addendum 3 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/439/Add.3) contained four draft resolutions on human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives.

Ahead of action, the representative of Belarus, speaking on draft resolution IV on the human rights situation in his country, took the floor and said that the submitted text was an unjustified and politically motivated step.  It undermined the resolution on institution-building in the human rights report.  It also ran counter to the mechanism of the universal periodic review of the Human Rights Council, which was designed to exclude bias in the investigation of the human rights situation in certain countries.  The resolution focusing on Belarus would violate that mechanism. 

He said the resolution on Belarus had clearly had very little support in the Third Committee, where a majority of States had either voted against it, abstained, or just not taken part in the vote.  Belarus was a party in good faith to agreements on human rights, and was properly carrying out its international obligations.  He therefore called on States not to support the resolution.

Draft resolution I on the “Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” was adopted by a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 22 against, with 59 abstentions.  (See annex XVI)

Draft resolution II on the “Situation of human rights in Myanmar” was postponed until a later date, to allow time for review of its programme budget implications.

The Assembly then took up draft resolution III on the “Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran”.

Before action was taken, the representative of Iran called for a motion of no action on the text.  Citing voting rule 116 of the rules of procedure, he said his country and the majority of the international community believed the Human Rights Council was the most competent body to consider and monitor human rights.  Consideration by the Assembly of questions such as that contained in the draft resolution on Iran was unwarranted, and should be excluded from the agenda today.

The representative of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said his delegation regretted that a motion to adjourn consideration of the text had been invoked.  The Union believed that there should be no issue concerning human rights that was above consideration in the Assembly.  It was inappropriate to resort to taking motions.  Resolutions and decisions taken should pass or fail according to recorded votes, not procedural tricks.  He also regretted that this was the second time the motion had been called for, after it had failed in the Third Committee.  In fact, calling for the motion of no action was actually a motion of no confidence in the Third Committee.  It undermined that body’s work.  The European Union would therefore vote against the motion.

Venezuela’s representative said his delegation would express its firm disagreement with the practice of some States, which sought to individually condemn States under the pretext of human rights resolutions.  Those texts then became instruments that could be used against selected countries.  Such moves were purely political, and had really very little to do with human rights situations.  Indeed, many of the countries pressing such measures would not allow resolutions examining the human rights in their own countries to be tabled.  That was why Venezuela was pleased that the Human Rights Council was beginning to implement its mandated universal human rights review mechanism, which would examine the situations in all countries, without selectivity.  For Venezuela, this was a matter of principle, he said, urging all delegations to support the no action motion. 

The representative of Pakistan took the floor in support of the motion for the adjournment of debate on the resolution on the human rights situation in Iran.  Pakistan believed that the human rights agenda should be addressed in a fair and balanced manner, based on dialogue and inclusion, not exclusion, as was the case with the resolution.  As a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, Pakistan had consistently not supported resolutions against specific countries.  It therefore supported the no action motion, and he advised all other delegations to do likewise.

The representative of San Marino, speaking on behalf of Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Palau, Republic of Korea, Timor Leste and the United States, was deeply disappointed that a no action motion had been called.  It was an extraordinary step intended to undermine the legitimacy of the Assembly.  The resolution had been adopted by the Third Committee after a no action motion had failed.  The text was then recommended to the Assembly for consideration today.  That was how work had always proceeded:  there was debate and decision in the Committee prior to action in the Assembly.

A no action motion at this point signified a disregard for the Committee and its decision-making process, she continued.  Moreover, it sought to prevent the Assembly from taking action on the resolution, and would undermine the work of both those bodies.  States might differ on the gravity of human rights situations, but all must agree on maintaining the Assembly’s integrity.  She urged all to vote no on the motion, and to allow the Assembly to vote on the merit of the resolution.

The no action motion was rejected by a vote of 80 in favour to 84 against, with 19 abstentions.  (See annex XVII)

Immediately following that action, Venezuela’s representative called for a recorded vote on operative paragraph 5 of the text, in accordance of rule 129 of the General Assembly’s procedural rules.  He said that his delegation was requesting a recorded vote on operative paragraph 5, given that this paragraph requested the Secretary-General to examine the situation of human rights there and submit a comprehensive report to the Assembly.

He went on to say that such a request would set a dangerous precedent, undermining the work of the Human Rights Council.  That body’s universal periodic review mechanism would deal with those matters.  Furthermore, in reference to specific country reports, it was the practice within that mechanism for such reports to be drafted by a special envoy.  It was therefore unnecessary to make that request to the Secretary-General, and it was an unfortunate precedent to not refer to the Human Rights Council in that case.

The sponsors of the draft resolution intentionally wanted to abuse the General Assembly and bypass the Human Rights Council, he said.  His delegation requested that the last part of operative paragraph 5, from the words “to this end” through the end of the paragraph, be removed.

The representative of Canada said States had not been given the opportunity to discuss the proposed amendment, and he was taking the floor in order to be able to do so.

The representative of Iran said his delegation fully supported Venezuela’s proposal to delete the second part of operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution concerning human rights in Iran.  Notwithstanding the fundamental substantive deficiencies of the resolution, there were unsubstantiated allegations and provisions, and the confrontational approach of the draft was a futile attempt driven by political motivation.  That ill-intended action of Canada, which had overburdened the Assembly for the last four years, was the result of an information campaign against Iran.  The resolution was a blatant misuse of the Assembly, and was an unconventional use of the Human Rights Council.  As such, it was unwarranted and must be stopped.

Having managed to acquire a nominal endorsement by the Third Committee, the resolution suffered from a lack of legitimacy, as would be demonstrated by the many countries that would oppose it, he continued.  It contained flaws and was devoid of applicability.   Canada’s pressure had aimed at changing the votes of Member States throughout the Assembly’s session.  It was a globally shared belief that the application of double standards would not be achievable.   Canada had damaged the “spirit of cooperation” and negatively impacted the credibility of the Assembly.

The damage the resolution would inflict on the newly established Human Rights Council should be borne in mind, he continued.  Such a resolution could not be construed as a factual reflection of the international community’s views.  He drew attention to “an unprecedented element” added to operative paragraph 5, noting that it requested the Secretary-General to submit to the Assembly a comprehensive report on the situation of human rights in Iran.  If adopted, the resolution would undermine the mandate of the Human Rights Council.  That element did not have meritorious justification.  It demonstrated the intent of sponsors to “fish in troubled waters”.  As such, he unequivocally supported Venezuela’s proposal to delete the last part of operative paragraph 5, and invited all countries that opposed the resolution to vote in favour of that proposal.

Canada’s representative said that his delegation would vote against the amendment.  He was surprised and disappointed that such a move had been made.  Making such a proposal on the floor of the Assembly when concerns had not been raised in the Third Committee –- despite the fact that all delegations had plenty of time to raise such objections -- was highly irregular.  In the Third Committee, Iran had argued that the resolution was out of date.  But in fact, events in Iran over the past few days proved that the resolution was necessary.  The Secretary-General should look into that situation.  He added that the resolution just adopted on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea contained a similar provision.  He called on all States to reject the proposal and amendment.

The oral amendment proposed to operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Iran was rejected by a vote of 70 against to 57 in favour, with 45 abstentions.  (See annex XVIII)

The text as a whole was then adopted by a recorded vote 73 in favour to 53 against, with 55 abstentions.  (See annex XIX)

Draft resolution IV on the “Situation of human rights in Belarus” was adopted by a recorded vote of 72 in favour to 33 against, with 78 abstentions.  (See annex XX)

After action, the representative of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, explaining her delegation’s position on the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said the promotion of human rights was every nation’s obligation.

Her delegation believed that human rights issues should be addressed in a global context, through cooperation and dialogue based on the principle of objectivity and transparency, taking into account the religious specificity of each country.  The resolution was inconsistent with that principle, and would cause tension among countries and contribute to the politicization of the Assembly.  That was why her delegation had voted against it.  The issue of adoption was worrisome to the international community, and she hoped States would take preventive measures.  Where it occurred, the issue should be resolved through a peaceful approach.

The representative of Belarus, taking the floor in connection with resolution IV on the human rights situation in his country, said his delegation did not recognize the text in form or content.  It rejected the resolution as not in keeping with reality.  The text had no legal force.

He said Belarus was carrying out its international commitments properly.  It was interacting with the human rights bodies of the United Nations.  In relation to the Human Rights Council, it was optimistic about that body’s system within the United Nations, in which human rights issues would be resolved on an equal footing.  Belarus reaffirmed its interest in holding a dialogue undertaken on equal footing and in mutual respect.

The representative of Colombia took the floor to express concern for all those who had been kidnapped.  He demanded the immediate and unconditional release of all individuals who were being held, regardless of the reason.

The representative of Sudan took the floor in a point of order regarding a resolution of the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) on “Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”.  His delegation had voted in favour of that resolution in the Committee, but during the Assembly session yesterday, its vote had not been recorded.  His delegation wished that vote to be recorded.

Comprehensive Implementation of and Follow-Up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action

Taking up Addendum 4 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/439/Add.4), the Assembly took note of the Third Committee’s report on comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Addendum 5 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/439/Add.5) contained one draft resolution.

The draft on the “Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol” was adopted without a vote.

Celebration of the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Addendum 6 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/62/439/Add.6) contained one draft resolution.

The Assembly adopted without a vote a draft on the “International Year of Human Rights Learning”.

Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice

Next, the Assembly considered the Third Committee’s report on Crime prevention and criminal justice (document A/62/440), which contained four draft resolutions and one draft decision.

Draft resolution I on “Technical assistance for implementing the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism” was adopted without a vote.

Draft resolution II on “Follow-up to the Eleventh United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice and preparations for the Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice” was adopted without a vote.

Also adopted without vote was draft resolution III on the “United Nations African Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders”.

Draft resolution IV on “Strengthening the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme, in particular its technical cooperation capacity” was also adopted without a vote.

The Assembly then adopted the draft decision on documents considered by the General Assembly in connection with the question of crime prevention and criminal justice, by which it would take note of the note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime on its third session (document A/62/84).

International Drug Control

The Assembly then took up the Committee’s report on International drug control (document A/62/441), which contained one draft resolution.

The draft on “International cooperation against the world drug problem” was adopted without a vote.

Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly

Finally, the Assembly took up the Committee’s report on the Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly (document A/62/442), which contained one draft decision.

The Assembly took note of the draft on the “Programme of work for the Third Committee for the sixty-third session of the General Assembly” and adopted it without a vote.

Programme Planning

The Committee’s report on Programme planning (document A/62/443) stated that no action was required by the Committee on the Assembly item entitled “programme planning” at the sixty-second session of the Assembly.  The Assembly took note of that report.

ANNEX I

Vote on the Rights of the Child

The draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/62/435) was adopted by a recorded vote of 183 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, Chad, 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, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, 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, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  None.

Absent:  Dominica, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Libya, Maldives, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Turkey.

ANNEX II

Vote on the Inadmissibility of Certain Practices that Contribute to Fuelling Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance

The draft resolution on the inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (document A/62/437) was adopted by a recorded vote of 130 in favour to 2 against, with 53 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, 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, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, 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, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, 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 Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Marshall Islands, United States.

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

Absent:  Dominica, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Nauru, Seychelles, Tonga, Turkmenistan.

ANNEX III

Vote on the Report of the Human Rights Council on the Preparations for the Durban Review Conference

The draft resolution on the report of the Human Rights Council on the preparations for the Durban Review Conference (document A/62/437) was adopted by a recorded vote of 177 in favour to 3 against, with 3 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, Chad, 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, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, 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, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, 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, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Israel, Marshall Islands, United States.

Abstain:  Australia, Canada, Norway.

Absent:  Dominica, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Seychelles, Tonga.

ANNEX IV

Vote on the Use of Mercenaries as a Means of Violating Human Rights and Impeding the Exercise of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination

The draft resolution on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/62/438) was adopted by a recorded vote of 127 in favour to 52 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, 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, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, 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, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain:  Chile, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Switzerland, Tonga, Tunisia.

Absent:  Burundi, Dominica, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Nauru, Seychelles.

ANNEX V

Vote on the Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination

The draft resolution on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (document A/62/438) was adopted by a recorded vote of 176 in favour to 5 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, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, 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, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, 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, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain:  Australia, Cameroon, Canada, Nauru.

Absent:  Dominica, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Seychelles, Timor-Leste, Tonga.

ANNEX VI

Vote on a Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty

The draft resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (document A/62/439/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 104 in favour to 54 against, with 29 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela.

Against:  Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Chad, China, Comoros, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Egypt, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Syria, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United States, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Belarus, Bhutan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Morocco, Niger, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Togo, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam, Zambia.

Absent:  Guinea-Bissau, Peru, Senegal, Seychelles, Tunisia.

ANNEX VII

Vote on Retaining Preambular Paragraph 5 of the Draft on Strengthening the Role of the United Nations in Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Principle of Periodic and Genuine Elections and the Promotion of Democratization

The preambular paragraph 5 of the draft resolution on strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine elections and the promotion of democratization (document A/62/439/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 168 in favour to none against, with 13 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Viet Nam.

Absent:  Benin, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Madagascar, Nauru, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Tonga, Zimbabwe.

ANNEX VIII

Vote on Strengthening the Role of the United Nations in Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Principle of Periodic and Genuine Elections and the Promotion of Democratization

The draft resolution on strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing the effectiveness of the principle of periodic and genuine elections and the promotion of democratization (document A/62/439/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 182 in favour to none against, with 2 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, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, 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, Marshall Islands, 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, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  None.

Abstain:  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Swaziland.

Absent:  Botswana, Cuba, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Nauru, Seychelles, Syria, Tonga.

ANNEX IX

Vote on Globalization and its Impact on the Full Enjoyment of All Human Rights

The draft resolution on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (document A/62/439/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 129 in favour to 54 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, 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, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, 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, Equatorial Guinea, Singapore.

Absent:  Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Madagascar, Papua New Guinea, Seychelles.

ANNEX X

Vote on Combating Defamation of Religions

The draft resolution on combating defamation of religions (document A/62/439/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 108 in favour to 51 against, with 25 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

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

Abstain:  Argentina, Armenia, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, United Republic of Tanzania.

Absent:  Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Nauru, Seychelles, Tonga.

ANNEX XI

Vote on the Right to Development

The draft resolution on the right to development (document A/62/439/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 136 in favour to 53 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, 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, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, 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, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, 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, Micronesia (Federated States of), Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, 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:  None.

Absent:  Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Seychelles.

ANNEX XII

Vote on Human Rights and Unilateral Coercive Measures

The draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/62/439/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 132 in favour to 54 against, with no abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, 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, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, 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, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, 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:  None.

Absent:  Bolivia, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Seychelles.

ANNEX XIII

Vote on Promotion of Peace as a Vital Requirement for the Full Enjoyment of All Human Rights by All

The draft resolution on promotion of peace as a vital requirement for the full enjoyment of all human rights by all (document A/62/439/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 126 in favour to 54 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, 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, Chad, 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, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, 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, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, 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:  Argentina, Armenia, Chile, Mexico, Samoa, Singapore.

Absent:  Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Seychelles, Tonga.

ANNEX XIV

Vote on the Right to Food

The draft resolution on the right to food (document A/62/439/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 186 in favour to 1 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, 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, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, 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, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  United States.

Abstain:  Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Absent:  Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Seychelles, Somalia.

ANNEX XV

Vote on Respect for the Purposes and Principles Contained in the Charter

The draft resolution on respect for the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms and in solving international problems of a humanitarian character (document A/62/439/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 120 in favour to 55 against, with 10 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, 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, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, 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, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, 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:  Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Kazakhstan, Nauru, Peru, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga, Uruguay.

Absent:  Burundi, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Seychelles, Turkmenistan.

ANNEX XVI

Vote on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document A/62/439/Add.3) was adopted by a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 22 against, with 59 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

Against:  Algeria, Belarus, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Oman, Russian Federation, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zambia.

Absent:  Azerbaijan, Benin, Comoros, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Mongolia, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Tunisia.

ANNEX XVII

Vote on No Action Motion

The no action motion on the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (document A/62/439/Add.3) was rejected by a recorded vote of 84 against to 80 in favour, with 19 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

Abstain:  Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Colombia, Dominica, Ghana, Guyana, Jamaica, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sierra Leone, Trinidad and Tobago.

Absent:  Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Jordan, Madagascar, Seychelles, Turkey.

ANNEX XVIII

Vote on Amendment to Operative Paragraph 5

The amendment to operative paragraph 5 of the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (document A/62/439/Add.3) was rejected by a recorded vote of 70 against to 57 in favour, with 45 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Morocco, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Against:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu.

Abstain:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cape Verde, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Guyana, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Suriname, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Zambia.

Absent:  Armenia, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Gabon, Georgia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Jordan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Madagascar, Maldives, Nauru, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Seychelles, Turkey, Uganda.

ANNEX XIX

Vote on Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (document A/62/439/Add.3) was adopted by a recorded vote of 73 in favour to 53 against, with 55 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu.

Against:  Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Eritrea, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Zambia.

Absent:  Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Jordan, Madagascar, Mauritania, Seychelles, Turkey, Uganda.

ANNEX XX

Vote on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus

The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Belarus (document A/62/439/Add.3) was adopted by a recorded vote of 72 in favour to 33 against, with 78 abstentions, as follows:

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

Against:  Algeria, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Gambia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

Abstain:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia.

Absent:  Azerbaijan, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Madagascar, Maldives, Rwanda, Seychelles, Tunisia.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record