|
The representative of Canada, the main sponsor of the draft, said there had been a “continued deterioration” in the performance of the Government of Iran in protecting human rights in the country, since the previous resolution on Iran had been adopted. The co-sponsors did not take lightly the idea of tabling the draft, and they looked forward to the time when they would no longer need to. Until that time, the co-sponsors would continue to call attention to the situation on the ground.
On a point of order, the representative of Iran called for a no-action motion on the draft, in accordance with rule 116 of the rules of procedure.
The CHAIR informed the Committee that, in accordance with the rules of procedure, two delegations would speak in favour and two against.
Speaking in favour, the representative of Pakistan said it was important for the international human rights agenda to be addressed in a fair and balanced manner, based on dialogue and cooperation. Country-specific resolutions reflected politicization of human rights issues instead of building cooperation. At the same time, those resolutions often ignored the progress made in the area of human rights. She, therefore, urged all delegations to support the motion.
The representative of Venezuela, also speaking in favour, emphatically rejected the consideration of the draft, since it was selective and political. Country-specific resolutions worked against the promotion of human rights, and he urged all delegates to refrain from such action.
Speaking against the motion, the representative of Canada said that the resolution had been co-sponsored by 44 Member States who firmly believed that the Third Committee had a right and responsibility to consider the issue. The Committee would undermine its own credibility and that of the General Assembly if it refused to undertake its responsibility to consider grave human rights situations brought before it. By a procedural manoeuvre, Iran hoped to prevent the consideration of the issue on its merits. Allowing the no-action motion to pass would reward those who sought to “use and abuse” the rules of procedure to avoid inspection of their human rights record and, even worse, would send a negative message to human rights activists in the country. Silencing the Third Committee would run contrary to collective efforts to uphold the mandate of the General Assembly and the universal rights of all people. Iran was trying to avoid scrutiny, and Canada and all co-sponsors urged members to vote against the motion, out of principle.
Also speaking against the motion, the representative of Australia said the no-action motion was “totally inappropriate” and an abuse of the rules of procedure. If the motion was not voted down, it would prevent discussion of a human rights issue in the Committee, which was the very reason the Committee met. Every serious human rights issue put forward for discussion should be considered and debated, with Member States expressing their views. He urged all members who wanted to preserve their right to speak to vote against the motion.
The no-action motion was then rejected by a recorded vote of 81 against to 71 in favour, with 28 abstentions (Annex VI).
Continuing his earlier statement, the representative of Canada said that, by calling attention to the situation in Iran, the co-sponsors hoped that it would generate positive change and accelerate progress on human rights in the country. The greatest actors of change in Iran were the people of Iran themselves, and the co-sponsors hoped that the resolution would provide support and encouragement to those Iranians. The Secretary-General’s report on the situation in the country detailed the ongoing violations of human rights in the country. The draft resolution was a balanced and accurate text, based on that report. He noted that, despite the credit given to Iran in the report regarding a moratorium on juvenile executions, only three weeks ago Iran had hung its seventh juvenile offender in 2008. He also noted the lack of cooperation between Iran and international human rights mechanisms and said that the international community needed to speak out and hold the Government accountable for the human rights violations of its citizens. Therefore, he urged all delegations to support the resolution.
Before the Committee proceeded to take action on the draft, the representative of Argentina said that she had meant to vote against the no-action motion, which was noted by the Chair.
The representative of Syria sought the floor to explain his vote before action, only to be reminded by the Chair that a vote had not yet been requested.
To that, the representative of Iran asked to be the last speaker before the Committee moved to a vote, prompting the Chair to give him the floor.
The representative of Iran said the Canadian delegation was exploiting procedural deficiencies, gaps and ambiguities surrounding the United Nations human rights process to entice the Committee to consider another politically-motivated resolution against his country. The draft was an example of selectivity and double standards, containing “falsified and unsubstantiated elements”. He believed the draft was a response to a bilateral dispute between Iran and Canada, and was part of the latter’s campaign of disinformation against Iran. He stood ready to shed light on assertions made in the text, and indeed a 17-page compilation of updated information, supported by solid and documented facts, regarding the actual human rights situation in Iran and illustrating the steady trend of improvements had been presented to the General Assembly as document A/C.3/63/6 of 4 November, and was readily available to all.
He said the pattern of voting of previous years had shown that the resolution had been rejected or “disliked” by a solid majority, who had decided to vote against, abstain or not to vote at all. It was surprising that the Government of Canada had styled itself as a human rights advocate, when factual information released by authentic, credible, international sources such as intergovernmental organizations, United Nations human rights treaty bodies, human rights defenders, non-governmental organizations and various credible members of the media had disclosed information on outstanding cases of Canada’s non-compliance with its international obligations towards its own citizens, particularly migrants and foreigners residing in the country, as well as its repressive tactics against its aborigines and other minorities. Grave concerns had also been expressed over the situation of individuals deprived of their liberty while awaiting trial or sentencing, continued allegations of police brutality, and inappropriate use of illicit chemical agents by law enforcement authorities in the context of crowd control.
He said other co-sponsors of the draft resolution also had “undefendable” human rights records. People everywhere deserved the opportunity to live in dignity and respect, free from discrimination, injustice and inequality. The international community should pay attention to human rights situation in all corners of the world, without exception and ulterior motives. Iran had participated in the reform processes of the United Nations human rights machinery and in the establishment of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism within the Council, under which Iran would be considered in 2010, to put an end to the politicization and manipulation of the human rights machinery by a few countries. Resorting to duplicative means of singling out human rights situations in any given country through country-specific resolutions would be a blow to the system, and was itself an obstacle to the achievement of common human rights goals.
He said his country was a party to major human rights instruments and complied fully with its international commitments, and was actively engaged in the promotion and protection of human rights as provided for in its Constitution. Iran’s human rights policy emanated from its national and regional particularities, as well as its cultural, historical and religious background. It had always emphasized an interactive and cooperative approach to its human rights obligations. He wished to confirm that much had been done, and he expressed a firm conviction to build on the progress achieved thus far. Iran would continue to promote and protect human rights irrespective of the adoption or rejection of the resolution. He expected the Committee to opt for the preservation of the dignity, credibility and legitimacy of United Nations human rights mechanisms, and called for its members to vote against the draft.
The CHAIR asked for clarification on whether the representative of Iran was asking for a recorded vote, to which the representative said yes.
On a procedural issue, the representative of Uganda asked whether the Committee had moved to explanations of vote before the vote, and was informed by the Chair that explanations of vote had not yet begun. However, as there were no delegates who sought to make general statements, explanations of vote, prior to voting, began.
The representative of Belarus said the draft was “unjustified and politicized” and created a counter-productive atmosphere in the Committee. Belarus favoured the consideration of country-specific situations in the Human Rights Council, which was able to address issues in a comprehensive and expert manner. For that reason, Belarus would vote against the draft.
The representative of Syria said that country-specific resolutions detracted from the credibility of the whole human rights framework. All delegates knew that international consensus had been achieved on the international human rights bodies and, as such, the Third Committee should refrain from interfering in the affairs of a country, which was totally against the United Nations Charter. Understanding and dialogue would be necessary to bring the diverse points of views held by States, together. Syria believed that all delegations should be against the current resolution, since it was incompatible with international human rights values. The initiative created a double standard, if dealt with in the Third Committee, and such issues should instead be dealt with in the Human Rights Council and though its Universal Periodic Review mechanism, which would examine the situation in all Member States and not just a few. Noting Israel’s co-sponsorship of the draft, he asked whether the inclusion of that country might undermine the credibility of the draft, as Israel had committed its own violations of human rights and continued to do so in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The representative of Uganda, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said country-specific resolutions selectively targeted countries and politicized human rights issues. Such action did nothing to promote human rights, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, therefore, encouraged all delegates to vote against the draft.
The representative of Egypt said her delegation continued to be opposed to the introduction of country-specific resolutions, in principle, regardless of the content of those resolutions. Such resolutions did not deal with problems in an objective manner or in a framework of cooperation and dialogue. Instead, they invoked threats and fell prey to politicization. Country-specific issues should be examined through the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and the Human Rights Council. In accordance with the position of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement, Egypt would vote against the draft resolution.
The representative of Ecuador reaffirmed the Human Rights Council as the central body to be called upon to protect human rights in a transparent and non-selective manner. Ecuador supported the creation of the Council, so that the international community could examine the human rights situations in all countries of the world. While Ecuador shared concerns about the vulnerability of the human rights situations in certain countries, those concerns should be considered within the Council. He expressed regret over efforts to undermine the work of the Council through politicized actions. Country-specific resolutions would not improve the situation in any country and, as such, Ecuador would abstain from voting.
The representative of Libya expressed regret over the submission of a selective and politicized draft resolution. The issues contained in the draft should be examined within the Human Rights Council, which was the ideal forum for dealing with important issues. For that reason, Libya would vote against the draft, as it had done on similar resolutions in the past.
The representative of Venezuela said, if the draft resolution were to be approved, it would only create more conflict and complications in Third Committee debates. For example, in the coming year, it would be possible for dozens of resolutions to be introduced on a variety of human rights situations across the world. While not naming names, he said that all delegates should be careful about where such resolutions could lead, and how complicated Committee debates could become.
The representative of Nicaragua said her country upheld the sentiments expressed by Cuba, and, thus, rejected the practice of selectivity and politicization of human rights. The Human Rights Council was the best body to examine human rights issues, including situations in specific countries through a process of evaluation that was based on the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity, and through constructive dialogue. The Universal Periodic Review process would enable all countries to be examined on an equal footing. Nicaragua would continue to vote against resolutions that pointed a finger at specific countries.
The representative of Cuba reiterated his position against the use of human rights for political reasons, including singling out certain countries for reasons that were not relevant to the issue at hand, including to promote the hegemonic interests of certain countries. It was important to reject and condemn the practice of selectivity and double standards with regard to the protection of human rights. The draft sought to exploit human rights for political aims. Any treatment of human rights should be based on genuine international cooperation. The ideal framework for promoting cooperation on situations of concern was provided by the Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review process. For that reason, he would vote against the draft.
The draft was approved by a vote of 70 in favour to 51 against, with 60 abstentions (Annex VII).
Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of Japan said he had voted in favour of the text in view of the human rights situation in Iran, which required further improvement. However, he appreciated the efforts undertaken by the Government of Iran to achieve improvements in some areas. For instance, on 26 October, Japan and Iran had engaged in their fifth dialogue on human rights, which had also focused on reform of the judicial system. In that connection, Japan welcomed Iran’s decision to prohibit the death penalty from being administered to juveniles.
The representative of Brazil said he had abstained from the vote because his Government strongly supported the consolidation of the Human Rights Council as the main body responsible for promoting and protecting human rights. The Council should strive to create an enabling environment to improve human rights situations worldwide. However, Brazil did note with concern the situation of human rights in Iran, especially with regard to women’s rights, freedom of speech and association, the perceived lack of due process, juvenile executions, public executions and other forms of inhumane treatment, the violation of minority rights –- such as of the Baha’i community, which included the arbitrary denial of services and seizure of property. But, he also noted progress in the area of health care, and noted positive steps taken towards legal reform, especially with regard to correcting discriminatory laws. He noted the enhanced cooperation between Iran and the United Nations, and its standing invitation to Human Rights Council special procedures mandate holders. He hoped the Government would strengthen dialogue with the Human Rights Council and other human rights mechanisms.
The representative of Ireland said she had voted in favour of the draft and that her vote had been correctly reflected on the board. But when machine was locked, her vote appeared to have been registered as an abstention. In response, the SECRETARY explained that the official result would hold, and that Ireland had indeed been recorded as having abstained. But, he said that her statement to the contrary would be recorded in the official records.
Also speaking to correct her vote, the representative of Namibia said that she had intended to abstain from the vote on resolutions L.26 and L.33, which the CHAIR acknowledged.
The Committee next turned to the draft resolution on trafficking in women and girls (document A/C.3/63/L.13/Rev.1), whose main sponsor, the representative of the Philippines, thanked all delegations for contributing to the negotiation process.
The representative of Peru drew attention to the Spanish language version of the draft to make a number of oral revisions to operative paragraph 12, to ensure that it was in line with the English version. He noted that the text, especially operative paragraph 12, was the subject of intense debate and needed a proper translation in all languages. That was a permanent requirement that should be scrupulously respected.
The Secretary duly took note of his concern.
The representative of Mexico said his delegation shared the aim of the last part of operative paragraph 12, encouraging Governments to prevent victims of trafficking from being prosecuted. However, the use of the world “illegal” was rather unfortunate, as it might imply that victims could be the subject of criminal proceedings, regardless of the fact that they were victims. He expressed regret over the failure to achieve clear language in favour of the victims of trafficking on the issue. While Mexico held the view that some of the co-sponsors should have been more willing to come up with an alternative to the text, it believed that the draft did contain many good provisions, and it would, therefore, join consensus on the draft.
The representative of Ecuador said that his delegation was concerned about trafficking in women and girls, as reflected in its own national efforts. Despite Ecuador’s commitment to all international initiatives to combat such trafficking, it was important for national and international efforts to be in line with each other. While Ecuador would join the consensus on the draft, he asked that his comments be included in the record.
The Committee approved the draft, as orally revised, without a vote.
The Committee then took up the draft on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (document A/C.3/63/L.53/Rev.1). The Chair drew the Committee’s attention to the draft’s programme budget implications, as contained in document A/C.3/63/L.72.
One of its two main sponsors, the representative of Slovenia, explained that the resolution was a response to the request to extend meeting time of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. With 173 ratifications, it was the most widely ratified international instrument. At present, 28 reports were awaiting consideration. It was thought that increasing its total meeting time to eight weeks a year would provide the necessary time for the Committee to consider the reports before it, which, in turn, had been informed by an evaluation conducted by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. She thanked the draft’s co-sponsors for supporting the text and expressed hope that it would be possible to approve the resolution by consensus.
The representative of United States then called for a separate vote on paragraph 13 of the text, by which the Assembly would decide to authorize the Committee to meet for an additional week per session, as a temporary measure, with effect from August 2009 until 2011. However, he made clear that, despite such a vote on a question dealing with financial resources, he would join consensus on the resolution.
The representative of Belgium said she regretted the call for a vote on that paragraph. The paragraph which would have the Assembly decide to grant an additional week per session until 2011 was a main element of the resolution. Six weeks was not sufficient for the Committee to deal with all the reports before it. Belgium and Slovenia called all States to vote in favour of that paragraph.
The paragraph was then approved by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 1 against (United States), with 8 abstentions (Fiji, Japan, Malaysia, Mozambique, Poland, Singapore, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom) (Annex VIII).
The representative of Egypt raised a point of order, saying that, according to rule 129 of the rules of procedure, because a vote had been held following a motion of division, a vote should be held on the resolution as a whole. Responding, the SECRETARY of the Committee said that, according to a discussion on rule 129 five or six years ago, the Committee had decided that parts of proposal may be voted on separately, unless an objection was raised against the motion. No such objection had been made prior to the motion to vote on paragraph 13. Thus, rule 129 would not apply to this case. The CHAIR added that, after consulting with the Office of Legal Affairs, it was his belief that rule 129 did not apply. If any delegation wished a vote on the resolution as a whole, such a vote must be formally requested.
The representative of Egypt said he had not heard that explanation before, and asked the Secretary to provide more details on the practice of the Committee in that regard.
The CHAIR said the Office of Legal Affairs said that, in the absence of an objection, draft resolutions and decisions would be adopted without a vote. As for rule 129, a practice had emerged within the Committee where, in the absence of an objection, resolutions might be adopted without a vote, even if parts of it had been voted on separately. He then asked if a formal request for a vote was, in fact, being made.
The representative of Egypt asked, in the case of an objection to such a motion, which was the correct rule to invoke. To his understanding, it was the Committee’s practice to vote on resolutions where a separate vote had been held on its component parts.
The SECRETARY said that, up to 2003, the Committee’s practice had been not to move to a vote without a prior request from a delegation in the case of a “division of a proposal”. A lengthy procedural debate had taken place in 2003 regarding rule 129, resulting in that interpretation, although it had not been applied systematically -- for example, if the representative of Egypt was not in the room at the time to invoke it. The legal opinion provided in 2003 had been explained by the Chair and, for that reason, if delegations would like him to reread the statement, he would do so. It was also the practice of Committees not to interpret rule 129 as providing a legal framework for automatically moving to a vote whenever a motion of division had been submitted.
The representative of Egypt reminded the Secretary that, even if he was absent, another person from his delegation would have carried on in his place. He then asked for precise details regarding the application of rule 129, as interpreted by the Committee in 2003.
The SECRETARY apologized for any insult that might have been felt, as that had not been the intention.
A lengthy procedural discussion ensued involving the representatives of Costa Rica, New Zealand, India, Guatemala, United Republic of Tanzania, China, Gambia, Lebanon, France, Germany, Syria and Belgium. The thrust of the discussion was whether or not the committee had to vote on the resolution as a whole after it had taken a vote on a separate paragraph. Following the discussion, the representative of Egypt requested a vote on the resolution, saying it had been a practice of the Committee to also vote on a text as a whole once a separate vote had been held on its component parts.
The CHAIR opened the floor to delegates for explanations of vote, which led the representative of Malaysia to state that his country was not party to the Convention. However, since he recognized the importance of the Convention to the Committee and to its State parties, he would vote in favour of the draft, with the understanding that it would only apply to those who were party to it.
The representative of Egypt then requested all parties to vote in favour of the draft, and took the opportunity to clarify for a final time that he had initially requested a vote in line with rule 129. He noted that there was no evidence that the Committee had departed from that practice in the past five years.
The draft was approved by a vote of 178 in favour to none against, with no abstentions (Annex IX).
(annexes follow)
ANNEX I
Vote on Unilateral Coercive Measures
The draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/C.3/63/L.31) was approved by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 52 against, with no abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, 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, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.
Against: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstain: None.
Absent: Angola, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, Zimbabwe.
ANNEX II
Vote on Equitable International Order
The draft resolution on promoting a democratic and equitable international order (document A/C.3/63/L.44) was approved by a recorded vote of 120 in favour to 52 against, with 7 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, 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, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, 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, Peru, Timor-Leste, Vanuatu.
Absent: Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Uzbekistan.
ANNEX III
Vote on Human Rights in 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/C.3/63/L.26) was approved by a recorded vote of 95 in favour to 24 against, with 62 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Comoros, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, 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, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Russian Federation, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.
Abstain: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zambia.
Absent: Armenia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, Mongolia, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, Tunisia.
ANNEX IV
Vote on No-Action Motion on Myanmar
The on motion to take no action on the draft resolution in the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/63/L.33) was rejected by a recorded vote of 90 against to 54 in favour, with 34 abstentions, as follows:
Against: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu.
In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Abstain: Belize, Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, United Republic of Tanzania.
Absent: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, Gambia, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Togo.
ANNEX V
Vote on Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar
The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/63/L.33) was approved by a recorded vote of 89 in favour to 29 against, with 63 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu.
Against: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Iran, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Russian Federation, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.
Abstain: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia.
Absent: Cambodia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, Madagascar, Micronesia (Federated States of), Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Tajikistan, Tunisia.
ANNEX VI
Vote on No-Action Motion on Iran
The no-action motion on the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran (document A/C.3/63/L.40) was rejected by a recorded vote of 81 against to 71 in favour, with 28 abstentions, as follows:
Against: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, 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), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu.
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Abstain: Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Jordan, Lesotho, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, United Republic of Tanzania.
Absent: Bahrain, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, Libya, Madagascar, Maldives, Morocco, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Turkey, Yemen.
ANNEX VII
Vote on Situation of Human Rights in Iran
The draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Iran (document A/C.3/63/L.40) was approved by a recorded vote of 70 in favour to 51 against, with 60 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu.
Against: Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
Abstain: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Zambia.
Absent: Cambodia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, Iraq, Madagascar, Maldives, Morocco, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Turkey.
ANNEX VIII
Vote on Operative Paragraph 13 of Convention on Elimination
of Racial Discrimination
Operative paragraph 13 of the draft resolution on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (document A/C.3/63/L.53/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 165 in favour to 1 against, with 8 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, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: United States.
Abstain: Fiji, Japan, Malaysia, Mozambique, Poland, Singapore, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom.
Absent: Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, Gambia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu.
ANNEX IX
Vote on Convention on Racial Discrimination
The draft resolution on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (document A/C.3/63/L.53/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 178 in favour to none 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, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), 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, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 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, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia.
Against: None.
Abstain: None.
Absent: Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Seychelles, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Zimbabwe.
* *** *
For information media • no
|
