Wednesday, December 27, 2006
SECURITY COUNCIL IMPOSES SANCTIONS ON IRAN FOR FAILURE TO HALT URANIUM ENRICHMENT, UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTING RESOLUTION 1737 (2006)
Measures Will Be Lifted if Iran Suspends Suspect Activities;Report Due from Atomic Energy Agency on Compliance within 60 Days
Determined to give effect to its unmet 31 July demand that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, the Security Council today imposed sanctions on that country, blocking the import or export of sensitive nuclear materiel and equipment and freezing the financial assets of persons or entities supporting its proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear-weapon delivery systems.
Unanimously adopting resolution 1737 (2006) under Article 41 of the Charter’s Chapter VII, the Council decided that Iran should, without further delay, suspend the following proliferation sensitive nuclear activities: all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development; and work on all heavy-water related projects, including the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water. The halt to those activities would be verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Specifically, the Council decided that all States should prevent the supply, sale or transfer, for the use by or benefit of Iran, of related equipment and technology, if the State determined that such items would contribute to enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy-water related activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems. The Council decided it would terminate the measures if Iran fully complied with its obligations, or adopt additional ones and possible further decisions if the country did not.
The Council requested a report within 60 days from the Director General of IAEA on whether Iran had established full and sustained suspension of all activities mentioned in the resolution, as well as on the process of Iranian compliance with all steps required by the IAEA Board, to the Board of Governors and the Council for its consideration. The Council affirmed that it would review Iran’s actions in light of that report and suspend implementation of measures, if and for so long as Iran suspended all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities.
The Council also established a new committee, comprised of all Council members, to monitor implementation of the present text and designate further individuals or entities to which the sanctions should apply. The committee would be tasked with taking appropriate action on alleged violations of the sanctions, consider requests for exemptions, designate possible additional individuals and entities subjected to the measures, and report at least every 90 days to the Council on the implementation of the resolution. All States were to report to the Committee within 60 days on the steps they had taken with a view to implementing the relevant provisions of the resolution.
The representative of the United States stressed that adoption of the resolution sent Iran an unambiguous message that there were serious repercussions for its continuing disregard and defiance of the Security Council. He hoped the resolution would convince Iran that the best way to ensure its security and end its isolation was to end its nuclear weapons programme and take the steps outlined in today’s text, and he looked forward to Iran’s unconditional and immediate reply. The text provided an important basis for action, and it was not open to interpretation, compelling all Member States to deny Iran the equipment, technology, technical assistance and financial assistance that could contribute to nuclear sensitive activities. In the face of non-compliance by Iran, the United States would not hesitate to return to the Council for further action.
The United Kingdom’s representative recalled that, following adoption of the first such Council resolution on 31 July mandating IAEA-required suspension by Iran of its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, that country had “simply thumbed its nose at the Security Council and defied international law”. If Iran did not change course, the Council had committed itself, in today’s text, to further measures. Iran, therefore, faced a choice, and the vote today had indicated the gravity of that choice. He hoped Iran would heed the Council’s decision and return to negotiations to resolve the nuclear dossier. That, in turn, would open the way for the European Union and Iran to open a new and wider relationship to their mutual benefit, and to the benefit of international peace and security.
The main thrust of the resolution, the representative of the Russian Federation said, was support of the Council for the activities of IAEA on the issue at hand. The long and difficult consultations had focused on confirming the measures that Iran needed to take to ensure confidence in its nuclear programme, as formulated by the IAEA Board. It was crucial that the restrictions introduced by the Council applied to the areas of concern of the Agency. Cooperation with Iran in areas not restricted by the resolution should not be subjected to its terms. Some of the wording of the draft could have been made clearer. He was convinced that a solution could be found exclusively in the political and diplomatic spheres. In that context, the measures should be taken in line with Article 41 of the Charter, and not permit the use of force.
China’s representative said that sanctions were not the end, but a means to urge Iran to return to negotiations. The sanctions adopted today were limited and reversible, and targeted at proliferation sensitive nuclear activities and development of nuclear weapon delivery systems. There were also explicit provisions indicating that, if Iran suspended its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and complied with the relevant Council texts and IAEA requirements, the Council would suspend and even terminate the sanctions. Today’s text had welcomed the commitment of China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States to a negotiated solution, and had encouraged Iran to engage with them, leading to the development of relations and cooperation with Iran based on mutual respect and establishment of international confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme. Those terms of the text could spur a new round of diplomatic efforts.
Iran’s representative told the Council that it was a sad day for the non-proliferation regime. The Council was imposing sanctions on a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which, unlike Israel, had never attacked or threatened to use force against any United Nations member. Also unlike Israel, Iran had categorically rejected development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on ideological and strategic grounds, and it was prepared to provide guarantees that it would never withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It had placed all its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, had fully implemented the Additional Protocol for more than two years, and had stated its readiness to resume its implementation. Iran had also allowed more than 2,000 “person days of IAEA scrutiny” of all of its related -- and even unrelated -- facilities, resulting in reported statements by the Agency on the absence of any evidence of diversion.
He said that bringing Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme to the Council by a few permanent members, particularly the United States, was not aimed at a solution, but at compelling Iran to abandon its rights under the NPT to peaceful nuclear technology. Suspension was not a solution, but a temporary stop-gap measure to allow time to find a real solution. Moreover, such a suspension had been in place for two years, as verified by IAEA. He was here today because his country had not accepted that “unlawful demand”. At the same time, his country was prepared to go to any length to allay the so-called proliferation concerns. Iran was told it needed to build confidence, but confidence could only be built through respect for and non-discriminatory application of international law and international treaties. Such treaties could not be the subject of self-serving reinterpretations, even if imposed through resolutions.
Other explanations of position were made by the representatives of Qatar, France, Japan, United Republic of Tanzania and Argentina.
The meeting began at 11:25 a.m. and adjourned at 12:41 p.m.
Background
The Security Council met today to act on a draft resolution (document S/2006/1010) sponsored by France, Germany and the United Kingdom, which reads as follows:
“The Security Council,
“Recalling the Statement of its President, S/PRST/2006/15, of 29 March 2006, and its resolution 1696 (2006) of 31 July 2006,
“Reaffirming its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and recalling the right of States Party, in conformity with Articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination,
“Reiterating its serious concern over the many reports of the IAEA Director General and resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors related to Iran’s nuclear programme, reported to it by the IAEA Director General, including IAEA Board resolution GOV/2006/14,
“Reiterating its serious concern that the IAEA Director General’s report of 27 February 2006 (GOV/2006/15) lists a number of outstanding issues and concerns on Iran’s nuclear programme, including topics which could have a military nuclear dimension, and that the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran,
“Reiterating its serious concern over the IAEA Director General’s report of 28 April 2006 (GOV/2006/27) and its findings, including that, after more than three years of Agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern, and that the IAEA is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran,
“Noting with serious concern that, as confirmed by the IAEA Director General’s reports of 8 June 2006 (GOV/2006/38), 31 August 2006 (GOV/2006/53) and 14 November 2006 (GOV/2006/64), Iran has not established full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities as set out in resolution 1696 (2006), nor resumed its cooperation with the IAEA under the Additional Protocol, nor taken the other steps required of it by the IAEA Board of Governors, nor complied with the provisions of Security Council resolution 1696 (2006) and which are essential to build confidence, and deploring Iran’s refusal to take these steps,
“Emphasizing the importance of political and diplomatic efforts to find a negotiated solution guaranteeing that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes, and noting that such a solution would benefit nuclear non-proliferation elsewhere, and welcoming the continuing commitment of China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the support of the European Union’s High Representative to seek a negotiated solution,
“Determined to give effect to its decisions by adopting appropriate measures to persuade Iran to comply with resolution 1696 (2006) and with the requirements of the IAEA, and also to constrain Iran’s development of sensitive technologies in support of its nuclear and missile programmes, until such time as the Security Council determines that the objectives of this resolution have been met,
“Concerned by the proliferation risks presented by the Iranian nuclear programme and, in this context, by Iran’s continuing failure to meet the requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors and to comply with the provisions of Security Council resolution 1696 (2006), mindful of its primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,
“Acting under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
“1. Affirms that Iran shall without further delay take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors in its resolution GOV/2006/14, which are essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme and to resolve outstanding questions;
“2. Decides, in this context, that Iran shall without further delay suspend the following proliferation sensitive nuclear activities:
(a) all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA; and
(b) work on all heavy water-related projects, including the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water, also to be verified by the IAEA;
“3. Decides that all States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from their territories, or by their nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft to, or for the use in or benefit of, Iran, and whether or not originating in their territories, of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to Iran’s enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, namely:
(a) those set out in sections B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5, B.6 and B.7 of INFCIRC/254/Rev.8/Part 1 in document S/2006/814;
(b) those set out in sections A.1 and B.1 of INFCIRC/254/Rev.8/Part 1 in document S/2006/814, except the supply, sale or transfer of:
(i) equipment covered by B.1 when such equipment is for light water reactors;
(ii) low-enriched uranium covered by A.1.2 when it is incorporated in assembled nuclear fuel elements for such reactors;
(c) those set out in document S/2006/815, except the supply, sale or transfer of items covered by 19.A.3 of Category II;
(d) any additional items, materials, equipment, goods and technology, determined as necessary by the Security Council or the Committee established by paragraph 18 below (herein “the Committee”), which could contribute to enrichment-related, or reprocessing, or heavy water-related activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems;
“4. Decides that all States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the supply, sale or transfer directly or indirectly from their territories, or by their nationals or using their flag vessels or aircraft to, or for the use in or benefit of, Iran, and whether or not originating in their territories, of the following items, materials, equipment, goods and technology:
(a) those set out in INFCIRC/254/Rev.7/Part2 of document S/2006/814 if the State determines that they would contribute to enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities;
(b) any other items not listed in documents S/2006/814 or S/2006/815 if the State determines that they would contribute to enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems;
(c) any further items if the State determines that they would contribute to the pursuit of activities related to other topics about which the IAEA has expressed concerns or identified as outstanding;
“5. Decides that, for the supply, sale or transfer of all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology covered by documents S/2006/814 and S/2006/815 the export of which to Iran is not prohibited by subparagraphs 3 (b), 3 (c) or 4 (a) above, States shall ensure that:
(a) the requirements, as appropriate, of the Guidelines as set out in documents S/2006/814 and S/2006/985 have been met; and
(b) they have obtained and are in a position to exercise effectively a right to verify the end-use and end-use location of any supplied item; and
(c) they notify the Committee within ten days of the supply, sale or transfer; and
(d) in the case of items, materials, equipment, goods and technology contained in document S/2006/814, they also notify the IAEA within ten days of the supply, sale or transfer;
“6. Decides that all States shall also take the necessary measures to prevent the provision to Iran of any technical assistance or training, financial assistance, investment, brokering or other services, and the transfer of financial resources or services, related to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture or use of the prohibited items, materials, equipment, goods and technology specified in paragraphs 3 and 4 above;
“7. Decides that Iran shall not export any of the items in documents S/2006/814 and S/2006/815 and that all Member States shall prohibit the procurement of such items from Iran by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in the territory of Iran;
“8. Decides that Iran shall provide such access and cooperation as the IAEA requests to be able to verify the suspension outlined in paragraph 2 and to resolve all outstanding issues, as identified in IAEA reports, and calls upon Iran to ratify promptly the Additional Protocol;
“9. Decides that the measures imposed by paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 above shall not apply where the Committee determines in advance and on a case-by-case basis that such supply, sale, transfer or provision of such items or assistance would clearly not contribute to the development of Iran’s technologies in support of its proliferation sensitive nuclear activities and of development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, including where such items or assistance are for food, agricultural, medical or other humanitarian purposes, provided that:
(a) contracts for delivery of such items or assistance include appropriate end-user guarantees; and
(b) Iran has committed not to use such items in proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or for development of nuclear weapon delivery systems;
“10. Calls upon all States to exercise vigilance regarding the entry into or transit through their territories of individuals who are engaged in, directly associated with or providing support for Iran’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, and decides in this regard that all States shall notify the Committee of the entry into or transit through their territories of the persons designated in the Annex to this resolution (herein “the Annex”), as well as of additional persons designated by the Security Council or the Committee as being engaged in, directly associated with or providing support for Iran’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities and for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, including through the involvement in procurement of the prohibited items, goods, equipment, materials and technology specified by and under the measures in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, except where such travel is for activities directly related to the items in subparagraphs 3 (b) (i) and (ii) above;
“11. Underlines that nothing in the above paragraph requires a State to refuse its own nationals entry into its territory, and that all States shall, in the implementation of the above paragraph, take into account humanitarian considerations as well as the necessity to meet the objectives of this resolution, including where Article XV of the IAEA Statute is engaged;
“12. Decides that all States shall freeze the funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are on their territories at the date of adoption of this resolution or at any time thereafter, that are owned or controlled by the persons or entities designated in the Annex, as well as those of additional persons or entities designated by the Security Council or by the Committee as being engaged in, directly associated with or providing support for Iran’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems, or by persons or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them, including through illicit means, and that the measures in this paragraph shall cease to apply in respect of such persons or entities if, and at such time as, the Security Council or the Committee removes them from the Annex, and decides further that all States shall ensure that any funds, financial assets or economic resources are prevented from being made available by their nationals or by any persons or entities within their territories, to or for the benefit of these persons and entities;
“13. Decides that the measures imposed by paragraph 12 above do not apply to funds, other financial assets or economic resources that have been determined by relevant States:
(a) to be necessary for basic expenses, including payment for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges or exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services, or fees or service charges, in accordance with national laws, for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds, other financial assets and economic resources, after notification by the relevant States to the Committee of the intention to authorize, where appropriate, access to such funds, other financial assets or economic resources and in the absence of a negative decision by the Committee within five working days of such notification;
(b) to be necessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that such determination has been notified by the relevant States to the Committee and has been approved by the Committee;
(c) to be the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien or judgement, in which case the funds, other financial assets and economic resources may be used to satisfy that lien or judgement provided that the lien or judgement was entered into prior to the date of the present resolution, is not for the benefit of a person or entity designated pursuant to paragraphs 10 and 12 above, and has been notified by the relevant States to the Committee;
(d) to be necessary for activities directly related to the items specified in subparagraphs 3 (b) (i) and (ii) and have been notified by the relevant States to the Committee;
“14. Decides that States may permit the addition to the accounts frozen pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 above of interests or other earnings due on those accounts or payments due under contracts, agreements or obligations that arose prior to the date on which those accounts became subject to the provisions of this resolution, provided that any such interest, other earnings and payments continue to be subject to these provisions and are frozen;
“15. Decides that the measures in paragraph 12 above shall not prevent a designated person or entity from making payment due under a contract entered into prior to the listing of such a person or entity, provided that the relevant States have determined that:
(a) the contract is not related to any of the prohibited items, materials, equipment, goods, technologies, assistance, training, financial assistance, investment, brokering or services referred to in paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 above;
(b) the payment is not directly or indirectly received by a person or entity designated pursuant to paragraph 12 above;
and after notification by the relevant States to the Committee of the intention to make or receive such payments or to authorize, where appropriate, the unfreezing of funds, other financial assets or economic resources for this purpose, 10 working days prior to such authorization;
“16. Decides that technical cooperation provided to Iran by the IAEA or under its auspices shall only be for food, agricultural, medical, safety or other humanitarian purposes, or where it is necessary for projects directly related to the items specified in subparagraphs 3 (b) (i) and (ii) above, but that no such technical cooperation shall be provided that relates to the proliferation sensitive nuclear activities set out in paragraph 2 above;
“17. Calls upon all States to exercise vigilance and prevent specialized teaching or training of Iranian nationals, within their territories or by their nationals, of disciplines which would contribute to Iran’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities and development of nuclear weapon delivery systems;
“18. Decides to establish, in accordance with rule 28 of its provisional rules of procedure, a Committee of the Security Council consisting of all the members of the Council, to undertake the following tasks:
(a) to seek from all States, in particular those in the region and those producing the items, materials, equipment, goods and technology referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, information regarding the actions taken by them to implement effectively the measures imposed by paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12 of this resolution and whatever further information it may consider useful in this regard;
(b) to seek from the secretariat of the IAEA information regarding the actions taken by the IAEA to implement effectively the measures imposed by paragraph 17 of this resolution and whatever further information it may consider useful in this regard;
(c) to examine and take appropriate action on information regarding alleged violations of measures imposed by paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12 of this resolution;
(d) to consider and decide upon requests for exemptions set out in paragraphs 9, 13 and 15 above;
(e) to determine as may be necessary additional items, materials, equipment, goods and technology to be specified for the purpose of paragraph 3 above;
(f) to designate as may be necessary additional individuals and entities subject to the measures imposed by paragraphs 10 and 12 above;
(g) to promulgate guidelines as may be necessary to facilitate the implementation of the measures imposed by this resolution and include in such guidelines a requirement on States to provide information where possible as to why any individuals and/or entities meet the criteria set out in paragraphs 10 and 12 and any relevant identifying information;
(h) to report at least every 90 days to the Security Council on its work and on the implementation of this resolution, with its observations and recommendations, in particular on ways to strengthen the effectiveness of the measures imposed by paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12 above;
“19. Decides that all States shall report to the Committee within 60 days of the adoption of this resolution on the steps they have taken with a view to implementing effectively paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 17 above;
“20. Expresses the conviction that the suspension set out in paragraph 2 above as well as full, verified Iranian compliance with the requirements set out by the IAEA Board of Governors, would contribute to a diplomatic, negotiated solution that guarantees Iran’s nuclear programme is for exclusively peaceful purposes, underlines the willingness of the international community to work positively for such a solution, encourages Iran, in conforming to the above provisions, to re-engage with the international community and with the IAEA, and stresses that such engagement will be beneficial to Iran;
“21. Welcomes the commitment of China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the support of the European Union’s High Representative, to a negotiated solution to this issue and encourages Iran to engage with their June 2006 proposals (S/2006/521), which were endorsed by the Security Council in resolution 1696 (2006), for a long-term comprehensive agreement which would allow for the development of relations and cooperation with Iran based on mutual respect and the establishment of international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme;
“22. Reiterates its determination to reinforce the authority of the IAEA, strongly supports the role of the IAEA Board of Governors, commends and encourages the Director General of the IAEA and its secretariat for their ongoing professional and impartial efforts to resolve all remaining outstanding issues in Iran within the framework of the IAEA, underlines the necessity of the IAEA continuing its work to clarify all outstanding issues relating to Iran’s nuclear programme;
“23. Requests within 60 days a report from the Director General of the IAEA on whether Iran has established full and sustained suspension of all activities mentioned in this resolution, as well as on the process of Iranian compliance with all the steps required by the IAEA Board and with the other provisions of this resolution, to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the Security Council for its consideration;
“24. Affirms that it shall review Iran’s actions in the light of the report referred to in paragraph 23 above, to be submitted within 60 days, and:
(a) that it shall suspend the implementation of measures if and for so long as Iran suspends all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, as verified by the IAEA, to allow for negotiations;
(b) that it shall terminate the measures specified in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 12 of this resolution as soon as it determines that Iran has fully complied with its obligations under the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and met the requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors, as confirmed by the IAEA Board;
(c) that it shall, in the event that the report in paragraph 23 above shows that Iran has not complied with this resolution, adopt further appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations to persuade Iran to comply with this resolution and the requirements of the IAEA, and underlines that further decisions will be required should such additional measures be necessary;
“25. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”
Resolution Annex
A. Entities involved in the nuclear programme
1. Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran
2. Mesbah Energy Company (provider for A40 research reactor — Arak)
3. Kala-Electric (aka Kalaye Electric) (provider for PFEP — Natanz)
4. Pars Trash Company (involved in centrifuge programme, identified in IAEA reports)
5. Farayand Technique (involved in centrifuge programme, identified in IAEA reports)
6. Defence Industries Organisation (overarching MODAFL-controlled entity, some of whose subordinates have been involved in the centrifuge programme making components, and in the missile programme)
7. 7th of Tir (subordinate of DIO, widely recognized as being directly involved in the nuclear programme)
B. Entities involved in the ballistic missile programme
1. Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group (SHIG) (subordinate entity of AIO)
2. Shahid Bagheri Industrial Group (SBIG) (subordinate entity of AIO)
3. Fajr Industrial Group (formerly Instrumentation Factory Plant, subordinate entity of AIO)
C. Persons involved in the nuclear programme
1. Mohammad Qannadi, AEOI Vice President for Research & Development
2. Behman Asgarpour, Operational Manager ( Arak)
3. Dawood Agha-Jani, Head of the PFEP (Natanz)
4. Ehsan Monajemi, Construction Project Manager, Natanz
5. Jafar Mohammadi, Technical Adviser to the AEOI (in charge of managing the production of valves for centrifuges)
6. Ali Hajinia Leilabadi, Director General of Mesbah Energy Company
7. Lt Gen Mohammad Mehdi Nejad Nouri, Rector of Malek Ashtar University of Defence Technology (chemistry dept, affiliated to MODALF, has conducted experiments on beryllium)
D. Persons involved in the ballistic missile programme
1. Gen Hosein Salimi, Commander of the Air Force, IRGC (Pasdaran)
2. Ahmad Vahid Dastjerdi, Head of the AIO
3. Reza-Gholi Esmaeli, Head of Trade & International Affairs Dept, AIO
4. Bahmanyar Morteza Bahmanyar, Head of Finance & Budget Dept, AIO
E. Persons involved in both the nuclear and ballistic missile programmes
1. Maj Gen Yahya Rahim Safavi, Commander, IRGC (Pasdaran)
Statements
VITALY CHURKIN ( Russian Federation) said that his delegation would vote in favour of the text, because the text -- a product of long and difficult consultations -- focused on the confirmation of the measures that Iran needed to take to ensure confidence in its nuclear programme, as formulated by the IAEA Board. In other words, the main thrust of the resolution was support by the Council of the IAEA activities in that area. It was crucial that restrictions introduced by the Council applied to the areas that caused the concern of the Agency. Cooperation with Iran in the areas that were not restricted by the resolution should not be subject to its terms.
He went on to say that some of the wording of the draft could have been made clearer. He was convinced that solutions could be found exclusively in the political and diplomatic spheres. In that context, it was important that the measures would be taken in accordance with Article 41 of the Charter and not permit the use of force. In strengthening the global non-proliferation regime, it was necessary to seek solid regional and international safety and security. His Government saw the resolution as a serious message to be sent to Iran to ensure a more active and open cooperation with IAEA to resolve the remaining concerns. The parameters for cooperation had been set forth in the resolutions of the IAEA Board and supported by the Security Council.
Today’s resolution clearly reaffirmed that, if Iran suspended all activities related to enrichment or reprocessing of uranium, the sanctions would be suspended, he said. That would allow the international community to launch a negotiations process. Such proposals had been transmitted to Iran’s Government in the name of the six countries involved and remained valid today. He hoped Iran would perceive the context of the resolution and take measures to resolve the issue.
ALEJANDRO WOLFF ( United States) said the Security Council today was sending Iran an unambiguous message that there were serious repercussions for its continuing disregard and defiance of the Council. Nearly four months ago, the Council had sent a serious message to Iran to take the steps required of it by IAEA. That step had been taken to convince Iran to relent from its confrontational posture and to consider the offer by the United States, France, Germany, Russian Federation and China on 1 June, and avoid Security Council action. Regrettably, Iran had continued to defy the international community by its continued enrichment activities and its refusal to comply with resolution 1696 (2006) and the request of IAEA.
He said that today’s Chapter VII text required Iran to suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and to stop work on all heavy-water-related projects, including the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water, all to be verified by IAEA, which would report back to the Council within 60 days. Iran was also required to provide IAEA with the access it needed to resolve outstanding issues, as well as to ratify the IAEA Additional Protocol. To persuade Iran to take those steps, today’s resolution had taken the necessary measures, deciding that there would be no trade with Iran in three key nuclear-related areas. The text also banned any technical or financial assistance by any countries, and it had States freeze assets of any persons or entities supporting Iran in its nuclear proliferation sensitive activities.
That was the second such resolution that reflected the gravity of the situation and the determination of the Security Council, he said. Hopefully, the resolution would convince Iran that the best way to ensure its security and end its isolation was to end its nuclear weapons programme and take the steps outlined in today’s text. The Council would review its actions, based on IAEA’s report, and adopt further measures if Iran did not comply fully with its obligations. He looked forward to Iran’s unconditional and immediate reply to the resolution, and he hoped the Iranian leadership would come to understand that the pursuit of nuclear capability made it less, and not more, secure.
He said that the resolution provided an important basis for action, compelling all Member States to deny Iran the equipment, technology, technical assistance and financial assistance that could contribute to nuclear sensitive activities. The text was clear and not open to interpretation, and the Council would insist on absolute compliance. However, the adoption was only a first step. The Council would work with the Sanctions Committee and, if necessary, it would not hesitate to return to that body for further action if Iran failed to take the necessary steps to comply.
President of the Council, NASSIR ABDULAZIZ AL-NASSER ( Qatar), speaking in his national capacity, said that his country was keen on compliance by all states with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). That was a matter of principle to which Qatar attached great importance. For that reason, his country had never ceased to appeal for the Middle East to become a region free of weapons of mass destruction. It had also called on Iran to submit to the inspection regime, and on all States with stockpiles of nuclear weapons to dismantle them. Qatar supported all resolutions calling for such measures. Commitment to the NPT within the framework of IAEA might encourage safe uses of nuclear technologies. It would also build confidence and promote understanding among nations.
Emphasizing the essential role of IAEA, he said that Iran had the right to undertake research of nuclear technologies and use nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes, he continued. However, today’s resolution sought to bar the country’s access to the elements that could be used for destructive purposes. Today, the Council was to adopt a resolution on a difficult question. While his delegation had no doubt about the sincerity of Iranian intentions, the international community needed guarantees of nuclear safety from IAEA. He appealed to Iran to urgently respond to the text. He knew it was difficult, but the horizons for diplomatic cooperation were wide. Among other things, the resolution also confirmed that the measures to be enforced would be suspended, should Iran comply with its provisions. That would create an opportunity for negotiations.
In conclusion, he expressed hope that Iran could address the resolution with the necessary rationality. He also hoped that the text would contribute to limiting nuclear proliferation in the region, in particular in view of the fact that Israel had recently made statements on its nuclear deterrence capability. His delegation would vote in favour of the draft.
The draft resolution was then adopted unanimously as resolution 1737 (2006).
Speaking after the vote, EMYR JONES PARRY (United Kingdom) said that, on 31 July, the Council had adopted resolution 1696 (2006), which had mandated the IAEA-required suspension by Iran of its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. The Council had called on Iran without further delay to take the steps required by the Agency and to implement all necessary transparency measures and requests. That resolution had also set a deadline for such compliance by 31 August. Iran’s response had been to step up those activities and to offer to export such technologies. In November, IAEA had reported insufficient transparency and an inability to remove uncertainties about Iran’s nuclear programme.
He said Iran had “simply thumbed its nose at the Security Council and defied international law”. Bearing in mind the Council’s primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and taking with utmost seriousness the threat from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the Council had unequivocally expressed its intent in resolution 1696 (2006) to adopt measures under Article 41 in the event of Iranian non-compliance, and that was what it had done today. In so doing, it had reiterated and expanded its mandated suspension of Iran’s proliferation sensitive activities and established an embargo aimed at preventing Iran from exporting and importing materials and equipment to sustain proliferation sensitive activities. The Council had also introduced a set of measures intended to persuade Iran to stop pursuing other activities of concern. It had underlined the seriousness of the situation, including the international community’s lack of confidence about the direction of Iran’s policies.
Importantly, however, the door was not closed for Iran, he said. The United Kingdom, France and Germany, with the European Union High Representative, Javier Solana, had led negotiations with Iran and remained committed to seeking a diplomatically negotiated solution based on cooperation. A new relationship between Europe and Iran was “on the table”, but that must be with an Iran that eschewed nuclear ambition. Suspension would permit negotiations to resume and intensify, this time with Russian and United States engagement. For that reason, in the pursuit of a negotiated agreement, it was vital that all States implemented the resolution as fully as possibly, including by adopting the necessary legislation to pave the way for robust and necessary implementation. Without that, no one could expect the Council to meet its objective.
He said that, if Iran did not change course, the Council had committed itself in today’s text to further measures. Iran, therefore, faced a choice. The vote today had indicated the gravity of that choice. He hoped Iran would heed the Council’s decision and return to negotiations to resolve the nuclear dossier. That, in turn, would open the way for the European Union and Iran to open a new and wider relationship to their mutual benefit and to the benefit of international peace and security.
JEAN-MARC DE LA SABLIÈRE ( France) welcomed unanimous adoption of the resolution today. The text -- developed on the basis of a draft submitted by France, Germany and United Kingdom -- confirmed the mandatory nature of the suspension of proliferation sensitive activities in the nuclear field. The Council also sought to prevent the supply, sale or transfer of nuclear materials, equipment and goods to and from Iran, and to ensure that Iran would not avail itself of outside contributions to its sensitive programmes. It also addressed financial services surrounding sensitive transactions, as well as the travel of those with operational involvement. Such travel would be restricted, and those individuals’ assets frozen. Those measures would apply immediately to some 20 persons and entities listed in the text. The draft also reaffirmed the powers of IAEA.
The aim of the measures adopted today was to invite Iran to conform to its non-proliferation commitments and the guidelines of the IAEA, he continued. Iran should conform to the resolution and stop developing technology capable of supporting nuclear and missile programmes. It was important that the measures were reversible. Should Iran suspend all its sensitive activities and conform to relevant resolutions of the Council and IAEA, the measures just adopted would be suspended. Should the country persist, however, other measures would be taken under Article 41. The resolution sent a clear message to Iran, which was now facing a strategic choice: cooperation with the international community or growing isolation. He hoped Teheran would choose dialogue.
KENZO OSHIMA ( Japan) said that he regretted that the Council had had to act again only five months later. Its members had conducted intensive discussions on the Iranian nuclear issue over the course of the year, in order to seek a peaceful and diplomatic resolution of the problem. Those efforts had failed to produce positive results. In defiance of resolution 1696 (2006), Iran had refused to take the steps required of it. On the contrary, the situation had worsened, with Iran’s expansion of its reprocessing and related activities. Japan attached great importance to the non-proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, along with their delivery means; that was a clear and present global challenge posing a grave threat. It must be dealt with firmly and with determination. In order to counter such threats, actual or potential, the international community must act appropriately, timely and resolutely, wherever those threats occurred, be it in the Middle East, Asia or elsewhere.
He said that Iran’s failure to comply with the requirements of IAEA and the Council must be dealt with in a principled manner. At the same time, the country had a right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, just as any other country, and in exercising that right, he hoped that Iran fully complied with its IAEA obligations. Because of the importance of non-proliferation, and taking into account the measured approach in the resolution, he had supported it. The text had not spelled the end of negotiations with Iran. Rather, it had kept the door open for talks and had explicitly mentioned the reversibility of the measures taken today. Japan enjoyed the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy to the fullest, and his country had traditionally enjoyed good relations with Iran. In adopting the resolution today, he appealed to Iran to seek the resolution of the nuclear issue at the earliest possible time, through full diplomatic talks.
WANG GUANGYA ( China) said that, since the beginning of the year, Iran’s nuclear issue had attracted more and more attention. The Iranian side had not yet responded positively to the requirement of IAEA and the Council. After issuing a presidential statement in March and adopting resolution 1696 in July, the Council had adopted another resolution today, aiming to safeguard the international nuclear non-proliferation mechanism, reinforcing IAEA’s authority and promoting diplomatic efforts to seek a peaceful solution to Iran’s nuclear issue. His delegation had voted in favour of the draft. Sanctions were not the end, but a means to urge Iran to return to negotiations. Sanction measures adopted this time were limited and reversible, targeted at proliferation sensitive nuclear activities and development of nuclear-weapon delivery systems. There were also explicit provisions indicating that, if Iran suspended its enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, complied with the relevant resolutions of the Council and met IAEA requirements, the Council would suspend and even terminate the sanctions.
The Council could not handle Iran’s nuclear issue single-handedly, he continued. IAEA remained the main mechanism for dealing with that issue. Dialogue and negotiations was the only and fundamental way out. The solution required all-around diplomatic efforts and diplomatic efforts outside the Council, in particular, should be strengthened. The resolution welcomed the commitment of China, France, Germany, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States to a negotiated solution to the issue and encouraged Iran to engage with the six countries’ proposals for a long-term comprehensive agreement, which would allow for the development of relations and cooperation with Iran based on mutual respect and establishment of international confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. All that would be conducive to reactivating the new round of diplomatic efforts.
China had all along supported safeguarding the international nuclear non-proliferation mechanism and opposed the proliferation of nuclear weapons, he continued. It did not wish to see turbulence in the Middle East. It was in favour of a peaceful solution through political and diplomatic efforts and negotiations. Under the current circumstances, he called upon all the parties concerned to adopt a highly responsible and constructive attitude, remain calm, practice restraint and refrain from any steps that would harm diplomatic efforts and lead to the deterioration of the situation. At the same time, he hoped that the parties would seek to resume negotiations in a creative and forward-looking manner, sparing no efforts for enhancing the diplomatic efforts for a comprehensive and peaceful solution. China was ready to continue to make joint efforts with all the parties concerned and contribute to maintaining international and regional peace and stability, safeguarding and consolidating the international non-proliferation mechanism and resolving Iran’s nuclear issue through political and diplomatic efforts.
AUGUSTINE P. MAHIGA (United Republic of Tanzania) said he was opposed to the development of nuclear weapons by anybody, including his traditional friend, Iran. He strongly supported the NPT and the non-proliferation regime it established under IAEA, to which his country belonged. He expected all its members, including Iran, to uphold its treaty obligations. His country firmly believed in the right of the people of Iran to civilian nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The current resolution did not seek to constrain that right. It should be made clear, however, that any such programme had to be subjected to the IAEA verification and safeguards regime.
He said his country had all along hoped that the concerned parties would resolve the highly sensitive Iranian nuclear issue peacefully. He had placed faith in the parties to return to negotiations under mutually acceptable terms. Unfortunately, progress had been painfully slow, owing to the uncompromising positions of both sides. Despite the efforts to overcome the differences, the situation had remained deadlocked, mainly over the issue of enrichment and reprocessing activities as a condition for further talks. He believed the negotiators could overcome that issue, that the impasse was reversible, as long as good political will prevailed. Today’s resolution could be seen as a signal and a call to revisit the issue at the earliest possible opportunity.
CESAR MAYORAL ( Argentina) said that he had voted in favour of the draft, because it reaffirmed an inalienable right of all States parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop and research the production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, without any discrimination. At the same time, his Government trusted that the Government of Iran would continue its nuclear programme exclusively for peaceful purposes, following the parameters established by IAEA and provided for in relevant Council resolutions. He also expressed satisfaction that the resolution had been adopted unanimously under Article 41 of the Charter. Under the resolution, there was no recourse to the use of force. The main objective should be to maintain international peace and security, and Argentina called on all parties to resume dialogue to find a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue.
JAVAD ZARIF ( Iran) said that today was a sad day for the non-proliferation regime. Only a few days ago, Israel’s Prime Minister had boasted about the country’s nuclear weapons, but, instead of raising an eyebrow -- let alone addressing that serious threat to international peace and security and the non-proliferation regime -- the Security Council was imposing sanctions on a member of the NPT that, unlike Israel, had never attacked nor threatened to use force against any United Nations member. Also unlike Israel, Iran had categorically rejected development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on ideological and strategic grounds, and it was prepared to provide guarantees that it would never withdraw from the NPT. It had placed all its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, and it had fully implemented the Additional Protocol for more than two years and stated its readiness to resume its implementation.
He said that Iran had allowed more than 2,000 “person days of IAEA scrutiny” of all of its related -- and even unrelated -- facilities, resulting in reported statements by the Agency on the absence of any evidence of diversion. His country had also voluntarily suspended its lawful enrichment activities for more than two years, as verified by the Agency, in order to build confidence and provide ample opportunity to find a mutually acceptable solution, if that were ever the intention of its negotiating partners. It had presented various far-reaching proposals to ensure permanent non-diversion, and it had consistently called for time-bound and unconditional negotiations to find a mutually acceptable solution, a call that had been repeated yesterday by Iran’s Foreign Minister.
The same Governments that had pushed the Council to take “groundless punitive measures” against Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme had systematically prevented it from taking any action to nudge the Israeli regime towards submitting itself to the rules governing the nuclear non-proliferation regime, he said. By so doing, they had provided it with wide latitude, even encouragement, to indulge freely in the clandestine development and unlawful possession of nuclear weapons and public boasting about it, with impunity. The Israeli regime had an unparalleled record of non-compliance with Security Council resolutions -- if that was the criteria today -- and a “long and dark” catalogue of crimes and atrocities, such as occupation, aggression, militarism, State terrorism, crimes against humanity and apartheid. Nuclear weapons in such hands posed a uniquely grave threat to regional and international peace and security. The reversal of the hypocritical policy of “strategic ambiguity” had removed any excuse, if ever there had been one, for continued inaction by the Council.
To put it into perspective, he said that today’s resolution could only remind the Iranian people of the historic injustices the Council had done to them in the past six decades. It was reminiscent of the attempt made by the Council to punish the Iranian people for their nationalization of their oil industry, described as a threat to peace. It was also a reminder of the Council’s indifference in the face of a military coup, organized by two permanent members, which had restored the dictatorship. It refreshed the memory of the time when the Council did not consider the massive invasion of Iran by the former Iraqi regime as a threat to international peace and security, and refused to even call on the invading army to withdraw from Iranian territory. It also brought back the horrors of the long years when the Council had turned a blind eye to the extensive and brutal use of chemical weapons against Iranian civilians and soldiers and, by so doing, shouldered responsibility for tens of thousands of Iranians who continued to suffer and perish as a result.
He said that bringing Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme to the Council by a few permanent members, particularly the United States, was not aimed at a solution or negotiations. Their stated objective had always been to use the Council as an instrument of pressure and intimidation to compel Iran to abandon its rights. Reviewing the motivation behind the presentation of the so-called package of incentives given to Iran, he said that the United States and the “EU-3” had never even taken the trouble of studying various Iranian proposals, as those negotiating partners were, from the very beginning, bent on abusing the Council with the threat of sanctions as an instrument to pressure and compel Iran to abandon the exercise of its right under the NPT to peaceful nuclear technology. It was now an “open secret” that their objective from the negotiations had never been to find a solution, but to impose and then prolong, perpetuate and suspended Iran’s rights.
Suspension was not a solution, he stressed. At best, it was a temporary stop-gap measure to allow time to find a real solution. Such a suspension had been in place for two years, and IAEA had repeatedly verified in each and every report, from November 2003 to February 2006, that Iran had fully suspended what it had agreed to suspend. So, Iran had a suspension for two years, and on-and-off negotiations for three. Reviewing all of the proposals ignored by the United States and the “EU-3” in the negotiations, he said that what they had wanted, despite what they had told Iran, was -- “and still is” -- that Iran should undertake a binding commitment not to pursue fuel cycle activities. He was here today because his country had not accepted that “unlawful demand”. At the same time, his country was prepared to “go to any length to allay their so-called proliferation concerns, in spite of the fact that we all know they are no more than unfounded and self-serving sheer excuses”, he said.
To the point that the sponsors said they did not trust Iran’s “intentions”, he said the problem was that their “intention-o-meter” had a rather abysmal record of chronic malfunction. The former United States Director of Central Intelligence, Robert Gates, had claimed before Congress in 1992 that Iran was trying to acquire a nuclear-weapon capability, and had added that that goal was unlikely to be achieved before the year 2000. Later, in November 1992, a draft national intelligence estimate by the CIA had concluded that Iran was making progress on a nuclear-arms programme and could develop a nuclear weapon by 2000. Now, the same intelligence establishment was saying not before 2015. Accusing Iran of having “the intention” to acquire nuclear weapons had, since the early 1980s, been a tool used to deprive Iran of any nuclear technology, even a light water reactor or fuel for the United States-built research reactor.
He said he wondered which “Iranian intention” or “proliferation concern” had prompted the main proponents of today’s resolution to prevent Iran, over the past 27 years, from buying civilian aircraft or even their spare parts, thereby jeopardizing the lives and safety of Iranian civilians, whom they hypocritically tried to court now, to no avail. He told delegations to read “the dangerous divisive statement by the UK Prime Minister” or the 23 August report by the Intelligence Committee of the United States House of Representatives on Iran’s nuclear programme, if they wanted to understand the intention of the proponents of the resolution.
Iran firmly believed that the days of weapons of mass murder had long passed; that those inhumane instruments of indiscriminate slaughter had not brought internal stability or external security for anyone, and that they would not be able to do so in the future, he said. Unlike some who despised the Non-Proliferation Treaty and international law in general, Iran had a high stake in preserving, fully implementing, strengthening and universalizing the NPT. Today’s decision did exactly the opposite, because it was championed by a non-member of the Treaty, coupled with its main benefactor, which made no secret of its contempt for that and other disarmament instruments. No one had forgotten last year’s World Summit, at which even the word “disarmament” had been struck from the Outcome text by the famous “red pen”. The days of bullying, pressure and intimidation by some nuclear-weapon holders were gone. Iran was told it needed to build confidence, but confidence could only be built through respect for and non-discriminatory application of law. International law and international treaties could not be the subject of arbitrary, fluctuating and self-serving reinterpretations, even if they were imposed through resolutions. Such a precedent was dangerous for everyone.
[+/-] show/hide this post
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Nancy Pelosi letter to United Republicans of Iran
House of RepresentativesWashington D.C. 20515
Nancy Pelosi
8th district, California Democratic Leader
December 20, 2006
Mehdi Amini
United Republicans of Iran
Dear Mehdi
Thank you for your kind words of congratulations.
I am grateful to my colleagues for the opportunity to server as the first
woman Speaker of the House of Representatives. I take very seriously
the charge of the Speaker to lead the House with civility and integrity to
build a better world for all children.
Thank you again for your kind message.
Best regards,
Nancy Pelosi
[+/-] show/hide this post
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Iran-Human rights defender and lawyer - Appeal Case-Saleh Kamrani
Saleh Kamrani, an Iranian Azerbaijani lawyer and human rights defender, was released from Section 209 of Evin prison (which is run by the Ministry of Intelligence) on 18 September 2006. Amnesty International believes that he was detained solely in connection with his activities as a lawyer defending Iranian Azerbaijanis and others and for the peaceful exercise of his internationally recognized rights to freedom of expression and association in support of greater rights for the Iranian Azerbaijani community. Amnesty International is also concerned that Saleh Kamrani and his family have continued to be harassed by the Iranian authorities since his release, and that the charges brought against him have been used to prevent him from practicing his profession.Incommunicado detention
Saleh Kamrani "disappeared" on 14 June 2006. At around 3pm on that day, he called his wife, Mina Esgeri, at their house in Tehran to say that he was on his way home. He should have arrived by 4.30 or 5pm. When he did not arrive as expected, she tried to call him, but found his mobile phone switched off, which was unusual for him. She called all the hospitals and police stations in Tehran but did not find any trace of him. In the evening, she called Ministry of Intelligence officials who at that time reportedly refused to confirm whether or not they were holding her husband. Saleh Kamrani’s office staff later said that he had left his office expecting to give an interview to an employee of INS, an Azerbaijani news agency, who is also said to work for the BBC.
Saleh Kamrani had, in fact, been accosted by three plain-clothes men five minutes after finishing the interview, one of whom said they were from the Anti-Drugs Department and who demanded he go with them. When he objected and demanded a court order, the men threatened to shoot him. After getting into their car, he was handcuffed, sworn at and insulted. One of the men pressed his hands against Saleh Kamrani’s face. He was finally taken to Section 209 of Evin Prison. At the entrance, he was blindfolded and the handcuffs were removed. He was forced to undress and all his belongings were confiscated before he was taken to Cell 77 (measuring 2x1.5m) on the second floor, where he was given two old blankets. The door had only one small window with three bars for the guards to look in. The cell light was kept on permanently, and this, combined with the shouts and cries of other prisoners and their conflicts with their interrogators, meant that Saleh Kamrani had extreme difficulty sleeping. He had no access to books or newspapers, or to fresh air in the cell, which he described as a small dungeon.
Allegations of torture and ill-treatment
After four days, it became clear that Saleh Kamrani was indeed detained by the Ministry of Intelligence. In an interview on 19 June 2006 on Araz Radio, broadcasting from Sweden, Mina Esgeri said that she had been allowed to meet her husband on 18 June 2006. Further information relating to this meeting suggested that it lasted for 20 minutes and took place in the Revolutionary Court detention facility.
Saleh Kamrani was held in solitary confinement and reportedly subjected to psychological torture, which included threats of arresting his wife. He was also prevented from sleeping as he was repeatedly summoned for lengthy interrogation sessions in the middle of the night. He spent a total of 97 days in solitary confinement, but said that occasionally other prisoners were brought to his cell in order that he could not complain to the court that he had never been held with others. He reportedly went on hunger strike for seven days, demanding an end to threats against his wife and the release of one of his lawyers, Ramin Mohammadkhani, who had been arrested during the interrogation of Saleh Kamrani before Branch 14 of the Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office and had been brought to Evin Prison handcuffed to Saleh Kamrani.
Saleh Kamrani was questioned about all aspects of his life and was threatened. The evidence against him reportedly included speeches, interviews, and correspondence from the previous 15 years, recorded telephone conversations, SMS messages, statements of other people about him, including from his brothers, which had been extracted under torture (see below) and even included a picture of Saleh Kamrani wearing a tie. He was also accused of contacting human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and of having contacts with foreigners, including Israelis.
Access to family
The authorities reportedly discussed with Mina Esgeri the possibility of releasing her husband on bail and she was told that he could be conditionally released if she paid 10 million Toumans (over US$10,000). Mina Esgeri reportedly used family property deeds to guarantee the sum, but was told that the bail amount had been increased to 50 million Toumans (around US$54,000). She managed to raise this amount, and on 6 July 2006 reportedly spent the day outside Evin Prison awaiting his release only to be told that the authorities had changed their mind about releasing her husband on bail, and that the order for his detention had been extended. On 18 July 2006 she reportedly waited for the whole day in front of Evin Prison, hoping to be able to visit her husband, but to no avail.
Since then Mina Esgeri was permitted to visit her husband several times in Evin Prison at an approximate interval of two weeks. The visits always took place in the presence of officers of the Ministry of Intelligence who requested that Saleh Kamrani and his wife spoke in Persian, which they categorically refused to do.
Medical Concerns
Saleh Kamrani suffers from a defective heart valve for which he has to take regular medication in order to control his heart rate. If his heart rate increases too much, he is at risk of heart failure. During his detention he was reportedly denied access to his medication. On 9 August, his wife was reported as saying that he had been examined on two occasions by prison doctors, but that a request that he be transferred to the medical ward had been denied by the prison authorities. When his heart rate increased during his detention, despite the recommendation of his doctor that in such cases he should be treated by a heart specialist, he was taken to the prison clinic where he was treated by a doctor, or on occasion, by a nurse, who gave him medication without the presence of a doctor. Following medical examinations after his release, it has been reported that his heart condition has worsened.
Saleh Kamrani is also suffering stomach pains as a result of his hunger strike, skin rashes for which he is receiving treatment from a dermatologist, and leg pain.
Trial proceedings
In July, it was reported that Saleh Kamrani’s case was under investigation by Branch 14 of the Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office in Tehran. However, in August, if was reported that the case had been referred to Branch 13 of the Revolutionary Court in Tehran and that his initial court hearing had been set for 13 September 2006. This was the first time that he was allowed to meet his other lawyer, who had never been given an opportunity to meet Saleh Kamrani to discuss his case. A further court hearing took place on 18 September 2006, in which he was charged under Article 500 of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran which states that "Whoever propagates in whatever manner against the system of the Islamic Republic of Iran or in favor of groups or organizations who oppose the system shall be sentenced to imprisonment from three months to one year". He was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, suspended for five years. Ministry of Intelligence officers were present at both court hearings.
The verdict in his trial stated: "In respect of the charge against Mr. Saleh Kamrani, son of Morad, concerning his propaganda activity against the sacred Islamic Republic of Iran, his guilt and delinquency has been ascertained and established with a view to the indictment issued, the report by the Ministry of Intelligence, interviews with foreign radio stations including VOA News and the BBC on 14/6/2006, page 72 of the file, his legal representation of opponents of the system and disrupters of national security and ethnic nationalists, page 71 of the file, exacerbating the lack of security by various means, sending SMS messages to various persons containing propaganda against the system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, confessions of the defendant in this regard and his unjustified statements before the court and other indications and circumstantial evidence. Under Article 500 of the Islamic Penal Code, he is sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, accounting for the period of his detention. The said sentence is suspended for five years in accordance with Article 25 of the Islamic Penal Code, to be enforced should he commit a crime during the period of suspension." Following this court session, Saleh Kamrani was released from detention.
Caption
Saleh Kamrani after his release from detention in Section 209 of Evin Prison (© Private)
Harassment and denial of right to practice his profession
According to information, following his release, Saleh Kamrani is reportedly under tight surveillance by the Ministry of Intelligence: he is being followed and has been threatened with arrest should he "misbehave". His wife, Mina Esgeri, reportedly said that he has since visited a cardiologist who ordered him to rest for two months; however she added that he now seems to suffer from post traumatic stress disorder as he is too nervous and worried to sleep.
Since his release, Saleh Kamrani has been unable to practice as a lawyer as his lawyer’s card was retained by the authorities, and as a result he has no source of income to support himself and his wife. Without his card, he is unable to carry out functions such as entering court. His mobile phone was also confiscated while he was in detention and has not been returned to him and as he has had to close his office, his clients have no means of contacting him. Saleh Kamrani and his lawyer have both requested that his phone and lawyer’s card be returned to him, but this has been refused.
Article 9 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders affirms the right of everyone to offer and provide professionally qualified legal assistance or other relevant advice and assistance in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms. Article 11 of the same Declaration states that everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to the lawful exercise of his or her occupation or profession (UN General Assembly resolution 53/144 of 1998).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Iranian Azerbaijani lawyer Saleh Kamrani has been practicing his profession since 1999. He has represented a number of Iranian Azerbaijanis who have been detained in connection with their political or cultural activities. Saleh Kamrani has also defended members of other ethnic groups, such as Iranian Arab writer Yusuf Azizi Bani Torof and Persian human rights defender Mohsen Sazegara. He has repeatedly suffered harassment at the hands of the Iranian security forces, including phone calls threatening him with arrest. His telephone conversations, correspondence and contacts are monitored and he and his wife have been interrogated and threatened by security officials when leaving or entering the country. Saleh Kamrani has also been prevented from leaving Iran on several occasions. In 2005 he was detained for three days with his brother in the town of Oromieh.
Saleh Kamrani has also reportedly written articles on human rights and has helped to organize training in human rights for lawyers and students. Saleh Kamrani's brother, Maharam Kamrani, was arrested on 30 March 2006, and reportedly tortured during 19 days in detention (see Urgent Action 86/06, MDE 13/039/2006, 12 April 2006) http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE130392006?open&of=ENG-IRN
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130432006?open&of=ENG-IRN
Iranian Azerbaijanis, who are mainly Shi’a Muslims, are the largest minority in Iran, who constitute at least 25-30 per cent of the population. They are located mainly in the north and north-west of Iran. As Shi’a, they do not suffer as much discrimination as minorities of other religions, and are well-integrated into the economy, but there is a growing demand for greater cultural and linguistic rights, including implementation of their constitutional right to education through the medium of Azerbaijani Turkic. A small minority advocate secession of Iranian Azerbaijan from the Islamic Republic of Iran and union with the Republic of Azerbaijan. Those who seek to promote Iranian Azerbaijani cultural identity are viewed with suspicion by the Iranian authorities, who often accuse them of vague charges such as "promoting pan-Turkism".
At the end of June 2005, scores of Iranian Azerbaijanis participating in an annual cultural gathering at Babek Castle in Kalayber were arrested. At least 21 were later sentenced to prison terms of between three months and one year, some of which were suspended, reportedly after conviction on charges such as "spreading propaganda against the system" and "establishing organizations against the system". Some were also banned from entering Kalayber for a period of 10 years. On 31 March 2006, scores were reportedly arrested after holding an annual commemorative demonstration in the city of Tabriz.
In May 2006, massive demonstrations took place in towns and cities in north-western Iran, where the majority of the population is Iranian Azerbaijani, in protest at a cartoon published on 12 May by the state-owned daily newspaper Iran which many Iranian Azerbaijanis found offensive. Hundreds were arrested during or following the demonstrations. Some of those detained have allegedly been tortured, with some requiring hospital treatment. Publication of the newspaper was suspended on 23 May and the editor-in-chief and the cartoonist were arrested. Iranian Azerbaijani sources have claimed that dozens were killed and hundreds injured by the security forces. The security forces have generally denied that anyone was killed, although on 29 May a police official acknowledged that four people had been killed and 43 injured in the town of Naqada. While many have now been released, others remain detained and some have been sentenced to prison terms and flogging in connection with the demonstrations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible, in Persian, Arabic, English, French or your own language:
- welcoming the release of Saleh Kamrani;
- stating that you consider Saleh Kamrani to have been a prisoner of conscience, detained solely on account of his peaceful activities, including his duties as a lawyer;
- urging the authorities to review his conviction with a view to dropping his suspended sentence, which, if it were implemented, would lead to his re-detention as a prisoner of conscience;
-calling on the authorities to return his mobile phone and lawyer’s card to him to enable Saleh Kamrani to continue working as a lawyer;
- reminding the authorities that, as a state party, they have undertaken to uphold Article 19 of the ICCPR which states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression.
PLEASE SEND YOUR APPEALS TO:
Leader of the Islamic Republic
His Excellency Ayatollah Sayed ‘Ali Khamenei, The Office of the Supreme Leader
Shoahada Street, Qom, Islamic Republic of Iran
Email: info@leader.ir
istiftaa@wilayah.org
Salutation: Your Excellency
President
His Excellency Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The Presidency, Palestine Avenue, Azerbaijan Intersection, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Fax: Via foreign affairs: +98 21 6 674 790 and ask to be forwarded to H.E Ahmadinejad
Email: dr-ahmadinejad@president.ir
via website: www.president.ir/email
Salutation: Your Excellency
Head of the Judiciary
His Excellency Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi
Ministry of Justice, Park-e Shahr, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Fax: (Via Ministry of Justice) + 98 21 3 311 6567 (Mark: "Please forward to HE Ayatollah Shahroudi")
Salutation: Your Excellency
Speaker of Parliament
His Excellency Gholamali Haddad Adel
Majles-e Shoura-ye Eslami
Imam Khomeini Avenue,
Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Fax: + 98 21 6 646 1746
COPIES TO
Islamic Human Rights Commission
Secretary of the Islamic Human Rights Commission
P.O. Box 13165-137 or PO Box 19395/4698
Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Fax: +9821 2204 0541
E-mail: ihrc@majlis.ir
Iranian Bar Associations Union
No. 3, Zagros St.,
Argentina Sq.
Tehran,
Islamic Republic of Iran
Fax: +98 21 8771340
E-mail: tamas@iranbar.org
[+/-] show/hide this post
UN General Assembly Cites Iran For Human Rights Abuses
Sixty-first General Assembly Plenary81st Meeting (PM)
GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS 46 THIRD COMMITTEE TEXTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES,
REFUGEES, SELF-DETERMINATION, RACISM, SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Resolutions, Decisions Also Adopted on Women’s Advancement, Child Rights
The General Assembly today adopted 41 resolutions and 5 decisions recommended by its Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), including texts expressing concern over the human rights situation in three Member States, addressing the human rights consequences of Israeli military operations in Lebanon and condemning the use of the media to incite violence against racial, religious and other groups.
The Assembly adopted country-specific human rights resolutions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Iran and Belarus, the latter two following the rejection of motions for no action. Such resolutions had again been the subject of heated debate this year. In the Committee, for example, two country-specific human rights resolutions –- on the United States and Canada –- were rejected by wide margins and another on Uzbekistan was removed from consideration following a narrowly decided vote on a no action motion.
In a repeat of similar debates in the past, several delegations criticized such resolutions as selective and politically motivated, while other representatives argued that any human rights issue should be considered by the Assembly on its merits. Another point raised was whether the newly established Human Rights Council, which had been developing a universal periodic review mechanism that would hold all States to the same consistent human rights standard, was the more appropriate venue to address such issues.
The country-specific texts were all adopted by recorded votes: on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (99 in favour to 21 against, with 56 abstentions, annex XIX); on Belarus (72 in favour to 32 against, with 69 abstentions, annex XXI); and on Iran (72 in favour to 50 against, with 55 abstentions, annex XXIII).
The representative of Belarus insisted that the United Nations should not be used as a platform to put political pressure on sovereign States under the pretext of human rights violations, but unfortunately, that was exactly what was happening. There were no such reasons to initiate such a text on the situation in Belarus, which was a party to all universal human rights instruments and actively participated in international cooperation on the protection and promotion of human rights. Belarus would consider votes cast in favour of the text as “unfriendly acts of gross and illegitimate interference into [its] internal affairs”.
Iran’s representative said that he wished to call for no action on the draft concerning his country. The resolution on “promotion of equitable and mutually respectful dialogue on human rights”, just adopted by the Assembly, had stressed the need to avoid politically motivated and biased resolutions on human rights. Last September in Havana, the Non-Aligned Movement’s Heads of State and Government had agreed that exploitation of human rights for political purposes, including selective targeting of individual countries for extraneous considerations, should be prohibited.
Speaking in explanation of vote on the text on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the representative of Japan strongly urged that country to take the resolution’s adoption seriously and fully cooperate with the United Nations system and with the Special Rapporteur, and respond to enquiries into the abductions matter, admit that its actions violated human rights and allow those abducted to return to Japan without delay, conduct a thorough investigation and surrender the perpetrators responsible for the abductions.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said the Japanese statements were marked by a “lack of real facts”. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea held a deep-seated grudge against Japan based, among other things, on grave human rights violations committed by Japan against Koreans during World War II, for which it had neither apologized nor offered compensation. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea kept a close eye on the machinations of Japan and its ally the United States, he said, adding that his country was moving towards “full preparedness” to counter any threats coming from Japan.
In other business, the Assembly addressed the appearance in European publications of cartoons deemed offensive by many Muslims in two texts on the elimination of racism and racial intolerance. By the terms of a draft on combating defamation of religions, the Assembly deplored the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against Islam or any other religion while urging States to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of such ideas and materials. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 111 in favour to 54 against, with 18 abstentions (see annex XII).
The Assembly also condemned the misuse of the media to incite violence motivated by racial hatred in a separate text, by which it further decided to convene a Durban Review Conference in 2009 on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. That draft was adopted by a recorded vote of 179 in favour to 2 against ( Israel, United States), with 4 abstentions ( Australia, Canada, Marshall Islands, Palau) (see annex III).
The Assembly also today adopted a resolution on the human rights consequences of Israeli military operations in Lebanon, by which it deplored the death of more than 1,100 civilians as a result of the recent Israeli military operations there, strongly condemned the deliberate use by Israel of cluster munitions and deplored the environmental degradation caused by Israeli air strikes against power plants. That text was adopted by a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 7 against ( Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 64 abstentions (see annex VI).
The Assembly also adopted a resolution on extrajudicial, summary orarbitrary executions, by which it strongly condemned once again all such executions and demanded that all States ensure that they were brought to an end.
It called upon all States, in which the death penalty had not been abolished, to comply with their obligations under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments.
The draft resolution was adopted, as amended, by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to none against, with 43 abstentions (see annex XVIII), after separate votes on two operative paragraphs relating to the human rights obligations of States continuing to use the death penalty and protection of the right to life.
In addition, the Assembly adopted texts on the advancement of women, the protection of the rights of children, social development, globalization, the right to self-determination, the right to development and the right to food.
The representatives of Venezuela, Uruguay, Syria, Finland (on behalf of the European Union), Finland (on behalf of nearly 100 countries), Azerbaijan, United States, El Salvador, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Jamaica, Grenada, Niger, Brunei, Russian Federation, China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Canada, Singapore, Colombia, Ukraine, Botswana and Uganda also made statements today.
The Assembly will meet again at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 20 December, to conclude action on all Third Committee texts.
Background
The General Assembly met this afternoon to take action on the reports of the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural).
Refugees
The Committee’s report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, questions relating to refugees, returnees and displaced persons and humanitarian questions (document A/61/436) contains four draft resolutions.
Draft resolution I on enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees would have the Assembly decide to increase the number of members of the Executive Committee from 70 to 72 States and request the Economic and Social Council to elect the additional members at its resumed organizational session for 2007.
Draft resolution II on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) would have the Assembly strongly condemn attacks on refugees, asylum-seekers and internally displaced persons and call upon all concerned States and parties involved in an armed conflict to ensure respect for human rights and international humanitarian law. The Assembly would also deplore the refoulement and unlawful expulsion of refugees and asylum-seekers and call upon all concerned States to ensure respect for the principles of refugee protection and human rights.
In addition, the Assembly would strongly reaffirm the fundamental importance and the purely humanitarian and non-political character of the High Commissioner, as well as emphasize the need to redouble international efforts to resolve the plight of millions of refugees in protracted situations. It would also emphasize the obligation of all States to accept and facilitate the return of their nationals and call upon States to facilitate the return of their nationals who had been determined not to be in need of international protection. It would further encourage the office of the High Commissioner to continue to improve its management systems and ensure effective and transparent use of its resources, and urge Governments and others to respond promptly to the High Commissioner’s appeals for requirements under its programmes.
Draft resolution III on the new international humanitarian order would have the Assembly recognize the need to further strengthen national, regional and international efforts to address humanitarian emergencies and invite Member States, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs of the Secretariat, relevant entities of the United Nations system, and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, including the Independent Bureau for Humanitarian Issues, to reinforce activities and cooperation so as to continue to develop an agenda for humanitarian action.
Draft resolution IV on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa would have the Assembly note with great concern that, despite all of the efforts made so far by the United Nations, the African Union and others, the situation of refuges and displaced persons in Africa remained precarious. It would call upon States and other parties to armed conflict to observe scrupulously the letter and spirit of international humanitarian law.
It would reaffirm that host States had primary responsibility to ensure the civilian and humanitarian character of asylum and condemn all acts that posed a threat to the personal security and well-being of refugees and asylum-seekers, such as refoulement, unlawful expulsion and physical attacks. It would deplore violence and insecurity that threatened the safety of staff members of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and urge States, parties to conflict and others to take all necessary measures to protect humanitarian assistance activities.
The Assembly would further call upon the High Commissioner and others to intensify their support to African Governments through capacity-building activities. It would also reaffirm the right of return and the principle of voluntary repatriation, as well as the fact that that voluntary repatriation should not necessarily be conditioned on accomplishing political solutions in the country of origin. It would express grave concern at the increasing number of internally displaced persons in Africa and call upon States to take concrete action to pre-empt internal displacement and meet the protection and assistance needs of internally displaced persons.
Social Development
The Committee’s report on social development (document A/61/437) contains three draft resolutions.
Draft resolution I on the United Nations Literacy Decade: education for all would have the Assembly appeal to all Governments to develop reliable literacy data, strengthen political will and mobilize adequate national resources to achieve the goals of the Literacy Decade. It would further urge all Governments to take the lead in coordinating the activities of the Decade at the national level and appeal to all Governments and professional organizations to strengthen national and professional educational institutions in their countries. It would also appeal to all Governments and to economic and financial organizations and institutions to lend greater financial and material support to the efforts to increase literacy and achieve the goals of education for all and those of the Decade. In addition, it would request all relevant entities of the United Nations system, particularly the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), to work with national Governments and take immediate, concrete steps to address the needs of countries with high illiteracy rates, particularly those with a large proportion of illiterate women.
Draft resolution II on implementation of the outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly would have the Assembly call upon Member States, the relevant specialized agencies, funds and programmes of the United Nations system and civil society to enhance their support for the work of the Commission for Social Development, which had the primary responsibility for follow-up to the Summit and the twenty-fourth special session. The Assembly would further emphasize that poverty eradication policies should attack poverty by addressing its root and structural causes and manifestations, and that equity and the reduction of inequalities needed to be incorporated in those policies. By the draft, the Assembly would underline the responsibility of the private sector for the economic, financial, developmental, social, gender and environmental implications of its activities, and emphasize the need to take concrete actions on corporate responsibility and accountability, including for the prevention and prosecution of corruption.
Draft resolution III on follow-up to the Second World Assembly on Ageing would have the Assembly encourage Governments to mainstream ageing issues into poverty eradication strategies and national development plans while calling upon them to promote a bottom-up participatory approach to implementation and encouraging the international community to help fund research and data collection on ageing. The Assembly would also stress the need for additional capacity-building at the national level to promote implementation of the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing and encourage Governments to support the United Nations Trust Fund for Ageing.
Advancement of Women
The Committee’s report on advancement of women (document A/61/438) contains three draft resolutions and one draft decision.
Draft resolution I on the intensification of efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women would have the Assembly strongly condemn all acts of violence against women and girls, whether those acts were perpetrated by the State, by private persons or by non-State actors. It would further call for the elimination of all forms of gender-based violence in the family, within the general community and where perpetrated or condoned by the State while stressing the need to treat all forms of violence against women and girls as a criminal offence.
The Assembly would also urge States to eliminate all forms of violence against women by means of a more systematic and sustained approach, including by ratifying all human rights treaties and removing all laws that discriminated against women. It would further call upon the international community to support national efforts to promote the empowerment of women, gender equality and the elimination of violence against women and girls. To that end, it would strongly encourage States to increase significantly their voluntary financial support for activities related to such goals, as carried out by the United Nations specialized agencies, funds and programmes.
Draft resolution II on trafficking in women and girls would have the Assembly call upon Governments to eliminate the demand for trafficked women and girls for all forms of exploitation and to take appropriate measures to address the factors that increased vulnerability to being trafficked, including poverty and gender inequality. It would further call upon all Governments to criminalize all forms of trafficking in persons and to condemn and penalize all those offenders involved, including intermediaries, whether local or foreign, through the competent national authorities, either in the country of origin of the offender or in the country in which the abuse occurred, as well as to penalize persons in authority found guilty of sexually assaulting victims of trafficking in their custody.
By the draft, the Assembly would further urge Governments to take all appropriate measures to ensure that victims of trafficking were not penalized for being trafficked and that they did not suffer from revictimization as a result of actions taken by Government authorities. It would call upon concerned Governments to ensure that the treatment of victims of trafficking, as well as all measures taken against trafficking in persons, paid particular attention to the needs of women and girls, were applied with full respect for the human rights of those victims and were consistent with internationally recognized principles of non-discrimination, including the prohibition of racial discrimination and the availability of appropriate legal redress.
Draft resolution III 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 would have the Assembly express serious concern that the urgent goal of 50/50 gender balance in the United Nations system, especially at senior and policymaking levels, remained unmet. It would 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 implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome of the twenty-third special session.
Further to the draft, the Assembly would call upon States parties to comply fully with their obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Optional Protocol thereto while urging States parties to consider limiting the extent of any reservations that they had lodged to the Convention. It would urge all Member States that had not yet ratified or acceded to the Convention to consider doing so and call upon those Member States that had not yet signed, ratified or acceded to the Optional Protocol to do so.
The draft decision on the Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (document A/61/38), the Report of the Secretary-General on the improvement of the status of women in the United Nations system (A/61/318) and the note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report on the activities of the United Nations Development Fund for Women (document A/61/292) would have the Assembly take note of those documents.
Promotion, Protection of Children’s Rights
The Committee’s report on promotion and protection of the rights of children (document A/61/439) contains one draft resolution and one draft decision.
The draft resolution on the rights of the child would have the Assembly express profound concern that the situation of children in many parts of the world remained critical as a result of such factors as poverty, pandemics, natural disasters, armed conflict, trafficking, child prostitution, child sex tourism, racism, xenophobia and gender inequality. It would urge States that had not yet done so to become parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and call upon those that had to fully implement its provisions. It would further call upon all States to abolish the death penalty and life imprisonment for under-18 offenders and to ensure that no child in detention was sentenced to forced labour.
Under the draft’s terms, States would also be expected to criminalize all forms of sexual exploitation of children and to ensure the demobilization and rehabilitation of child soldiers. To eradicate poverty, Governments would be called upon to take an integrated and multifaceted approach based on the rights and well-being of children. The Secretary-General would be asked to report on the rights of the child to the sixty-second session of the Assembly, while his Special Representative for children and armed conflict would be asked to continue reporting to the Assembly and to the Human Rights Council.
The draft decision on the report of the Committee on the Rights of the Child would have the Assembly take note of that report (document A/61/41).
Indigenous Issues
The Committee’s report on indigenous issues (document A/61/440) contains one draft decision.
The draft decision on the note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the status of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations (document A/61/376) and the note of the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people (document A/61/490) would have the Assembly take note of those documents.
(For information on the draft declaration on indigenous peoples’ rights, see draft resolution II under “Report of Human Rights Council” later in this section.)
Elimination of Racism and Racial Discrimination
The Committee’s report on elimination of racism and racial discrimination (document A/61/441) contains three 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 would have the Assembly, alarmed at the spread in many parts of the world of various extremist political parties, movements and groups, express deep concern over the glorification of the Nazi movement and former members of the Waffen SS organization and note with concern the rise of skinhead groups and the increase in racist incidents in several countries. It would stress that those acts did injustice to the memory of the victims of crimes against humanity in the Second World War, poisoned young minds and fuelled contemporary forms of racism. By the draft, the Assembly would call upon those States that had made reservations to article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to give serious consideration to withdrawing such reservations as a matter of priority.
Draft II on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination would have the Assembly call upon States parties to fulfil their obligation to submit periodic reports on measures taken to implement the Convention in due time. It would further express concern that a great number of reports were overdue and encourage those States whose reports were seriously overdue to avail themselves of the help that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights could provide. The Assembly would express its profound concern at the fact that a number of States parties to the Convention had still not fulfilled their financial obligations and appeal to all States parties that were in arrears to fulfil those obligations. It would also urge all States that had not yet become parties to the Convention, to ratify or accede to it, as a matter of urgency, and to limit the extent of any reservation they might lodge.
Draft III 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 express its profound concern about and its unequivocal condemnation of all forms of racism and racial discrimination, as well as propaganda activities and organizations that attempted to justify or promote any such form of hatred. It would further express deep concern at recent attempts to establish hierarchies among emerging and resurgent forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and urge States to adopt measures to address those scourges. It would stress that States and international organizations had a responsibility to ensure that measures taken in the struggle against terrorism did not discriminate in purpose or effect on grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, and urge all States to rescind, or refrain from, all forms of racial profiling.
In addition, the Assembly would condemn the misuse of print, audio-visual and electronic media and new communication technologies, including the Internet, to incite violence motivated by racial hatred and call upon States to take all necessary measures to combat that form of racism. The Assembly would decide to convene a Durban Review Conference in 2009 on the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, with the Human Rights Council being asked to act as a preparatory committee and to formulate, by 2007, a concrete plan for the review conference.
Right of People to Self-Determination
The Committee’s report on rights of people to self-determination (document A/61/442) contains three draft resolutions.
Draft resolution I on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination would have the Assembly reaffirm that the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination was a fundamental human rights condition; declare firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation; and call on States responsible to cease immediately their military intervention in and occupation of foreign countries and territories. It would further deplore the plight of millions of refugees and displaced persons who had been uprooted as a result of the aforementioned acts and reaffirm their right to return to their homes voluntarily in safety and honour. It would request the Human Rights Council to continue to give special attention to the violation of human rights, especially the right to self-determination, resulting from foreign military intervention, aggression or occupation.
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 would have the Assembly express extreme alarm and concern about recent mercenary activities in Africa and the threat they posed to the integrity of the constitutional order of the countries in which they had been operating. It would urge all States to exercise the utmost vigilance against the menace posed by the activities of mercenaries and to take legislative measures to ensure that their territories and other territories under their control, as well as their nationals, were not used for the recruitment, assembly, financing, training and transit of mercenaries. It would condemn recent mercenary activities in Africa, as well as any form of impunity granted to perpetrators of mercenary activities or their supporters, and call upon States to investigate the possibility of mercenary involvement whenever and wherever criminal acts of a terrorist nature occurred and to bring to trial those found responsible or consider their extradition.
Draft resolution III on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination would have the Assembly, expressing the urgent need for the resumption of negotiations within the Middle East peace process and for the speedy achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement between the Palestinian and Israeli sides, reaffirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine, and urge all States and the specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system to continue to support and assist them in the early realization of that right.
Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
The Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/61/443) contains a draft decision, which would have the Assembly take note of the following reports:
Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (document A/61/36).
Under sub-item 67(a):
Report of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families at its third and fourth sessions (document A/61/48).
Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture (document A/61/226);
Report of the Secretary-General on the status of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (document A/61/279);
Report of the Secretary-General on the status of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (document A/61/354);
Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (A/61/259);
Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies on their eighteenth meeting (A/61/385);
Under sub-item 67(b):
Report of the Secretary-General on the right to development (document A/61/211);
Report of the Secretary-General on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/61/287);
Report of the Secretary-General on the question of enforced or involuntary disappearances (document A/61/289);
Report of the Secretary-General on combating defamation of religions (document A/61/325);
Report of the Secretary-General on the establishment of a United Nations Human Rights Training and Documentation Centre for South-West Asia and the Arab region (document A/61/348);
Report of the Secretary-General on missing persons (document A/61/476);
Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the protection of human rights while countering terrorism (document A/61/267);
Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights defenders (document A/61/312);
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/61/338);
Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (document A/61/340);
Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers (document A/61/384);
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/61/464);
Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the independent expert on human rights and extreme poverty (document A/61/465);
Under sub-item 67(c):
Report of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Turkmenistan (document A/61/489);
Report of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in Uzbekistan (document A/61/526);
Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons (A/61/276);
Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the interim report of the independent expert on the situation of human rights in Burundi (document A/61/360);
Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/61/369 and A/61/369/Corr.1);
Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the human rights situation and the activities of her office, including technical cooperation, in Nepal (document A/61/374);
Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan (A/61/469);
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 (documents A/61/470 and A/61/470/Corr.1);
Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the progress report by the independent expert on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (document A/61/475);
Implementation of Human Rights Instruments
Addendum I to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/61/443/Add.1) contains one draft resolution on implementation of human rights instruments.
The draft on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment would have the Assembly condemn all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which could never be justified. It would call upon all States to implement fully the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Assembly would condemn any action or attempt, by States or public officials, to legalize, authorize or acquiesce in torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under any circumstances, including on grounds of national security or through judicial decisions.
Under the terms of the draft, the Assembly would also urge States not to expel, return (“refouler”), extradite, or in any other way transfer a person to another State where there were substantial grounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture. Further, it would call upon all States to take appropriate measures to prohibit the production, trade, export and use of equipment specifically designed to inflict torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
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/61/443/Add.2) contains 20 draft resolutions on human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Draft resolution I on the human rights situation arising from the recent Israeli military operations in Lebanon would have the Assembly condemn all acts of violence against civilians, immense destruction of homes, properties, agricultural lands and vital civilian infrastructure, and the displacement of up to one million Lebanese civilians and outflows of refugees fleeing heavy shelling and bombardment directed against the civilian population. It would express deep concern over the negative consequences of the Israeli military operations for the well-being of Lebanese children and condemn the killing of children, women, the elderly and other civilians in Lebanon, while underlining that there should be no impunity for such acts and calling particularly upon Israel to abide scrupulously by its obligations under human rights law.
The draft would further deplore the death of more than 1,100 civilians as a result of the Israeli military operations in Lebanon, strongly condemn the deliberate use by Israel of cluster munitions in Lebanon and deplore the environmental degradation caused by Israeli air strikes against power plants and their adverse impact on the health and well-being of children and other civilians. It would call upon the international community to urgently provide the Government of Lebanon with financial assistance in support of the national early recovery, reconstruction and enhancing the national economy.
Draft resolution II on missing persons would have the Assembly call on States that were parties to an armed conflict to take all appropriate measures to prevent persons from going missing, to account for those who were reported missing and, to the greatest possible extent, to provide family members of such persons with all relevant information on their fate. It would further call upon States to take appropriate steps with regard to the legal situation of the missing persons and that of their family members, in fields such as social welfare, financial matters, family law and property rights.
Draft resolution III on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights would have the Assembly reaffirm the commitment to create an environment, at both the national and the global levels, that was conducive to development and to the elimination of poverty. The Assembly would further call upon Member States, relevant agencies of the United Nations system, intergovernmental organizations and civil society to promote equitable and environmentally sustainable economic growth for managing globalization. It would also underline the urgent need to establish an equitable, transparent and democratic international system to strengthen and broaden the participation of developing countries in international economic decision-making and norm-setting.
Draft resolution IV on human rights and extreme poverty would have the Assembly reaffirm that widespread absolute poverty inhibited the full and effective enjoyment of human rights and rendered democracy and popular participation fragile. It would also reaffirm the commitments made in the United Nations Millennium Declaration and at the 2005 World Summit, notably the commitments to spare no effort to eradicate poverty, including by halving by 2015 the proportion of the world’s people living on less than one United States dollar a day. It would further invite the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to continue to give high priority to the relationship between extreme poverty and human rights.
Draft resolution V on the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa would have the Assembly welcome the Centre’s activities at Yaoundé and note with satisfaction the support being given by its host country. It would request the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide the Centre with additional funds and human resources, so that it could respond to growing needs in promoting and protecting human rights and in developing a culture of democracy in the Central African subregion.
Draft resolution VI on the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights would have the Assembly decide, while considering the report of the Joint Inspection Unit, to allow, in the effort to redress the specific geographic imbalance of the Office, the establishment of a temporary mechanism whereby recruitment of staff in the Office at the P-2 level would not be restricted to successful candidates from the national competitive examination, and to re-evaluate the financing of human rights activities with a view to increasing the support from core resources. It would further encourage participation from a broader range of Member States in the associate experts programme and urge participants to increase sponsorship of associate experts from developing countries.
Draft resolution VII on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order would have the Assembly call upon all Member States to fulfil their commitment expressed in Durban, South Africa, during the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, to maximize the benefits of globalization, through increasing the quality of opportunities for trade, economic growth and sustainable development, global communications through the use of new technologies, and increased intercultural exchange through the preservation and promotion of cultural diversity.
The Assembly would further reaffirm that it was the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as urge all international actors to build an international order based on inclusion, justice, equality and equity, human dignity, mutual understanding and promotion of, and respect for, cultural diversity and universal human rights, and to reject all doctrines of exclusion based on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
Draft resolution VIII on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief would have the Assembly condemn all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief and urge States to ensure adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief to all. Further to the draft, the Assembly would recognize, with deep concern, an overall rise in instances of intolerance and violence against members of many religions, including cases motivated by Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia.
By the draft, the Assembly would condemn any advocacy of religious hatred that constituted incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence by any media. It would invite States and the United Nations system to address the rise of religious extremism, violence and discrimination against women as a result of religion or belief, as well as the use of religion or belief for ends inconsistent with the United Nations Charter. The Assembly would further emphasize the importance of dialogue among and within religions and that equating any religion with terrorism should be avoided.
Draft resolution IX on respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the vital importance of family reunification would have the Assembly once again call upon all States to guarantee freedom of travel to all foreign nationals legally residing in their territory and reaffirm that all Governments, in particular those of receiving countries, must recognize the vital importance of family reunification and promote its incorporation into national legislation. The Assembly would further call upon all States to allow the free flow of financial remittances by foreign nationals residing in their territory to relatives in the country of origin and to refrain from enacting, and to repeal if it already existed, legislation intended as a coercive measure that discriminated against individuals or groups of legal migrants by adversely affecting family reunification and the right to send financial remittances to relatives in the country of origin.
Draft resolution X on the right to food would have the Assembly consider it intolerable that every five seconds, a child under the age of five died from hunger or hunger-related diseases somewhere in the world; that there were about 854 million malnourished people; and that, while the prevalence of hunger had diminished, the absolute number of malnourished people had been increasing in recent years when, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization, the planet could produce enough food to feed 12 billion people -- or twice the world’s present population.
The Assembly would further express its concern that women and girls were disproportionately affected by hunger, food insecurity and poverty, and stress that improving access to productive resources and public investment in rural development was essential for eradicating hunger and poverty, in particular in developing countries. In addition, it would call upon Member States, the United Nations system and other relevant stakeholders to support national efforts aimed at responding rapidly to the food crises currently occurring across Africa.
Draft resolution XI on combating defamation of religions 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. It would strongly deplore physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centres and places of worship, as well as the targeting of religious symbols. It would note, with deep concern, the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001 and express its deep concern that Islam was frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.
Further to the draft, the Assembly would express its deep concern about programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at the defamation of religions, in particular when supported by Governments. It would deplore the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against Islam or any other religion and urge States to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constituted incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence; provide adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion; and take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions.
Draft resolution XII on the protection of migrants would have the Assembly call upon States that had not done so to consider signing and ratifying or acceding to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families as a matter of priority. Further to the draft, the Assembly would express concern about the legislation and measures adopted by some States that restricted the human rights and fundamental freedoms of migrants and reaffirm that when exercising their sovereign right to enact and implement migratory and border security measures, States had the duty to comply with their obligations under international law, including international human rights law. It would also strongly condemn the manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them, while urging States to apply existing laws when such acts occurred.
Draft resolution XIII on the promotion of equitable and mutually respectful dialogue on human rights would have the Assembly call upon Member States to base their approaches towards development of international dialogue on human rights on the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action and other relevant international human rights instruments, while refraining from approaches that were inconsistent with that international framework.
The Assembly would further stress the need to avoid politically motivated and biased country-specific resolutions on the situation of human rights, confrontational approaches, exploitation of human rights for political purposes, selective targeting of individual countries for extraneous considerations and double standards in the work of the United Nations on human rights issues. It would also stress the continuing need for unbiased and objective information on the situation of human rights in all countries and the need to present that information in an impartial manner.
Draft resolution XIV on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights would have the Assembly stress the importance of the programme of technical cooperation in the field of human rights and renew its appeal to all Governments to consider making use of the possibilities offered by the United Nations under that programme of organizing information or training courses at the national level for Government personnel on the application of international human rights standards and the experience of relevant international bodies. It would further invite States in areas in which regional arrangements in the field of human rights did not yet exist to consider concluding agreements with a view to establishing suitable regional machinery for the promotion and protection of human rights.
Draft resolution XV on the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights would have the Assembly urge all actors on the international scene to build an international order, based on inclusion, justice, equality, human dignity, mutual understanding and promotion of and respect for cultural diversity and universal human rights, and to reject all doctrines of exclusion based on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Further to the draft, the Assembly would call upon Member States, specialized agencies and intergovernmental organizations to continue to carry out a constructive dialogue for the enhancement of understanding and the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and encourage non-governmental organizations to contribute actively to that endeavour.
Draft XVI on the right to development would have the Assembly call upon the Human Rights Council to promote and advance sustainable development and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and to agree on a programme that would lead to the elevation of the right to development to the same level as all other human rights and fundamental freedoms elaborated in the human rights instruments. It would also stress that the primary responsibility for the promotion and protection of all human rights lay with the State and reaffirm that States had the primary responsibility for their own economic and social development.
Further to the draft, the Assembly would urge developed countries that had not yet done so to meet the targets of 0.7 per cent of their gross national product for official development assistance to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.2 per cent of their gross national product to least developed countries, while encouraging developing countries to ensure that such assistance was used effectively to help to meet development goals and targets. The Assembly would also call for the implementation of a desirable pace of meaningful trade liberalization, a review of special and differential treatment provisions, avoidance of new forms of protectionism, and capacity-building and technical assistance for developing countries.
Draft resolution XVII on human rights and unilateral coercive measures would have the Assembly reject unilateral coercive measures with all their extraterritorial effects as tools for political or economic pressure against any country, in particular against developing countries, because of their negative effects on the realization of all the human rights of vast sectors of their populations, in particular children, women and the elderly. It would further call upon Member States that had initiated such measures to revoke such measures at the earliest possible time.
Draft resolution XVIII on protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism would have the Assembly, deeply deploring the occurrence of violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the context of the fight against terrorism, as well as violations of international refugee law and international humanitarian law, deplore the suffering caused by terrorism to victims and their families. It would call upon States to raise awareness about the importance of obligations among national authorities involved in combating terrorism to respect certain rights as non-derogable in any circumstances, in accordance with article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
It would further urge States to fully respect non-refoulement obligations under international refugee and human rights law and to review the validity of a refugee status decision in an individual case if credible and relevant evidence came to light indicating that the person in question had committed any criminal acts, including terrorist acts, falling under the exclusion clauses under international refugee law. It would also urge States to ensure due process guarantees while countering terrorism. It would further oppose any form of deprivation of liberty that amounted to placing a detained person outside the protection of the law and urge States to respect the safeguards concerning the liberty, security and dignity of the person and to treat all prisoners in all places of detention in accordance with international law.
Draft resolution XIX on hostage-taking would have the Assembly condemn all acts of hostage-taking, anywhere in the world, and demand that all hostages be released immediately and without any preconditions. It would further call upon States to take all necessary measures, in accordance with international humanitarian law and human rights standards, to prevent, combat and punish acts of hostage-taking, including by strengthening international cooperation.
Draft resolution XX on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions would have the Assembly strongly condemn once again all extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and demand that all States ensure that such executions were brought to an end. The Assembly would further call upon all States, in which the death penalty had not been abolished, to comply with their obligations under relevant provisions of international human rights instruments.
Further to the draft, the Assembly would urge all States to prevent loss of life during public demonstrations, internal and communal violence, civil unrest, public emergencies or armed conflicts, and to ensure the protection of the right to life of all persons under their jurisdictions. It would also urge all States to investigate, promptly and thoroughly, all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation, and to bring those responsible to justice before a competent, independent and impartial judiciary and ensure that such killings were neither condoned nor sanctioned by State officials or personnel.
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/61/443/Add.3) contains four draft resolutions on human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives.
Draft resolution I on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would have the Assembly express its very serious concern at continuing reports of systemic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in that country, including torture; the situation of refugees expelled or returned and sanctions imposed on citizens repatriated from abroad; severe restrictions on the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association; and limitations on travel abroad.
The Assembly would also express very serious concern about ongoing violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of women; unresolved questions relating to the abduction of foreigners in the form of enforced disappearances; violations of economic, social and cultural rights leading to severe malnutrition and hardship for the population; and continuing reports of violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of those with disabilities, especially regarding the use of collective camps and collective measures that targeted disabled persons.
By the draft, the Assembly would express its very deep concern at the precarious humanitarian situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, compounded by mismanagement on the part of the authorities, in particular the prevalence of infant malnutrition. It would strongly urge the Government to respect fully all human rights and fundamental freedoms and to grant full, free and unimpeded access to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the country and to other United Nations human rights mechanisms.
Draft resolution II on the situation of human rights in Myanmar would have the Assembly express grave concern at ongoing systematic violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people of Myanmar, including discrimination and violations suffered by persons belonging to ethnic nationalities, the continuing use of torture, deaths in custody, political arrests, continuing imprisonment and other detentions, as well as the continuing recruitment and use of child soldiers, the use of landmines, forced labour, and denial of freedom of assembly, association, expression and movement.
It would also express grave concern at attacks by military forces on villages in Karen state and other ethnic states; continued severe restrictions on the National League for Democracy and other political parties, including the extension of the house arrest of the League’s General Secretary, Aung San Suu Kyi and her Deputy, Tin Oo; the absence of progress towards genuine democratic reform; the inability of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar and the former Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for Myanmar to visit the country for almost three years and the denial of freedom to human rights defenders.
It would have the Assembly strongly call upon the Government of Myanmar to end systematic human rights violations, military operations targeting civilians in ethnic areas, the recruitment and use of child soldiers, and forced displacements. It would further strongly call for the release of all political prisoners, immediately and unconditionally, the lifting of all restraints on peaceful political activity, and safe and unhindered access to the entire country to the United Nations and international humanitarian organizations. It would also call upon the Government of Myanmar to permit all political representatives and representatives of ethnic nationalities to participate fully in the political transitional process, to end the conflict with all ethnic nationalities in Myanmar and to restore the independence of the judiciary and due process of law.
Draft resolution III on the situation of human rights in Belarus would have the Assembly express deep concern about the failure of the Government of Belarus to cooperate fully with all the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council and the fact that it had again failed to meet its commitments to hold free and fair elections. It would also express deep concern about continued reports of harassment, arbitrary arrest and detentions of up to 1,000 persons, including opposition candidates, before and after the 19 March 2006 election, as well as the continued and expanding criminal prosecutions, lack of due process and closed political trials of leading opposition figures and human rights defenders.
Further to the draft, the Assembly would express deep concern about the continued harassment and detention of Belarusian journalists covering local opposition demonstrations and the fact that senior Government officials were implicated in the enforced disappearance and/or summary execution of three political opponents of the incumbent authorities in 1999 and a journalist in 2000 and in the continuing investigatory cover up. It would also express deep concern about persistent reports of harassment and prosecutions of individuals, as well as harassment and closure of non-governmental organizations, national minority organizations, independent media outlets, religious groups, opposition political parties and independent trade unions and youth and student organizations.
By the draft, the Assembly would urge the Government of Belarus to bring the electoral process and legislative framework into line with international standards and cease politically motivated prosecution, harassment and intimidation. It would also urge the Government to respect the rights of freedom of speech, assembly and association; to immediately release all political prisoners and other individuals detained for exercising those rights; to suspend from their duties officials implicated in any case of enforced disappearance, summary execution and torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and to investigate such cases and to bring the alleged perpetrators to justice.
The Assembly would also urge the Government of Belarus to investigate and hold accountable those responsible for the mistreatment and detention of domestic and foreign journalists, as well as civic and political activists, in connection with the 19 March 2006 election and post-election demonstrations, and to release immediately and unconditionally all political prisoners. Lastly, it would insist that the Government of Belarus cooperate fully with all the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council.
Draft resolution IV on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran would have the Assembly welcome the standing invitation extended by the Government of Iran to all human rights thematic monitoring mechanisms in April 2002 while regretting that no special procedure had been able to visit the country since July 2005. The Assembly would express serious concern, however, at the continuing harassment, intimidation and persecution of human rights defenders, non-governmental organizations, political opponents, religious dissenters, webloggers and union members, among others.
Further to the draft, the Assembly would also express serious concern at Iran’s persistent failure to comply fully with international standards in the administration of justice and, in particular, the absence of due process of law, the refusal to provide fair and public hearings and the denial of the right to counsel by detainees. It would also express serious concern at the continuing use of flogging, amputations and other forms of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, as well as the ongoing use of public executions, continuing violence and discrimination against women and girls,; and increasing discrimination and other human rights violations against ethnic and religious minorities.
By the draft, the Assembly would call upon the Government of Iran to ensure full respect for the rights to freedom of assembly, opinion and expression, and for the right to due process of law, to eliminate the use of torture and other cruel forms of punishment, to abolish public executions, and to eliminate discrimination and violence against women and girls, as well as discrimination based on religious, ethnic or linguistic grounds. The Assembly would encourage the thematic procedures of the Human Rights Council and various Special Rapporteurs to pursue their work regarding Iran and decide to continue its examination of the situation at its sixty-second session.
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/61/443/Add.4) states that no action was taken by the Third Committee under its sub-item on the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.
Report of the Human Rights Council
The Committee’s report on the report of the Human Rights Council (document A/61/448, and Corr.1 and Corr.2) contains two draft resolutions, two annexes and one draft decision.
The Assembly had decided to postpone until tomorrow action on draft resolution I on the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, by which it would adopt the treaty and open it for signature.
Draft resolution II on the working group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994 would have the Assembly decide to defer consideration and action on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to allow time for further consultations thereon, and to conclude its consideration of the Declaration before the end of its sixty-first session.
Included in the report were two annexes, one containing the text of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and the other containing the text of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The draft decision on the report of the Human Rights Council would have the Assembly take note of that report (document A/61/53).
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
The Committee’s report on crime prevention and criminal justice (document A/61/444) contains four draft resolutions and one draft decision.
Draft resolution I on international cooperation in the prevention, combating and elimination of kidnapping and in providing assistance to victims would have the Assembly vigorously condemn and reject once again kidnapping under any circumstances and for any purpose. It would further call upon Member States that had not yet done so to strengthen measures against money laundering and to cooperate in tracing, detecting, freezing and confiscating the proceeds of kidnapping, as well assist and protect victims of kidnapping and their families.
Draft resolution II on improving the coordination of efforts against trafficking in persons would have the Assembly underline the importance of bilateral, subregional and regional partnerships in counter-trafficking efforts and encourage their development. It would also urge Member States that had not yet done so to ratify or accede to relevant treaties, including the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and its Protocol; the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; and Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery.
Draft resolution III on strengthening the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme, in particular its technical cooperation capacity, would have the Assembly urge all States and competent regional economic integration organizations that had not done so to sign, ratify and accede to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (Palermo Convention) and its Protocols, the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the international conventions and protocols related to terrorism. Further, the Assembly would encourage States parties to fully support the Conference of the Parties to the Palermo Convention and to the Convention against Corruption. Further to the draft, the Assembly would invite all States to increase their support to the operational activities of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme.
Draft resolution IV on the United Nations African Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders would have the Assembly, noting that the Institute’s financial situation had greatly affected its capacity to deliver effective services to African Member States, urge the States members of the Institute to make every possible effort to meet their obligations to the Institute. It would also call upon all Member States and non-governmental organizations to continue supporting the Institute in the development of the requisite capacity and the implementation of its programmes and activities. It would further request the Secretary-General to intensify efforts to mobilize all relevant entities of the United Nations system to provide the necessary financial and technical support to the Institute and to continue his efforts to mobilize the financial resources necessary to maintain the Institute with the core professional staff required to enable it to function effectively.
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 report of the Secretary-General on strengthening international cooperation and technical assistance in promoting the implementation of the universal conventions and protocols related to terrorism within the framework of the activities of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (document A/61/178) and the note by the Secretary-General transmitting the reports of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime on its first and second sessions (document A/61/96).
International Drug Control
The Committee’s report on international drug control (document A/61/445) contains one draft resolution.
The draft on international cooperation against the world drug problem would have the Assembly, gravely concerned that the drug problem continued to constitute a serious threat to public health and safety and the well-being of humanity despite increased efforts to combat it, urge all States to implement the outcome of the twentieth special session of the Assembly on the world drug problem and to strengthen national efforts to counter the abuse of illicit drugs. It would further urge States to implement comprehensive policies and programmes to achieve a significant and measurable reduction of drug abuse by the time of the ten-year assessment of the implementation of the goals of that special session, scheduled for 2008.
Further, the Assembly would call on States to strengthen international cooperation among judicial and law enforcement authorities, in order to combat illicit drug trafficking, including by establishing and strengthening regional mechanisms. The Assembly would also urge all Governments to provide the fullest possible financial and political support to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime by widening its donor base and increasing voluntary contributions.
Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly
The Committee’s report on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly (document A/61/446) contains one draft decision.
The draft on the programme of work for the Third Committee for the sixty-second session of the General Assembly would have the Committee take up 11 agenda items during its sixty-second 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; and Follow-up to the International Year of Older Persons: Second World Assembly on Ageing. 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 and racial discrimination, 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 Office 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.
Programme Planning
The Committee’s report on programme planning (A/61/447) contains one draft decision and one annex.
The decision on programme planning would have the Assembly decide to approve programme 19 (Human Rights) of the proposed strategic framework for the period 2008-2009.
The annex contains the text of programme 19 (Human Rights) of the proposed strategic framework for the period 2008-2009.
Action on Third Committee Reports
ELENA MOLARONI ( San Marino), Rapporteur of the Third Committee, introduced the Committee’s reports and also read out technical corrections to several of the drafts under consideration today.
The Assembly first took up 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/61/436), which contained four draft resolutions.
Acting without a vote, the Assembly adopted draft resolutions on enlargement of the Executive Committee of the Programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; the new international humanitarian order; and assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa.
The representative of Venezuela, speaking on the resolution on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, reaffirmed Venezuela’s wish to implement concrete measures to provide constant and immediate attention to asylum seekers, without any social exclusion. Taking into account the massive flows of immigrants to Venezuela, he was pleased at the return home of more than 6 million refugees since 2002, as well as the decrease in refugee flows.
He expressed concern over the way the High Commissioner had managed voluntary repatriation. The current resolution weakened the obligations of States to deal with the profound causes of refugee flows. The High Commissioner should deal more effectively with refugees and internally displaced persons. States were obliged to cooperate with the High Commissioner in its functions. Clear violations of rights, particularly in armed conflict, had led to displacement. Since repatriation was the most beneficial solution, it was difficult for the Office to achieve that goal without dealing with the causes.
The Assembly then took up the Committee’s report on social development (document A/61/437), which contained three draft resolutions.
Without a vote, it adopted draft resolutions on the United Nations Literacy Decade: Education for All; implementation of the outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and of the twenty-fourth special session of the General Assembly; and the follow-up to the Second World Assembly on Ageing.
Next, the Assembly turned to the Committee’s report on advancement of women (document A/61/438), which contained three draft resolutions and one draft decision.
Without a vote, it adopted draft resolutions on the intensification of efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women; trafficking in women and girls; and 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.
Also without a vote, it adopted a draft decision on documents considered by the General Assembly in connection with the question of the advancement of women, by which it took note of the report of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (document A/61/38); the report of the Secretary-General on the improvement of the status of women in the United Nations system (A/61/318); and the note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report on the activities of the United Nations Development Fund for Women (document A/61/292).
The Assembly then turned to the report on promotion and protection of the rights of children (document A/61/439), which contained one draft resolution and one draft decision.
It first took up a draft resolution on the rights of the child.
The representative of Uruguay said that operative paragraphs 12(b) and 17 had changed since the Committee adopted the draft.
The Assembly then adopted the text of the draft, as it had been adopted by the Third Committee, not as it appeared in the current report, by a recorded vote of 185 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions (see annex I).
Next, it adopted the draft decision on the report of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, by which it took note of that report.
Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of Syria said his country had supported the text and was working on the ground to defend and promote the rights of children in line with the Convention and its protocols. Syria did not object to the substance of the resolution just adopted, but it would reserve the right to express its concern about paragraphs 8, 10, 11 and 28, which did not take its national laws and legislation into consideration.
The Assembly then took up the Committee’s report on indigenous issues (document A/61/440), which contained one draft decision. It adopted without a vote the draft decision on documents considered by the General Assembly in connection with indigenous issues, by which it took note of the note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the status of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations (document A/61/376) and the note of the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people (document A/61/490).
Next, the Assembly turned to the Committee’s report on the elimination of racism and racial discrimination (document A/61/441), which contained three draft resolutions.
The draft on the inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance was adopted by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 4 against (Federated States of Micronesia, Japan, Marshall Islands, United States), with 60 abstentions (see annex II).
Without a vote, the Assembly adopted the text on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
By a recorded vote of 179 in favour to 2 against (Israel, United States), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Canada, Marshall Islands, Palau) (see annex III), it adopted the draft on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.
The representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that, as a result of developments that had occurred since the Committee ended its session, it had become necessary for his delegation to make a statement on the draft resolution on “global efforts for the total elimination of racism”. The European Union attached great importance to combating all forms of racism and related intolerance, and, over the years, had set up a number of institutions and policies towards that goal.
The Union was also firmly committed to the implementation of the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. Because of the seriousness of the issue, the European Union had repeatedly stressed that follow-up be agreed by consensus and had to be carried out as a joint effort of the entire international community. Attempts to politicize the issue should be totally rejected, he added.
Less than three weeks ago, the Committee had adopted a draft resolution on the matter, sponsored by the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, with which the European Union had a number of serious concerns. Those concerns had been resolved during negotiations. The delegation had been able to vote in favour of the text on the understanding that, among other things, the review and implementation of the Durban Declaration would be conducted under the framework of the Assembly and the review process would not “reopen” the declaration and action plan.
He said the European Union had been “profoundly dismayed”, having participated in good faith negotiations, to later learn that two texts had been tabled before the current session of the Human Rights Council, which totally contradicted the letter and spirit of the Committee text, as well as the consensus reached in Geneva at the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action.
Such a breach of trust had cast doubt on the commitment of those States to pursue a consensus approach on that issue, he said. The European Union noted that once again, the most effective way forward was one in which all members of the international community could participate equally. In Geneva, the European Union had sought to engage the sponsors of the Council’s draft resolution in negotiations with the objective of bringing it into agreement with the resolution adopted by the Committee. To the European Union’s deep regret, its efforts had been met with “inexplicable indifference”.
He said the Union had been compelled to join those that voted against it. After drawing attention to the fact that operative paragraph 33 and operative paragraph 36 of the present draft contained the agreement that had been reached among Committee delegations, he called on the sponsors to take necessary steps in Geneva to restore the agreed course of action and ensure that the present resolution was properly implemented and the Human Rights Council and Third Committee continued to work towards the same goal.
The Assembly then turned to the Committee’s report on rights of people to self-determination (document A/61/442), which contained three draft resolutions.
Without a vote, the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination.
By a recorded vote of 127 in favour to 51 against, with 7 abstentions (Fiji, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Switzerland, Tonga, Vanuatu) (see annex IV), the Assembly adopted the text on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination.
It then adopted the draft on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination by a vote of 176 in favour to 5 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 5 abstentions (Australia, Canada, Central African Republic, Nauru, Vanuatu) (see annex V).
It then adopted a draft decision on the report of the Secretary-General on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, by which it took note of that report (document A/61/333).
The Assembly then turned to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/61/443), which contains a draft decision, by which the Assembly took note of a meeting report under item 67 and sub-items 67(a), 67(b), and 67(c).
The Assembly then turned to the addenda to the Committee’s reports on human rights questions.
First, it took up addendum I to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/61/443/Add.1), which contained one draft resolution on implementation of human rights instruments.
Without a vote, it adopted the draft resolution on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Next, the Assembly took up addendum 2 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/61/443/Add.2), which contained 20 draft resolutions on human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
First, a representative of the Secretariat read out an oral statement of programme budgetary implications of draft resolution VI on the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The representative of Belarus, speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, thanked those that had voted in the Committee in favour of the text on “promotion of equitable and mutually respectful dialogue on human rights”, and those that had rejected the draft resolution on “the situation of human rights in Belarus” in the Third Committee. Belarus believed that the United Nations should not be used as a platform to put political pressure on sovereign States under the pretext of human rights violations, but unfortunately, that was exactly what was happening. Belarus believed in respectful dialogue on human rights. It also believed that the Human Rights Council would become a highly authoritative body that was able to ensure constructive cooperation on human rights under the aegis of the United Nations. She hoped that the Assembly would support the draft on “promotion of equitable and mutually respectful dialogue on human rights”.
By a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 64 abstentions (see annex VI), the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on the human rights situation arising from the recent Israeli military operations in Lebanon (L.13).
It then took up the draft resolution on missing persons (L.19).
The representative of Azerbaijan said that her delegation was a main sponsor of the text and wished to draw the Assembly’s attention to the fact that one of the final oral revisions to it had not made the final printing. She said that the term “existing laws and practice” had been replaced by “international, national and legal” in operative paragraph 6.
The Assembly then approved the draft, as orally revised, without a vote.
By a recorded vote of 130 in favour to 54 against, with 3 abstentions ( Brazil, Chile, Singapore) (see annex VII), the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on globalization and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights (L.20).
Draft resolutions on human rights and extreme poverty (L.21/Rev.1) and the Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa (L.22) were adopted without a vote.
By a recorded vote of 118 in favour to 7 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, United States), with 55 abstentions (see annex VIII), the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (L.23).
The draft resolution on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order (L.24) was adopted by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 56 against, with 4 abstentions (Argentina, Armenia, Mexico, Peru) (see annex IX).
The draft resolution on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief (L.25) was adopted without a vote.
By a recorded vote of 122 in favour to 4 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United Sates), with 58 abstentions (see annex X), the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and the vital importance of family reunification (L.26).
The draft resolution on the right to food (L.27) was adopted by a recorded vote of 185 in favour to 1 against ( United States), with no abstentions (see annex XI).
The draft resolution on combating defamation of religions (L.28) was adopted by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 54 against, with 18 abstentions (see annex XII).
The Assembly then adopted the draft resolution on the protection of migrants (L.29/Rev.1) without a vote.
By a recorded vote of 86 in favour to 64 against, with 26 abstentions (see annex XIII), the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on the promotion of equitable and mutually respectful dialogue on human rights (L.31/Rev.1).
The draft resolutions on regional arrangements for the promotion and protection of human rights (L.32/Rev.1) and the enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights (L.33) were adopted without a vote.
By a recorded vote of 134 in favour to 53 against, with no abstentions (see annex XIV), the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on the right to development (L.34).
By a recorded vote of 131 in favour to 54 against, with no abstentions (see annex XV), the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (L.35).
The draft resolutions on protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (L.36/Rev.1) and hostage-taking (L.44) were adopted without a vote.
Next, the Assembly turned to the draft resolution on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (L.45/Rev.1).
By a recorded vote of 104 in favour to 31 against, with 29 abstentions (see annex XVI), it adopted operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution, which calls on States utilizing the death penalty to comply with relevant human rights obligations.
By a recorded vote of 105 in favour to 30 against, with 30 abstentions (see annex XVII), it adopted operative paragraph 5(b) of the text, which calls for protection by States of the right to life of all persons.
The draft resolution as a whole was adopted, as amended, by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to none against, with 43 abstentions (see annex XVIII).
Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, Syria’s representative said that by mistake, his delegation had voted in favour of operative paragraph 4 on extrajudicial and summary executions. On the text on “elimination of all forms of religious intolerance”, his delegation rejected all forms of extremism and discrimination based on religion or faith. His delegation had joined the consensus and believed in the need to promote dialogue on mutual respect and understanding. Syria also believed that there was no cause to associate certain religions with terrorism. His delegation called on the United Nations to play a pioneering role in the fight against extremism. But, he would draw the attention of the Assembly to the fact that paragraph 4 (a) contained elements that did not correspond to the teachings of the Islamic faith.
The representative of the United States said his delegation had voted no but had intended to vote yes on operative paragraphs 4 and 5(b) in the text on “extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions”.
El Salvador’s representative said that her delegation had voted in favour of operative paragraph 4 but had meant to vote against it.
The representative of Lao People’s Democratic Republic said his delegation had not participated in the vote on the text on “summary executions”.
Jamaica’s representative said that her delegation’s vote should have been “against” operative paragraph 4.
The representative of Grenada said that her delegation had intended to vote in favour of the text on “promotion of equitable and mutual respectful dialogue on human rights”.
The representative of Niger said his delegation should have voted in favour of operative paragraph 4 of the text on “extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions”.
The representative of Brunei said his delegation meant to vote against the operative paragraphs.
Next, the Assembly took up addendum 3 to the Committee’s report on the promotion and protection of human rights (document A/61/443/Add.3), which contained four draft resolutions on human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives.
The Assembly decided to postpone action on a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar until budgetary implications prepared by the Fifth Committee were available.
The representative of Belarus said that, in the Third Committee, a representative of the United States had rightly noted that there should be substantial reason to initiate a country-specific draft resolution. There were no such reasons to initiate such a text on the situation in Belarus, which was a party to all universal human rights instruments and actively participated in international cooperation on the protection and promotion of human rights.
She said that Belarus was undergoing significant changes. Its civil society was growing, and it had low unemployment. The text included unfounded accusations put forward by the draft’s sponsors -– the United States and United Kingdom -– and those trying to change world opinion against Belarus and which would only increase mistrust. Belarus would consider votes cast in favour of the text as “unfriendly acts of gross and illegitimate interference into [its] internal affairs”. She said that the European Union and the United States Congress had tried to “squeeze” through a baseless text on Belarus, but it was clear that there was no one model for development. Ignoring Belarus’ successes misled the international community. Belarus would call on the Assembly to vote against the resolution.
The Assembly then approved the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by a recorded vote of 99 in favour to 21 against, with 56 abstentions (see annex XIX).
The Assembly then took up the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Belarus (L.40).
The representative of the Russian Federation requested, under rule 74 of the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure that no action be taken on the draft because there were no problems in Belarus that gave cause for a substantive discussion. Russia had proposed the motion based on its principled position on the need to de-politicize the human rights mechanisms of the United Nations. The text on Belarus was an extremely politicized measure that had nothing to do with human rights. Those who had initiated the text, led by the United States, tried to use the rostrum of any United Nations body to push through measures against countries that did not agree with their wishes.
Speaking in favour of the motion, China’s representative said his delegation believed that countries should promote human rights through mutually respectful dialogue. China was against country-specific resolutions, which would only lead to mistrust. Such texts would, in no way, contribute to improving any human rights situation in any country.
Cuba’s representative also supported the motion and said the draft, originally submitted by the United States, had not been tabled in the interest of human rights. It was really about selectivity. The Human Rights Council had been created to put an end to such ploys. The United States had no right to table initiatives like this one, he said, calling on all delegations to support the “motion for no action”.
Speaking against the procedural no action motion that had been requested, the representative of the United States said that the spirit of “this deliberative institution” called for resolutions to be considered on their merits. It undermined the spirit of the United Nations to move to prevent open discussions with procedural motions. He reminded the Assembly that the Third Committee, the only universal body responsible for human rights issues, had thoroughly debated the matter and soundly defeated a similar no action motion. The use of such a motion in the plenary would undermine the authority of the only universal body of the United Nations responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights. Such a motion amounted to a complete disregard for the Third Committee and the Organization’s deliberative process.
The representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that there should be no question about the General Assembly’s mandate to look into human rights situations to promote and encourage respect for fundamental rights. The call for a motion now to adjourn debate represented an attempt to prevent the consideration of a resolution on procedural grounds. Such a motion aimed at denying Member States their sovereign right to bring before the Assembly any concern that they themselves deemed to merit attention. The European Union strongly urged delegations to vote against the motion to adjourn debate.
The Assembly rejected the motion of no action by a recorded vote of 67 in favour to 79 against, with 32 abstentions (see annex XX).
It then adopted the draft by a recorded vote of 72 in favour to 32 against, with 69 abstentions (see annex XXI).
Next, the Assembly turned to the draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (L.41).
The representative of Iran said that he wished to invoke rule 74 of the Assembly’s rules of procedure to call for no action on the present draft. The resolution on “promotion of equitable and mutually respectful dialogue on human rights”, just adopted by the Assembly, had stressed the need to avoid politically motivated and biased resolutions on human rights. Last September in Havana, the Non-Aligned Movement’s Heads of State and Government had agreed that exploitation of human rights for political purposes, including selective targeting of individual countries for extraneous considerations, should be prohibited. The Organization of Islamic Conference had also adopted a similar platform. In view of widespread opposition to country-specific resolutions, he wished to call for no action. By voting in favour of that motion, delegates would remove a serious obstacle to dialogue and enable all to cooperate further for the promotion and protection of human rights.
The representative of Pakistan said that he supported the call for a motion of no action and called on all other delegations to also do so.
The representative of Zimbabwe said that he supported the motion for no action. Such resolutions were a departure from a human rights approach agreed to in Assembly resolution A/60/251.
The representative of Canada, speaking against the “no motion” action, said his delegation very much regretted the introduction of such a measure, which was an extraordinary move to undermine the Assembly’s work. He reminded the Assembly that the very same resolution had been adopted in the Third Committee after a similar no action had been defeated. Canada believed that any human rights resolution should be considered on its merits. Such procedural motions assumed that certain countries were above consideration by the Assembly. He reminded the Assembly that, for its part, Canada had not put forward a “no action” motion when Iran had introduced a draft resolution in the Committee on “the human fights of indigenous people in Canada”, even though Canada believed that text would not hold up on its merits. The introduction of the no action motion was an attempt to keep the Assembly from acting on the work of the Third Committee.
The representative of Finland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the Assembly had passed resolutions expressing concern about such human rights situations for decades. The motion was an attempt to stifle debate and amounted to a “vote of no confidence” in the Third Committee. The European Union believed that no country -– large or small -– could be regarded as being beyond or above consideration by the international human rights forums.
The Assembly rejected a motion of no action by a recorded vote of 75 in favour to 81 against, with 24 abstentions (see annex XXII).
It then adopted the draft by a recorded vote of 72 in favour to 50 against, with 55 abstentions (see annex XXIII).
Speaking in explanation of vote, the representative of Japan said that he wished to thank all countries that had supported the resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. He strongly urged that country to take the resolution’s adoption seriously and fully cooperate with the United Nations system and with the Special Rapporteur, and respond to enquiries into the abductions matter, admit that its actions violated human rights, and allow those abducted to return to Japan without delay, conduct a thorough investigation and surrender the perpetrators responsible for the abductions.
Statements on Death Penalty
The representative of Finland said that the right to life had been affirmed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, among others. The former Commission on Human Rights had, over the years, adopted several resolutions on the question of the death penalty, expressing its deep concern at the practice and calling on States to abolish it. Finland also firmly believed that the abolition of the death penalty contributed to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights. Indeed, the death penalty added no value in terms of deterrence. She said Finland and the States that had supported her statement would commit themselves to the abolition of the death penalty and, where it still existed, to call for its use to be progressively restricted.
She spoke on behalf of Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Federated States of Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Uruguay, Vanuatu and Venezuela.
Speaking after action, Singapore’s representative said that it was unfortunate at this point to be exchanging words on the death penalty. The Committee had made it almost to the end of its work without having done so, but apparently old habits died hard. Some delegations repeatedly tried to impose their views on the death penalty on all States, but, in truth, there was no consensus on the matter. And, for a large number of countries, the death penalty was a criminal justice issue. The practice was imposed as a deterrent to criminal activity.
He said that every country had the sovereign right to decide on its own position on the matter, as well as to elaborate its own criminal and penal legislation. Each society had the right to decide what was best for its own people. Tolerance for diversity could not be restricted only to arguments on which one agreed, he said, adding that a respect for human rights must include the right to determine one’s own.
Other Statements
The representative of Colombia said his country, which had suffered from kidnapping, would express its solidarity to the victims and families of those affected by kidnapping. Colombia would call for the release of all persons kidnapped.
The representative of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, speaking on the text concerning human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said his delegation believed that all promotion of human rights should be based on country realities. The contents of the draft were not in line with that principle and his delegation had voted against it. He expressed concern about the issue of abductions, however, and hoped that such issues would be resolved in a constructive and peaceful manner.
The representative of Ukraine, speaking on the situation in Belarus, said that his country deemed the action that could isolate Belarus to be counterproductive. Ukraine also believed that human rights discussions on the situation in Belarus should take place in international mechanisms such as the Human Rights Council, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and other human rights bodies.
The representative of Botswana, speaking on the text on the situation of human rights in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said his delegation had abstained in the vote, but had paragraph 1 (b) (IV) –- on the “unresolved question of international concern relating to the abduction of foreigners in the form of enforced disappearances…” -- been put to the vote, Botswana would have voted in favour of that portion of the text.
Pakistan’s representative said that his delegation had intended to abstain in the vote on the “human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said his delegation had taken the floor due to the “lack of real facts” in the statement made by the Japanese delegation. That delegation had mentioned that the vote demonstrated that the majority of United Nations Member States were in favour of the text on the human rights situation in his country. But, if that representative had the “good sense to calculate” the figures, he would see that a majority of States did not support it.
“The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea held a deep-seated grudge against Japan that had to be paid in blood”, he said. That grudge was based, among other things, on the tragedy that had befallen some 8.4 million Koreans kidnapped during World War II. Japan had also forced sexual slavery on some 200,000 women and girls, and even after half a century, nothing was known about the fate of those victims. Japan had neither apologized nor offered compensation for its grave human rights crimes of the past. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea kept a close eye on the machinations of Japan and its ally the United States, he said, adding that his country was moving towards “full preparedness” to counter any threats coming from Japan. He called on Japan to respect the Pyongyang Declaration, which had long ago set forth bilateral relations between the two countries.
The representative of Uganda said his delegation had observed, today, a disproportionate number of delegations voting in a manner that they had not intended. He urged that the matter be looked into with a view to discovering the cause.
Statement in Right of Reply
Speaking in exercise of right of reply, the representative of Belarus said that she deeply regretted the adoption of the resolution on the human rights situation in her country, which was nothing more than the sponsors’ imposition on the international community of a negative assessment of Belarus’ internal policy. The resolution had nothing to do with human rights. It was based on levelling humiliating, unfounded accusations. The process for its adoption was based on the unwillingness and lack of interest to hear her country’s side.
She said that the allegations were not new. As part of the aggressive propaganda campaign to discredit the people of Belarus, its opponents were trying to drag in the esteemed General Assembly. The resolution did not create for Belarus any political or other kind of commitments, according to how she saw the document. The results of the vote showed that the opinion of the document’s authors did not reflect the position of the international community. The majority of Member States did not vote for the resolution. They did not believe the spurious obligations or sign on to unfounded or inappropriate demands contained in the resolution. Its adoption would, in no way, have a negative impact on Belarus’ cooperation with United Nations human rights bodies. She thanked those that shared her view for their support in opposing the adoption of the destructive document aimed against her country.
In other business, the Assembly then decided to extend the work of the Fifth Committee until Thursday, 21 December.
ANNEX I
Vote on Rights of Child
The draft resolution on the rights of the child (document A/61/439) was adopted by a recorded vote of 185 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, 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, 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, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, 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, 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: None.
Absent: Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles.
ANNEX II
Vote on Inadmissibility of Racist Practices
Draft resolution I on the inadmissibility of practices fuelling contemporary forms of racism (document A/61/441) was adopted by a recorded vote of 121 in favour to 4 against, with 60 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, 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, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 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, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Japan, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), United States.
Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.
Absent: Afghanistan, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Tonga.
ANNEX III
Vote on Efforts to Eliminate Racism
Draft resolution III on global efforts to eliminate racism (document A/61/441) was adopted by a recorded vote of 179 in favour to 2 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, 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, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 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, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Israel, United States.
Abstain: Australia, Canada, Marshall Islands, Palau.
Absent: Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Uganda.
ANNEX IV
Vote on Use of Mercenaries
Draft resolution II on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights (document A/61/442) was adopted by a recorded vote of 127 in favour to 51 against, with 7 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, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, 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, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, 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, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, 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: Fiji, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Switzerland, Tonga, Vanuatu.
Absent: Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Turkmenistan.
ANNEX V
Vote on Palestinian Self-Determination
Draft resolution III on the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination (document A/61/442) was adopted by a recorded vote of 176 in favour to 5 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, 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 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, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United States.
Abstain: Australia, Canada, Central African Republic, Nauru, Vanuatu.
Absent: Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Tonga.
ANNEX VI
Vote on Human Rights -– Israel-Lebanon
Draft resolution I on the human rights situation arising from Israeli military operations in Lebanon (document A/61/443/ADD.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 112 in favour to 7 against, with 64 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, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, 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, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United States.
Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Angola, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Vanuatu.
Absent: Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Kiribati, Nauru, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Uganda.
ANNEX VII
Vote on Globalization’s Impact on Human Rights
Draft resolution III on globalization and its impact on human rights (document A/61/443/ADD.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 130 in favour to 54 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, 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, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, 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, 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, Singapore.
Absent: Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles.
ANNEX VIII
Vote on Staffing Composition of Human Rights Office
Draft resolution IV on the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (document A/61/443/ADD.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 118 in favour to 7 against, with 55 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, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, 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, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), United States.
Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.
Absent: Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Jamaica, Kiribati, Mongolia, Palau, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Tonga, Turkmenistan.
ANNEX IX
Vote on Democratic International Order
Draft resolution VII on the promotion of a democratic, equitable international order (document A/61/443/ADD.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 124 in favour to 56 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, 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, 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, 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, Chile, 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, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstain: Argentina, Armenia, Mexico, Peru.
Absent: Afghanistan, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Tonga.
ANNEX X
Vote on Freedom of Travel, Family Reunification
Draft resolution IX on respect for the right to universal freedom of travel and importance of family reunification (document A/61/443/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 122 in favour to 4 against, with 58 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, 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, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, United States.
Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom.
Absent: Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Tonga, Turkmenistan.
ANNEX XI
Vote on Right to Food
Draft resolution X on the right to food (document A/61/443/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 185 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, 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, 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, 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, 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: None.
Absent: Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles.
ANNEX XII
Vote on Defamation of Religions
Draft resolution XI on combating the defamation of religions (document A/61/443/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 54 against, with 18 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chile, China, 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, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, 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, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, 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: Armenia, Bolivia, Botswana, Cape Verde, Colombia, Fiji, Haiti, India, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Nepal, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.
Absent: Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Mongolia, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Tonga, Uganda.
ANNEX XIII
Vote on Equitable Dialogue on Human Rights
Draft resolution XIII on the promotion of equitable and mutually respectful dialogue on human rights (document A/61/443/ADD.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 86 in favour to 64 against, with 26 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay.
Abstain: Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil, Burundi, Costa Rica, Djibouti, Dominica, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guyana, Jamaica, Jordan, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.
Absent: Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Iraq, Kiribati, Mongolia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan.
ANNEX XIV
Vote on Right to Development
Draft resolution XVI on the right to development (document A/61/443/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 134 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, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, 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, 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 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: Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles.
ANNEX XV
Vote on Human Rights and Coercion
Draft resolution XVII on human rights and unilateral coercive measures (document A/61/443/ADD.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 131 in favour to 54 against, with no abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, 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, Nauru, 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, 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, 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: Afghanistan, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Uganda.
ANNEX XVI
Vote on Extrajudicial Executions
Operative paragraph 4, on the human rights obligations of States maintaining the death penalty, of the draft resolution on extrajudicial executions (document A/61/443/ADD.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 104 in favour to 31 against, with 29 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela.
Against: Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, China, Dominica, Egypt, El Salvador, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
Abstain: Belarus, Congo, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, India, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Thailand, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Zambia.
Absent: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Nauru, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.
ANNEX XVII
Vote on Extrajudicial Executions
Operative paragraph 5(b), on the protection of the right to life, in draft resolution XX on extrajudicial executions (document A/61/443/ADD.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 105 in favour to 30 against, with 30 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela.
Against: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, United States, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
Abstain: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Burundi, Congo, Dominica, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Liberia, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia.
Absent: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Monaco, Myanmar, Nauru, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Samoa, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.
ANNEX XVIII
Vote on Extrajudicial Executions
Draft resolution XX on extrajudicial executions, as a whole, (document A/61/443/Add.2) was adopted by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to none against, with 43 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: None.
Abstain: Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Myanmar, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Viet Nam, Yemen.
Absent: Azerbaijan, Chad, Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nauru, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Tonga, Turkmenistan.
ANNEX XIX
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/61/443/Add.3) was adopted by a recorded vote of 99 in favour to 21 against, with 56 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Comoros, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, 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, Congo, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Sudan, Syria, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.
Abstain: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Qatar, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zambia.
Absent: Armenia, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Kiribati, Mongolia, Oman, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Tajikistan, Tunisia.
ANNEX XX
Vote on Human Rights in Belarus
The no-action motion concerning draft resolution III on the human rights situation in Belarus (document A/61/443/Add.3) was not adopted by a recorded vote of 79 against to 67 in favour, with 32 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu.
Abstain: Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Cape Verde, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Djibouti, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda.
Absent: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Grenada, Iraq, Kiribati, Nauru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles.
ANNEX XXI
Vote on Human Rights in Belarus
Draft resolution III on the situation of human rights in Belarus (document A/61/443/Add.3) was adopted by a recorded vote of 72 in favour to 32 against, with 69 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, 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, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.
Abstain: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Ecuador, Eritrea, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia.
Absent: Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Cambodia, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Iraq, Kiribati, Maldives, Nauru, Oman, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Tunisia.
ANNEX XXII
Vote on Human Rights in Iran
The no-action motion concerning draft resolution IV on the situation of human rights in Iran (document A/61/443/ADD.3) was not adopted by a recorded vote of 81 against to 75 in favour, with 24 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, China, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu.
Abstain: Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Cape Verde, Colombia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda.
Absent: Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Iraq, Jordan, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, Turkey.
ANNEX XXIII
Vote on Human Rights in Iran
Draft resolution IV on the human rights situation in Iran (document A/61/443/ADD.3) was adopted by a recorded vote of 72 in favour to 50 against, with 55 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Palau, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu.
Against: Afghanistan, Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brunei Darussalam, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, 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, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Swaziland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Zambia.
Absent: Cambodia, Chad, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Iraq, Jordan, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Timor-Leste, Turkey.
[+/-] show/hide this post
