UN Human Rights Treaties

United Nations A/C.3/59/SR.42
General Assembly
Fifty-ninth session
Official Records
Distr.: General
10 December 2004
English
Original: French
This record is subject to correction. Corrections should be sent under the signature of a member
of the delegation concerned within one week of the date of publication to the Chief of the
Official Records Editing Section, room DC2-750, 2 United Nations Plaza, and incorporated in a
copy of the record.
Corrections will be issued after the end of the session, in a separate corrigendum for each
Committee.
04-60245 (E)
*0460245*
7
Third Committee
Summary record of the 42nd meeting
Held at Headquarters, New York, on Thursday, 11 November 2004, at 2.30 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Kuchinsky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Ukraine)
Contents
Agenda item 109: Programme planning (continued)
Agenda item 94 (a): Social development including questions relating to the world
social situation and to youth, ageing, disabled persons and the family (continued)
Agenda item 98: Advancement of women (continued)
Agenda item 105: Human rights questions (continued)
(b) Human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the
effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms (continued)
(c) Human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives
(continued)

A/C.3/59/SR.42
The meeting was called to order at 4.20 p.m.
Agenda item 109: Programme planning (continued)
1. The Chairman recalled that, in his letter of
4 October 2004 (A/C.3/59/1/Add.1), the President of
the General Assembly had informed him that
programme 19 of the proposed strategic framework for
the period 2006–2007 had been allocated to the Third
Committee for review and action. The Chairman took it
that the members of the Committee wished to adopt a
draft decision, the text of which read as follows:
"Pursuant to the decision taken by the General
Assembly at the 18th plenary meeting of the
59th session, held on 4 October 2004, to allocate the
issue of programme planning (agenda item 109)
(programme 19 of the proposed strategic framework
for the period 2006–2007) to the Third Committee for
review and action and for subsequent submission to
the Fifth Committee for its consideration in the
context of the overall strategic framework for the
period 2006–2007, the Third Committee took note of
programme 19 (Human rights), contained in document
A/59/6 (Prog. 19) and decided to transmit it to the Fifth
Committee, through the President of the General
Assembly, for its consideration."
2. Mr. Cumberbach Miguén (Cuba) considered
that, by virtue of the decision of the General Assembly,
decisions on the substance of the recommendations
presented under programme 19 of the proposed
strategic framework for the period 2006–2007,
contained in the report of the Committee for
Programme and Coordination (CPC) on the work of its
forty-fourth session (A/59/16), came within the
competence of the Third – not the Fifth – Committee.
He stressed that several initial formulations submitted
to the CPC for programme 19 should be reviewed in
depth, because the activities carried out at the level of
the United Nations system in relation to human rights
did not produce the expected results. For instance, it
was necessary to integrate the right to development
into the work programmes of all relevant agencies of
the United Nations system. The speaker recalled that
one regional group was still over-represented in the
staff of the Secretariat of the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR) and that it was appropriate to correct that
situation. At the forty-fourth session of the CPC, the
Cuban delegation had made a number of

recommendations, which it would further uphold, if
necessary, before the Fifth Committee.
3. Ms. Garcia-Matos (Venezuela) concurred with
the Cuban representative that, although it was up to the
Third Committee to review issues of substance, her
delegation would nevertheless join the consensus in
favour of the proposal.
4. The Chairman said that those observations
would be included in the report of the Third
Committee.
5. The draft decision was adopted by consensus.
6. Mr. Begg (New Zealand), explaining his
delegation's position, said that he also considered that
the draft programme, which essentially concerned
human rights standards and not budget or
administrative issues, fell within the scope of the Third
Committee and regretted that the Committee had
preferred to surrender its responsibilities to the Fifth
Committee while the other Main Committees had
without difficulty adopted their draft programmes by
consensus.
7. Ms. Taracena Secaira (Guatemala) and
Mr. Alday (Mexico) supported the preceding
statements, even though they had not wished to oppose
the consensus.
8. Ms. Ballestrero (Costa Rica) expressed concern
on behalf of his delegation, which had joined the
consensus, and stressed that the Third Committee
should not surrender its responsibilities and that it was
the only Committee responsible for considering the
substance of issues related to human rights.
Agenda item 94 (a): Social development, including
questions relating to the world social situation and to
youth, ageing, disabled persons and the family
(continued)
9. Ms. Groux (Vice-Chairperson) (Switzerland)
said that after constructive informal consultations on
the Comprehensive and Integral International
Convention on Protection and Promotion of the Rights
and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities, the
delegations, wishing to preserve the consistency and
relevance of the work of the ad hoc committee
responsible for drafting the Convention, had agreed on
an oral decision, according to which the Committee
would decide to postpone the consideration of the issue
until the sixty-first session of the General Assembly at

A/C.3/59/SR.42
the latest and would ask the Special Rapporteur on
Disability of the Commission for Social Development
to take into account, in carrying out his mandate, the
ideas outlined in the suggested supplement to the
Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities
for Persons with Disabilities (E/CN.5/2002/4).
10. The draft decision, as orally introduced, was
adopted.
Agenda item 98: Advancement of women (continued)
(A/C.3/59/L.24)
Draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.24: Improvement of the
status of women in the United Nations system
11. The Chairman said that the draft resolution had
no programme budget implications and announced that
the following countries had become sponsors: Belarus,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Central
African Republic, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador,
Guatemala, Israel, Liechtenstein, Mongolia, Saint
Lucia, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Slovakia, Timor-
Leste, Tunisia, Turkey and Uruguay.
12. Mr. Choi (Australia) recalled that the goal – set
during the Fourth World Conference on Women – of
achieving gender equality in the United Nations system
by 2000 was far from being met. The main sponsors of
the draft resolution – Australia, Canada and New
Zealand – had decided to restructure the text and give
it a biennial character, providing clear and simple
guidelines as part of the effort to revitalize the United
Nations. They encouraged the other delegations to do
the same when introducing draft resolutions before the
Third Committee. The speaker announced the
following oral revisions: in paragraph 1, the words
"and the recommendations described therein" should
be deleted; in paragraph 2 (b), the word "suitable"
should be replaced with the words "possessing the
necessary qualifications", and the words "formulating
recruitment strategies in the main areas of activity"
should be inserted after the words "recruitment sources
for women"; paragraph 2 (c) should read: "The
increased percentage of women appointed for one or
more years at senior and policy-making levels"; a new
paragraph 3 (b) should be added, worded as follows:
"Notes with concern that women are still not
represented at the highest decision-making level,
particularly Under-Secretary-General posts"; the end of
paragraph 5, after "the Charter of the United Nations",
should be deleted; a new paragraph, 5 (b), should be

added, worded as follows: "Stresses also the need to
remedy the continuing lack of representation or underrepresentation
of women from certain countries – in
particular from developing countries, including the
least developed countries and the small island
developing States, from countries with economies in
transition and from Member States that are not
represented or are largely under-represented"; a further
new paragraph, 5 (c), should be added, worded as
follows: "Reaffirms the need to continue to develop
innovative methods of recruitment in order to find and
attract, in particular, women candidates born or
residing in developing countries, countries with
economies in transition and the other Member States
that are not represented or are under-represented in the
Secretariat, and possessing the qualifications required
in the areas in which women are under-represented"; in
paragraph 7, the expression ", especially sexual
harassment," should be inserted after the word
"harassment"; and, lastly, in the first line of
paragraph 11, the words "a verbal" should be replaced
with the words "an oral".
13. The representative of Australia then announced
that the following countries had become sponsors of
the project: Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda,
Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas,
Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin,
Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Cyprus,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic People's
Republic of Korea, Denmark, Dominican Republic,
Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, India, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Madagascar, Malaysia, Malawi, Malta, Marshall
Islands, Mexico, Myanmar, Netherlands, Nicaragua,
Niger, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines,
Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic
of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra
Leone, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden,
Switzerland, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan,
Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, United States of America and
Venezuela.
14. Mr. Khane (Secretary of the Committee)
announced that the following countries had
also become sponsors: Albania, Bolivia, Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Botswana, Burundi, Cape Verde, Congo,
Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo,

A/C.3/59/SR.42
Djibouti, Dominica, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea,
Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Jamaica,
Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, Mauritius, Mauritania,
Micronesia (Federated States of), Mozambique,
Namibia, Rwanda, South Africa, Sudan, Uganda,
United Republic of Tanzania, Vietnam, Zambia and
Zimbabwe.
15. Ms. Naz (Bangladesh) called attention to a
typographical error appearing in the English version of
the draft: in paragraphs 5 (b) and 5 (c), the expression
"less developed countries" should be corrected to read
"least developed countries".
16. Draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.24, as orally revised,
was adopted without a vote.
Agenda item 105 (b): Human rights questions,
including alternative approaches for improving
the effective enjoyment of human rights and
fundamental freedoms (continued) (A/C.3/59/L.34 and
A/C.3/59/L.52)
Draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.34: Subregional Centre for
Human Rights and Democracy in Central Africa
17. Mr. Khane (Secretary of the Committee) read out
the programme budget implications of the draft
resolution. He recalled that, in the appropriations made
by the General Assembly for the 2004–2005 biennium
under section 24, the amount of US$56,794,500 had
been allocated to the Sub-regional Centre for Human
Rights and Democracy in Central Africa. Accordingly,
the adoption of draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.34 did not
necessitate any additional appropriation, since the
estimated outlay was within the limits of available
resources. He also drew attention to the provisions of
part B, section VI of General Assembly resolution
45/248.
18. The Chairman announced that Algeria had also
become a sponsor of the draft resolution.
19. Ms. Mahouve (Cameroon), speaking on behalf of
the States members of the Economic Community of
Central African States (ECCAS), announced that
Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, France, Germany, Italy,
Morocco and the United States of America had become
sponsors of the draft resolution and thanked those
countries for their support. She added that the countries
of Central Africa hoped that, in accordance with past
practice, the draft resolution would be adopted by
consensus.

20. Mr. Khane (Secretary of the Committee)
announced that Belgium, Côte d'Ivoire, Gambia,
Ghana, Mali, South Africa, Togo and Tunisia had
become sponsors of the draft resolution.
21. Draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.34 was adopted
without a vote.
Draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.52: Human rights and
terrorism
22. The Chairman said that the draft resolution had
no programme budget implications and announced that
the following countries had become sponsors:
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Eritrea,
Kyrgyzstan, Peru, Turkey and Ukraine.
23. Mr. Lukyantsev (Russian Federation) announced
that Sudan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan had become
sponsors of the draft resolution and said that his
delegation hoped that it would receive the broadest
possible support. He explained that, by voting in
favour of the draft resolution, the States would not only
condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations
but would also express their solidarity with its victims
and their families.
24. Mr. Khane (Secretary of the Committee)
announced that Congo and Sri Lanka had also become
sponsors of the draft resolution.
25. Ms. Groux (Switzerland) called attention to the
fact that his country was not a sponsor of the draft
resolution.
26. The Chairman said that a recorded vote had
been requested.
27. Mr. Lukyantsev (Russian Federation) asked the
Chairman which countries had requested the recorded
vote.
28. The Chairman said that the recorded vote had
been requested by Australia, the Netherlands on behalf
of the European Union, and the United States of
America.
29. Mr. Ceinos-Cox (United States of America),
speaking in explanation of vote before the voting,
recalled that a great many United States citizens had
been targeted by terrorists in various countries and,
referring to the horrible day of 11 September 2001,
added that other countries – including, recently, the
Russian Federation – and their nationals had suffered
from cruel acts of terrorism. The United States,

A/C.3/59/SR.42
although committed to combating the scourge of
terrorism – and that included cooperating with the
appropriate mechanisms set up by the international
community – was obliged to vote against the draft
resolution, because it still contained language
unacceptable to the United States and other countries.
The United States had sought even in the current year a
formulation that would make a consensus possible, but
its proposals had not been taken into consideration.
30. A recorded vote was taken on draft resolution
A/C.3/59/L.52.
In favour:
Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan,
Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados,
Belarus, Belize, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana,
Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi,
Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, China,
Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire,
Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti,
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Ecuador,
El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Grenada,
Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana,
India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of),
Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan,
Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic,
Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar,
Malaysia, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius,
Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco,
Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal,
Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Omar, Pakistan,
Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru,
Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Moldova, Russian
Federation, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent
and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra
Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sudan,
Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-
Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia,
Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates,
United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay,
Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia,
Zimbabwe.
Against:
Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech
Republic, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Ireland, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan,
Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,

Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated
States of), Monaco, Norway, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea,
Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, United States of America.
Abstaining:
Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, Chile, Syrian Arab
Republic.
31. Draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.52 was adopted by
109 votes to 49, with 5 abstentions.
32. Mr. Rehren (Chile) said that his country had
abstained from voting. Chile emphatically condemned
terrorism, which undermined human dignity and the
rule of law. Still, perpetrators of terrorist acts should be
arrested and prosecuted in conformity with the law and
the international treaties on human rights in order to
safeguard the rule of law, fundamental freedoms and
democratic values. In regard to the draft resolution, the
Chilean delegation applauded the reference to the
possible establishment of a voluntary fund for victims
of terrorism and to ways and means to rehabilitate and
reintegrate them in society; but given the content of the
eighteenth preambular paragraph, it had decided to
abstain, as in the past. It considered that terrorist acts
constituted a violation of human rights only when they
resulted from the deliberate policy of a State or its
agents and that it was not possible to place terrorist
groups on an equal footing with States in terms of
international responsibility nor to treat them as subjects
of international law coming under the purview of an
international legal instrument.
33. Ms. Al Haj Ali (Syrian Arab Republic) said that
her country condemned terrorism in all its forms and
manifestations because terrorist acts were criminal.
Her delegation had nevertheless abstained from
voting on the draft resolution, without criticizing
its content, in line with the position expressed before
the Sixth Committee on the need to hold an
international conference in order to define terrorism
and distinguish it from the right of peoples to fight for
self-determination.
34. Mr. Heshiki (Japan) recalled that his country had
always considered that terrorism could not be tolerated
under any circumstances nor justified for any reason.
He expressed sympathy to the families of victims of

A/C.3/59/SR.42
terrorism and to the Russian Federation, sponsor of the
draft resolution, in connection with the victims of the
recent taking of hostages. Although the Japanese
Government was committed to cooperating with the
international community in combating terrorism, the
Japanese delegation had voted against the draft
resolution because Japan's views differed on several
points.
35. Mr. Von Kaufman (Canada) said that his country
unequivocally condemned terrorism and had deployed
significant efforts at the national and international level
to eliminate that scourge. Supportive of Security
Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001),
Canada believed that terrorism could be defeated while
human rights, refugee law and international
humanitarian law were upheld. Given the importance
that Canada ascribed to the counter-terrorist combat, it
would have preferred to work with the main sponsors
of the draft resolution to reach a consensus on the text.
The draft resolution certainly contained numerous
constructive elements, but Canada could not support it:
the notion that terrorist groups could commit humanrights
violations remained a stumbling block. In fact,
terrorist acts, committed by individuals or groups of
individuals, were criminal and therefore should be
dealt with under national and international criminal
law: it was the States that had an obligation to respect
human rights. Moreover, Canada did not subscribe to
the idea that the right to life was a human being's
primordial right: no right could be given priority over
other rights, and States had an obligation to promote
and protect all human rights. Lastly, Canada was
concerned that the terms of the draft resolution could
be taken to alter the mandate for the study requested by
the General Assembly resolution in 58/187 on the
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms
while countering terrorism. The Canadian delegation
regretted that the main sponsor had not held
transparent consultations on the draft resolution nor
taken into account the observations of other
delegations. For all those reasons, Canada had voted
against the draft resolution.
Draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.60: Situation of democracy
and human rights in the United States of America
36. The Chairman said that the draft resolution had
no programme budget implications.
37. Mr. Dapkiunas (Belarus) announced that his
delegation had decided to withdraw the draft resolution

to underscore its consistent opposition to any countryspecific
resolution on human rights. Such resolutions
often exaggerated deliberately the human rights
situation in particular States in order to exert political
pressure. Generally speaking, they introduced purely
bilateral problems and disputes in the – already full –
agenda of the Organization and their sponsors used the
United Nations system to attain unilateral political
goals.
38. The Republic of Belarus had presented the draft
resolution mainly to demonstrate, on the basis of facts,
that no country in the world – not even the most stable
democracy – was immune to human-rights problems
and therefore should not be exempt from international
scrutiny. The draft resolution, which could be viewed
as the first of its kind in the history of the
Organization, had attained that objective.
39. The best way to promote human rights in the
world was not to adopt country-specific resolutions but
to establish a constructive and genuine dialogue
between countries. The interpretation of universal
human-rights standards and the degree of compliance
of each country with them should not be used for
manipulation or discrimination.
40. The Belarusian delegation had wished to avoid
posing a voting dilemma for friendly delegations. It
encouraged other delegations to also withdraw any
country-specific draft resolutions that had been
introduced on human rights and to re-establish a
positive and respectful dialogue on the various issues
submitted to the Third Committee for its consideration.
41 Mr. Lukyantsev (Russian Federation) applauded
the withdrawal of draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.60, a
step aimed at depoliticizing the work of the Third
Committee and, generally speaking, debates on human
rights issues in the United Nations. It was to be hoped
that other delegations would follow the example of
Belarus. He reaffirmed that the practice of introducing
draft resolutions on the human rights situation in a
specific country was not constructive but introduced
the element of conflict in the work of the Organization
and reduced its effectiveness. The Organization had
been set up to promote cooperation and the joint quest
for solutions to problems, particularly in the area of
human rights, not to settle scores or to exploit human
rights issues in specific contexts. All Member States
should use the debates to discuss thematic questions
and not focus on country-specific issues.

A/C.3/59/SR.42
42. Ms. Astanah Banu (Malaysia) said that Malaysia
approved of the Belarusian delegation's courageous
decision to withdraw draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.60
and called on other delegations to follow that example.
Malaysia was firmly opposed to any resolution
targeting a specific country, developing or
developed, democratic or not. It had long favoured a
non-confrontational approach and constructive
dialogue in resolving human rights issues. Although
some States still introduced country-specific draft
resolutions, sometimes disregarding actual
improvements, more and more States rejected such
resolutions and the practice of naming and shaming,
which polarized Third Commission debates to the point
that voting en bloc had become a standard process.
Accordingly, the Malaysian delegation urged the other
delegations to reconsider their decisions on the issue in
view of the role of the Committee and the importance
of its work.
43. Mr. Cumberbach Miguén (Cuba) stated that
Cuba took note of the decision of the Belarus
delegation to withdraw draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.60
on the understanding that the withdrawal did not mean
that the United States did not massively violate the
human rights of people throughout the world. The
Cuban delegation reaffirmed its opposition to the
introduction of country-specific draft resolutions on
human rights issues by countries that also violated
human rights.
Agenda item 105 (c): Human rights situations and
reports of special rapporteurs and representatives
(continued) (A/C.3/59/L.60)
44. Mr. Xie Bohua (China) said that his delegation
took note of the withdrawal of draft resolution
A/C.3/59/L.60 by Belarus and supported that decision.
The purpose of the United Nations in considering
human rights issues was to promote international
cooperation in the area of human rights. Practice over
the years had shown that the introduction of countryspecific
draft resolutions on human rights issues for
political purposes did not help to build confidence and
cooperation among nations but on the contrary
favoured a climate of confrontation. China hoped that,
through dialogue and an exchange of views, which
were the only way to promote and protect
human rights, States – all on an equal footing and
with mutual respect – would be able to attenuate their
disagreements.

45. Mr. Sinaga (Indonesia) thanked the Belarus
delegation for its decision to withdraw draft resolution
A/C.3/59/L.60 and stressed that the best means of
promoting human rights worldwide lay in constructive
and cooperative dialogue among nations, not in
country-specific resolutions. Indonesia had decided to
make the promotion and protection of human rights a
priority, not because of pressure from around the
world, but because it considered respect for human
rights to be conducive to development. In that
connection, in 1993 Indonesia had considered it more
effective to adopt a national plan of action than to be
satisfied with making political statements. Lastly, the
representative of Indonesia noted that, if each Member
State introduced a draft resolution on the situation of
human rights in another country, the Third Committee
would be overwhelmed by a deluge of texts:
cooperation and dialogue were therefore the best
solution.
The meeting rose at 5.35 p.m.