UN Human Rights Treaties

United Nations A/C.3/59/SR.53
General Assembly
Fifty-ninth session
Official Records
Distr.: General
17 December 2004
Original: English
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.
04-62289 (E)
*0462289*
Third Committee
Summary record of the 53rd meeting
Held at Headquarters, New York, on Wednesday, 24 November 2004, at 10 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. Kuchinsky. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Ukraine)
later: Ms. Groux (Vice-Chairman) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Switzerland)
Contents
Agenda item 99: Implementation of the outcome of the Fourth World Conference on
Women and of the twenty-third special session of the General Assembly entitled
“Women 2000: gender equality, development and peace for the twenty-first century”
(continued)
Agenda item 103: Elimination of racism and racial discrimination (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)

A/C.3/59/SR.53
The meeting was called to order at 10.25 a.m.
Agenda item 99: Implementation of the outcome of
the Fourth World Conference on Women and of the
twenty-third special session of the General Assembly
entitled “Women 2000: gender equality, development
and peace for the twenty-first century” (continued)
Draft resolution on follow-up to the Fourth World
Conference on Women and full implementation of the
Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the
outcome of the twenty-third special session of the
General Assembly, submitted by the Chairman
1. Mr. Khane (Secretary of the Committee) drew
attention to page 3 of the Chairman’s text, which had
been circulated to members. The third footnote should
read: A/59/214.
2. Mr. García González (El Salvador), rapporteur,
said that he had acted as facilitator for the negotiations
on the draft resolution. The text would provide an
important basis for the work of the Commission on the
Status of Women in 2005, the forthcoming tenth
anniversary review of the Beijing Declaration and
Platform for Action and the five-year review of the
twenty-third special session of the General Assembly.
It provided a broad and comprehensive vision for the
promotion of women and answered the need for
additional measures for faster implementation of the
Platform for Action.
3. As the consultations had been lengthy, only an
advance English version of the draft resolution was
available. He hoped that the Committee would be in a
position to take action on the draft resolution while
awaiting its issuance in all languages.
4. Mr. Bertoux (France) said that his delegation
attached great importance to multilingualism within the
United Nations, but would be willing to work from the
English version only, on an exceptional basis.
5. Ms. Zack (United States of America), speaking
in explanation of position, said that her delegation
would join the consensus on the draft resolution. The
United States of America was firmly committed to the
empowerment of women and the need to promote
women’s fullest enjoyment of universal rights and
fundamental freedoms. It wished to note, in joining
consensus, that it was essential to recognize the rights,
duties, and responsibilities of parents and other persons

legally responsible for adolescents to provide, in a
manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the
adolescent, appropriate direction and guidance on
sexual and reproductive matters, education and other
aspects of children’s lives for which parents had
primary responsibility. It strongly supported a balanced
approach to the prevention of HIV/AIDS, such as the
ABC Model (Abstinence, Be Faithful and correctly and
consistently use Condoms when appropriate). Such an
approach could target and balance A, B and C
interventions according to the needs of different at-risk
populations and the specific circumstances of a
particular country confronting the epidemic.
6. Her delegation understood that none of the
Beijing Platform for Action or Beijing +5 language
constituted support, endorsement or promotion of
abortion or the use of abortifacients. It did, however,
support the treatment of women who suffered injuries
or illnesses caused by legal or illegal abortion,
including for example post-abortion care, and did not
place such treatment among abortion-related services.
7. The United States fully supported the principle of
voluntary choice in family planning and had stated on
many occasions that it did not recognize abortion as a
method of family planning. The United States did not
promote abortion. It understood that the terms
“reproductive rights” and “reproductive health
services” did not constitute support, endorsement or
promotion of abortion or the use of abortifacients. It
was the understanding of her delegation that there was
international consensus on that point.
8. The United States understood that joining
consensus in no way constituted a reaffirmation of
language in the Beijing Declaration and Platform for
Action, the outcome of the twenty-third special session
of the General Assembly or documents referred to
therein, which could be used to suggest the creation of
new human rights. It also understood that the
documents were not intended to and did not create
legally binding obligations on States under
international law, nor did they indicate a change in its
position regarding treaties it had not ratified.
9. The United States did not support quotas. It
believed that the best way to guarantee women’s
involvement in the political process was through legal
and policy reforms that ended discrimination against
women and promoted equal opportunity. A
disadvantage of quotas was that they might promote a

A/C.3/59/SR.53
perception that a woman had gained a decision-making
position because of gender rather than merit.
10. The draft resolution was adopted.
11. Ms. Kang (Republic of Korea) said that, from the
point of view of the Commission on the Status of
Women, the adoption of the resolution was a strong
statement in support of its forty-ninth session in March
2005, which would mark the tenth anniversary of the
Fourth World Conference on Women.
12. Ms. Bakker (Netherlands), speaking on behalf of
the European Union, said that it welcomed the
adoption of the draft resolution, which sent a strong
signal of support for the Beijing Declaration and
Platform for Action and the outcome of the twentythird
special session of the General Assembly. Those
documents were fundamental to the collective
responsibility for promoting the rights of women and
achieving gender equality. The European Union looked
forward to the review of progress at the forty-ninth
session of the Commission on the Status of Women,
which would provide an opportunity for the
international community to renew its commitment to
the full implementation of those documents. Their
implementation was also essential to the achievement
of the Millennium Development Goals, which had
made women’s empowerment a central concern.
13. Ms. Dempster (New Zealand), speaking also on
behalf of Australia and Canada, said that the review
and appraisal of the Beijing Declaration and Platform
for Action would be a time to celebrate progress and
once again to bring the rights of women to the world’s
attention, to raise awareness, to change attitudes and to
take the next step. There was no need to negotiate new
and expanded standards when so much in the Platform
for Action remained to be done.
14. On the occasion of its tenth anniversary, it was
important for Member States to reaffirm the Beijing
Declaration and Platform for Action without
equivocation. The international community had
laboured too long over language. All aspects of the
Platform were relevant to the challenges all countries
faced, and all must reaffirm their commitment to
advancing that common agenda. Moreover, it was
critical for the rights of women to be at the forefront of
the review of the Millennium Development Goals, and
she looked forward to practical advice from the
Secretary-General on how to work together to ensure

that the Platform for Action remained the blueprint for
progress.
15. Mr. Takase (Japan) said that his Government was
fully committed to the implementation of the Beijing
Declaration and Platform for Action and the outcome
document of the twenty-third special session of the
General Assembly. Steady efforts should continue at
the domestic, regional and international levels to
advance the status of women and attain a society of
true gender equality. His delegation welcomed the
adoption of the draft resolution, which would lead to
fruitful discussions at the forthcoming session of the
Commission on the Status of Women, and took that
opportunity to renew its commitment to the full and
effective implementation of the goals and objectives of
the Fourth World Conference on Women.
Agenda item 103: Elimination of racism and racial
discrimination (continued)
Draft resolution on global efforts for the total
elimination of racism, racial discrimination,
xenophobia and related intolerance and the
comprehensive implementation and follow-up to the
Durban Declaration and Programme of Action
(A/C.3/59/L.71)
16. Mr. Al-Motawa (Qatar), speaking on behalf of
the Group of 77 and China, said that a consensus had
been reached during the informal consultations, which
had been facilitated by the delegation of South Africa.
17. Mr. Montwedi (South Africa) drew attention to
the revised text which had been circulated to the
Committee. Most of the changes had been made to
bring the text into line with General Assembly
resolution 58/160, which had been adopted at the
previous session. In paragraph 32, the word “by” in the
second line should be deleted. In the third line of
paragraph 35, the words “in consultation with Member
States” should be deleted; in the fourth line, a comma
should be inserted after “seminar”.
18. Mr. Khane (Secretary of the Committee) said
that the statement of programme budget implications
for the draft resolution had been read out when the text
had been introduced. Because of lack of time, it had
not been possible for the Budget Division to review the
revised text. He therefore reserved the right to
supplement the statement of programme budget

A/C.3/59/SR.53
implications when the draft resolution was taken up by
the General Assembly.
19. The Chairman said that the delegation of the
United States of America had requested that a recorded
vote should be taken on the draft resolution.
20. A recorded vote was taken on draft resolution
A/C.3/59/L.71, as orally revised.
In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola,
Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia,
Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain,
Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize,
Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria,
Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon,
Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China,
Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte
d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark,
Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt,
El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji,
Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany,
Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea,
Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras,
Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic
Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan,
Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan,
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia,
Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia,
Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands,
Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia
(Federated States of), Monaco, Mongolia,
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, Republic of Moldova,
Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint
Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa,
San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and
Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South
Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname,
Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab
Republic, Tajikistan, 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 (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam,
Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against:
Israel, United States of America.
Abstaining:
Australia, Canada.
21. Draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.71, as orally revised,
was adopted by 175 votes to 2, with 2 abstentions.
22. Ms. Ajamay (Norway), speaking also on behalf
of New Zealand in explanation of vote after the voting,
said that racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and
related intolerance were among the most important
global human rights challenges. There was an urgent
need to implement the Durban Declaration and
Programme of Action, and her delegation had noted
with great satisfaction the broad and active
participation in the most recent session of the Inter-
Governmental Working Group on the Effective
Implementation of the Durban Declaration and
Programme of Action.
23. It was essential to base the global fight against
racism on a consensus approach. Against that
background, Norway and New Zealand expressed their
disappointment with the negotiations on the draft
resolution, although they were satisfied with the
outcome. They looked forward to a more constructive
approach at future sessions.
24. Ms. Kleitman (Israel) said that her delegation
had voted against the draft resolution because it
believed that it was in direct opposition to the
principles it purported to represent. Israel had always
lent its full support to any good faith initiative aimed at
eradicating racism, racial discrimination and related
forms of intolerance. The history of the Jewish people,
replete with the most horrible acts of intolerance and
genocide the world had ever known, required no less.
Precisely because of that commitment to oppose
racism, however, it could not support the outcome of
the Durban Conference.
25. The hijacking of the Durban Conference had been
disturbing from the perspective of any individual
committed to the idea that the international community

A/C.3/59/SR.53
must work together to combat racism and racial
discrimination. The fact that the Conference had been
transformed into a vehicle to isolate and attack Israel
had been a subversion of the goodwill of many and a
disservice to those who would have benefited from
genuine action against racism.
26. What had transpired there represented a serious
regression in attempts to erase racism and racial
discrimination. Certain delegations and NGOs had used
the opportunity to single out one country for
slanderous and hateful accusations, and her delegation,
along with that of the United States of America, had
been compelled to withdraw from the Conference. The
Palestinian-Israeli conflict had been repeatedly
invoked, despite the fact that it was a political and
territorial conflict with no place at a conference
dealing with racism. That conflict involved two
peoples, both with rights, grievances and
responsibilities, and it could only be resolved by a
renunciation of violence and a commitment to
negotiations based on a spirit of compromise and
mutual recognition.
27. Regardless of the Committee’s actions, Israel
remained dedicated to confronting racism and racial
intolerance, and would continue to exert every effort to
that end.
28. Mrs. Belot (France) said that, even though her
delegation had not voted against draft resolution
A/C.3/59/L.71, she regretted that revisions had not
been distributed in all official languages owing to the
last minute nature of consultations.
29. The Chairman suggested that the Committee
should take note, in accordance with General Assembly
decision 55/488, of the report of the Secretary-General
on global efforts for the total elimination of racism,
racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of
and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and
Programme of Action (A/59/375).
30. It was so decided.

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)
Draft resolution on human rights and extreme poverty
(A/C.3/59/L.38)
31. The Chairman invited the Committee to take
action on draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.38 and
announced that the following countries had joined in
sponsoring the draft resolution: Argentina, Azerbaijan,
Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Cape Verde, Chile, China,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, the Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guinea,
the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mexico, Nicaragua,
Nigeria, the Niger, Norway, Panama, Papua New
Guinea, Paraguay, the Philippines, the Republic of
Korea, Senegal, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Ukraine,
Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and
Viet Nam.
32. Ms. Tincopa (Peru) read out the following
revisions to the draft resolution: in the first preambular
paragraph, the words “International Bill of Human
Rights” should be replaced by “Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and other
human rights instruments adopted by the United
Nations”; the second preambular paragraph should be
deleted; in the third preambular paragraph, the words
“by which [...] (1997-2006)” should be replaced by “in
which The First United Nations Decade for the
Eradication of Poverty (1997-2006) was proclaimed, as
well as 57/211 of 18 December 2002 and its previous
ones on human rights and extreme poverty, in which it
reaffirmed that extreme poverty and exclusion from
society constitute a violation of human dignity and that
urgent national and international action is therefore
required to eliminate them”; the fourth preambular
paragraph should be deleted; in the sixth preambular
paragraph, the words “each country” should be
replaced by “all countries”, the word “its” should be
replaced by “their” and the words “the extent and
manifestations of extreme poverty” should be replaced
by “its extent and manifestations”; in the seventh
preambular paragraph, the words “bearing in mind”
should be replaced by “recalling” and the word “and”

A/C.3/59/SR.53
should be replaced by “as well as”; in the eighth
preambular paragraph, the words “meeting of world
leaders for action against hunger and poverty,
convened on 20 September 2004 by” should be
replaced by “World Leaders Meeting for Action against
Hunger and Poverty, of 20 September 2004, convened
by” and the words “and the resulting New York
Declaration,” should be deleted; the eleventh
preambular paragraph should be replaced by
“Reaffirming also that democracy, development and
the full and effective enjoyment of human rights and
fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually
reinforcing and contribute to the eradication of extreme
poverty,”; in the twelfth preambular paragraph, the
words “for a period of two years” should be moved to
after “extension” and the words “the question of”
should be added before the phrase “human rights and
extreme poverty”; in paragraph 5, the words
“establishment of [...] democratic systems” should be
replaced by “design and development of appropriate
mechanisms to strengthen and consolidate democratic
institutions and governance”; in paragraph 6, the words
“contained in the United Nations Millennium
Declaration” should be moved to after “commitments”
in the first line, the word “, particularly” should be
added before “to spare no effort” and the words
“United States” should be added between “one” and
“dollar”; paragraph 7 should be deleted; paragraph 9
should be replaced by “Welcomes the efforts of entities
throughout the United Nations system to incorporate
the Millennium Declaration and internationally agreed
development goals therein in their work”; and in
paragraph 10, the words “submit a report on his
activities” should be replaced by “forward his reports
which he will submit to the sixty-first and sixty-second
sessions of the Commission on Human Rights”.
33. She announced that the following countries had
joined the sponsors of the draft resolution: Armenia,
Belgium, Botswana, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Croatia,
Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, France,
Germany, Greece, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Namibia, Netherlands,
New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia
and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland.
34. The sponsors attached great importance to the
proposal for innovative financing mechanisms to

combat hunger and poverty (para. 7 alt). However,
given that the issue was still being discussed by
another commission, and with a view to achieving a
consensus, they had decided to withdraw paragraph 7
altogether. She hoped that the revised draft resolution
would be adopted without a vote.
35. The Chairman announced that the following
countries also wished to sponsor the draft resolution, as
orally revised: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belarus,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Burundi,
Canada, the Central African Republic, the Congo, Côte
d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Djibouti, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, the Gambia,
Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana,
Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Kenya,
Kuwait, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Madagascar,
Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Monaco,
Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, the Republic
of Moldova, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, San Marino, Serbia
and Montenegro, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, the
Sudan, Swaziland, Switzerland, Togo and Zambia. The
draft resolution contained no programme budget
implications.
36. Draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.38, as orally revised,
was adopted without a vote.
37. Ms. Zack (United States of America) said that,
even though her delegation had joined consensus on
the draft resolution, it was concerned that the
resolution did not adequately reflect the fact that
respect for human rights in itself was an important tool
in fighting extreme poverty. The divide between wealth
and poverty was a challenge at the national and
international levels. The advance of development was a
central commitment of her Government’s foreign
policy, but must be accompanied by good governance,
sound economic policies, measures to root out
corruption and respect for human rights and the rule of
law. With the world’s help and the right policies,
citizens in the developing world could — and
should — live under Governments that provided basic
services and protected basic rights. There was no better
way to address extreme poverty.
38. Ms. García-Matos (Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela) drew attention to the artificial distinction
between “poverty” and “extreme poverty”, which
seemed to imply that they would be tackled differently.

A/C.3/59/SR.53
Draft resolution on the protection of human rights and
fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism
(A/C.3/59/L.44)
39. The Chairman invited the Committee to take
action on draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.44, which
contained no programme budget implications. The
following countries had joined in sponsoring the draft
resolution: Bulgaria, Croatia, Ecuador, Iceland,
Madagascar, Malawi, Monaco, New Zealand, Romania,
Spain, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and
Ukraine.
40. Mr. Gómez Robledo (Mexico) announced that
Armenia, Bolivia, Egypt, Japan and Paraguay had also
become sponsors of the draft resolution. He read out
the following revisions to the draft resolution: in the
third preambular paragraph, the words “and deploring
violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms
in the context of the fight against terrorism,” should be
added after “persons,”; a new fifth preambular
paragraph should be added to read “Noting the
declarations, statements and recommendations by a
number of human rights treaty monitoring bodies and
special procedures on the question of the compatibility
of counter-terrorism measures with human rights
obligations,”; in the original fifth preambular
paragraph, the words “and other relevant resolutions of
the General Assembly and the Commission on Human
Rights” should be added at the end of the paragraph;
the original ninth and twelfth preambular paragraphs
should be deleted; in paragraph 2, the words “also that”
should be replaced by “the obligation of”, the words
“are under the obligation” and “as stated in [...] 24 July
2001” should be deleted and a new footnote reading
“See e.g. General Comment No. 29 on states of
emergency adopted by the Human Rights Committee of
24 July 2001” should be added after “derogations”; in
paragraph 5, the words “which concludes [...]
integrated way” should be deleted; in paragraph 6, the
words “the provisions established therein,” should be
replaced by “its content”; in paragraph 8, the words
“encourages them” should be added before “to
coordinate” and the words “as appropriate” should be
replaced by “where appropriate”; in paragraph 10, the
word “Welcomes” should be replaced by “Notes with
appreciation”, the words “by the Commission on
Human Rights” and “question of” should be deleted,
and the words “pursuant to resolution 2004/87 of the
Commission on Human Rights,” should be added after
“countering terrorism,”; and in paragraph 12, the words

“to finalize [...] General Assembly” should be replaced
by “to take into account the debate held at the fiftyninth
regular session of the General Assembly, in the
finalization of the report mandated by Commission on
Human Rights resolution 2004/87, for its presentation
through the High Commissioner to the sixty-first
session of the Commission”.
41. He hoped that the draft resolution would be
adopted without a vote.
42. The Chairman announced that the following
countries wished to sponsor the draft resolution:
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Costa Rica,
Grenada, Honduras, Jordan, the Republic of Moldova,
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Serbia and
Montenegro, the Sudan and Venezuela (Bolivarian
Republic of).
43. Draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.44, as orally revised,
was adopted without a vote.
44. Ms. Moore (United States of America) said that
her country was pleased to join consensus on the draft
resolution and that it attached great importance to
protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms
while countering terrorism, as recently demonstrated
by its actions to investigate and bring to justice those
persons in her Government, including the military, who
violated United States law while countering terrorism.
Radicalism and terror must be fought with justice and
dignity to achieve a true peace founded on human
freedom. Her country called on all States and
organizations to consider how they could improve their
contribution to the fight against terrorism, and called
on States who had not done so to join the relevant
international terrorism instruments and to seek
assistance, as necessary, from the United Nations
Terrorism Prevention Branch. The global fight against
terrorism could be won only with the cooperation of all
Member States.
45. Mr. Toro Jiménez (Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela) said that, just one week before and for the
first time in its history, his country had witnessed the
political assassination, by a terrorist bomb, of a highlevel
official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, who
had been conducting a criminal investigation into a
number of subversive attacks against the Republic and
its new democratic institutions in 2003. In that regard,
the National Assembly was currently drafting a law on
terrorism.

A/C.3/59/SR.53
Draft resolution on the protection of migrants
(A/C.3/59/L.51)
46. The Chairman invited the Committee to take
action on draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.51, which
contained no programme budget implications. He
announced that the following countries had joined in
sponsoring the draft resolution: Argentina, Bangladesh,
Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mali, Paraguay,
the Philippines, Senegal, Tunisia and Uruguay.
47. Ms. Olivera (Mexico) said that Armenia, the
Niger and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela also
wished to sponsor the draft resolution. She drew
attention to the following revisions: in the fourth
preambular paragraph, the words “that the rights [...]
subject to its jurisdiction” should be replaced by “to all
individuals within its territory and subject to its
jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant”; in
the seventh and fifteenth preambular paragraphs, the
words “and members of their families” should be
deleted; in the ninth preambular paragraph, the words
“Welcoming also” should be replaced by “Taking note
with appreciation of” and the words “as well as [...]
contained therein” should be replaced by “especially
the work she has undertaken on the human rights of
migrants, and taking note of her conclusions and
recommendations”; in the tenth preambular paragraph,
the words “in the case of foreign nationals detained by
the authorities of a receiving State,” should be deleted;
in the eleventh preambular paragraph, the words “in
which the Court [...] probably a foreign national”
should be replaced by “and recalling the obligations of
States reaffirmed therein”; in the twelfth preambular
paragraph, the words “on the juridical condition [...]
including those concerning migrants” should be
replaced by “on The Juridical Condition and Rights of
Undocumented Migrants”; in the eighteenth
preambular paragraph, the word “resolving” should be
replaced by “resolved”; in paragraph 3, the words
“norms and standards” should be deleted; in paragraph
4, the word “growing” should be replaced by
“increasing”; in paragraph 5, the word “Also” at the
beginning of the paragraph should be deleted; in
paragraph 6, the words “any form of” should be
replaced by “arrest,” and the words “accorded to him
or her” should be deleted; in paragraph 7, the words
“implement fully [...] protection of” should be replaced
by “promote and protect fully” and the word “as”
should be added after “migrants”; in paragraph 8, the
word “also” should be added at the beginning of the

paragraph; in paragraph 12, the word “including”
should be replaced by “and to take actions to prevent
and punish any form of illegal deprivation of liberty of
migrants”; in paragraph 15, the words “which should
take into account [...] any form of” should be replaced
by “recognizing that these crimes may endanger the
lives of migrants or subject them to harm, servitude or
exploitation, which may include” and the word “them”
should be replaced by “Member States”; in paragraph
18, the words “and promote” should be added before
“all human rights”; in paragraph 21, the words “react
promptly [...] to visit them” should be replaced by
“respond appropriately and expeditiously to her urgent
appeals and to give serious consideration to her
requests to visit their countries, and welcomes in this
regard the standing invitations extended by some
Member States to all special procedures, including the
Special Rapporteur”; in paragraph 22, the words “take
the necessary measures [...] Special Rapporteur”
should be replaced by “review and examine the
conclusions and recommendations of the Special
Rapporteur’s report, and to consider their
implementation”; in paragraph 23, the words “Calls
upon” should be replaced by “Invites”; and in
paragraph 25, the words “, as a matter of priority,”
should be deleted.
48. Mr. Khane (Secretary of the Committee)
announced that Bolivia, Côte d’Ivoire, the Gambia,
Ghana, Grenada, Kyrgyzstan, Morocco, Nicaragua,
Nigeria, Somalia, Sri Lanka, the Sudan and Togo had
joined the sponsors of the draft resolution.
49. Draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.51, as orally revised,
was adopted without a vote.
50. Ms. Moore (United States of America),
explaining her delegation’s position, said that the
United States had joined the consensus on the
resolution after substantial negotiations. The United
States had always drawn strength from those who came
to it from every country of the world, whether as
visitors or as permanent residents. It welcomed legal
immigrants and properly documented temporary
visitors, including workers and students. Moreover,
more than 1 million of its own citizens lived and
worked in other countries, contributing to the global
economy. It urged its citizens to observe all local laws
when moving to or working in other countries, and
encouraged the citizens of other countries to do the
same in the United States. Legal migration was, and

A/C.3/59/SR.53
would continue to be, an important force for progress
in the world.
51. Ms. Chan (Singapore) said that her country took
the welfare of migrants extremely seriously, and that
migrants to Singapore, whether permanent or
temporary, enjoyed the same legal protection as
Singapore citizens. However, Singapore did require
that migrants enter its territory through legal channels.
Those who did not do so were regarded as illegal
immigrants, and were treated as such in accordance
with Singapore’s domestic legislation. Singapore
continued to believe that immigration policies were a
matter for each State’s sovereign jurisdiction, and that
it was therefore inappropriate for General Assembly
resolutions to call on States to review their
immigration policies. Singapore was willing to join the
consensus on the draft resolution, in a spirit of
cooperation, but reserved the right to reconsider its
position in the future. Its position applied to any other
resolution that might impinge on States’ rights to
define their own immigration policies.
Draft resolution on the Ad Hoc Committee on a
Comprehensive and Integral International Convention
on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and
Dignity of Persons with Disabilities (A/C.3/59/L.58)
52. The Chairman invited the Secretary of the
Committee to make a statement regarding financial
provisions relating to the draft resolution.
53. Mr. Khane (Secretary of the Committee),
drawing the Committee’s attention to paragraphs 5, 6,
7, 8 and 11 of the draft resolution, said that, in
accordance with paragraph 5 of the draft resolution, the
Ad Hoc Committee would hold two sessions at United
Nations Headquarters in 2005: a fifth session, from
24 January to 4 February, and a sixth session, from 15
to 26 August. The respective conference-servicing
requirements for the two sessions were estimated to be
$450,000 and $509,400, at full cost, which would be
accommodated within available resources.
54. Ms. Groux (Switzerland), Vice-Chairman, took
the Chair.
55. The Chairman announced that Argentina,
Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Congo, Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Gabon, the Gambia, Grenada, Guinea,
Honduras, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mali, Nicaragua,
Panama, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova,
Senegal, Sierra Leone, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad

and Tobago, and Uruguay had joined the sponsors of
the draft resolution.
56. Ms. Olivera (Mexico) announced that Austria,
Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Namibia, Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines,
Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of
Moldova, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Slovakia,
Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine and United Kingdom
had joined the sponsors of the draft resolution. She
drew the attention of the Committee to the revisions
made to the draft resolution, which were contained in
document A/C.3/59/L.58/Rev.1.
57. The Chairman announced that Albania, Algeria,
Andorra, Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Central African Republic,
China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Equatorial
Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Georgia, Ghana, Guinea,
Iceland, Israel, Jamaica, Latvia, Liechtenstein,
Lebanon, Liberia, Morocco, Nigeria, Romania, Serbia
and Montenegro, Spain, Switzerland and Togo had also
become sponsors.
58. Draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.58, as orally revised,
was adopted without a vote.
59. Mr. Hof (Netherlands), speaking on behalf of the
European Union, said that the European Union wished
to reaffirm its commitment to the elaboration of an
international convention, which would help shape
international opinion and would be an agent for change
over the coming years. The convention must be
enforceable and realistic in order to ensure the widest
possible degree of ownership and the most extensive
possible ratification and adherence. It was the
responsibility of the sponsors to present to the General
Assembly a draft convention that took into account the
highest international human rights standards.
60. Mr. Ballestero (Costa Rica) said that his
delegation set particular store by the draft resolution
and the efforts of the international community to draft
a convention on the rights of persons with disabilities.
The adoption of the draft resolution through consensus
and the large number of sponsors involved
demonstrated the commitment and desire of the
international community to ensure that the convention
could be put into practice as soon as possible and to

A/C.3/59/SR.53
ensure that the convention was both of a high quality
and realistic.
Draft resolution on enhancing the role of regional,
subregional and other organizations and arrangements
in promoting and consolidating democracy, and
amendments thereto (A/C.3/59/L.62 and A/C.3/59/L.77)
61. The Chairman drew the attention of the
Committee to the proposed amendments to the draft
resolution contained in document A/C.3/59/L.77. She
announced that Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Croatia,
Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel,
Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, the
Republic of Korea, the Republic of Moldova, Rwanda,
Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Sweden, the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey and Ukraine
had joined the sponsors of the draft resolution.
62. Mr. Stamate (Romania), introducing the draft
resolution on behalf of the sponsors, announced that
Albania, Armenia, Australia, the Dominican Republic,
Estonia, Iceland, India, Mexico, New Zealand, San
Marino, Spain, Switzerland and Uruguay had also
become sponsors. Following consultations with a
number of delegations, further amendments had been
made to the text of draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.62.
Three new preambular paragraphs had been added.
New preambular paragraph 1 would read: “Reaffirming
the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United
Nations;” new preambular paragraph 3 would read
“Recalling that all peoples have the right to selfdetermination
by virtue of which they can freely
determine their political status, and freely pursue their
economic, social and cultural development;” and new
preambular paragraph 4 would read: “Reaffirming our
resolve, expressed, inter alia, in the United Nations
Millennium Declaration to implement the principles
and practices of democracy and recognizing the diverse
nature of the community of the world’s democracies”.
The remaining preambular paragraphs would be
renumbered accordingly.
63. The new preambular paragraphs contained agreed
language from preambular paragraphs 1, 4 and 7 of
General Assembly resolution 55/96 and paragraph 25
of the Millennium Declaration, slightly modified. He
drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 8 of the
draft resolution, from which the word “relevant” would

be deleted, and to paragraph 10, from which all text
following the words “democratic institutions” would
also be deleted. The sponsors had been unable to
accept any more amendments and found no reason to
resort to language of condemnation, since the
resolution called for cooperation. His delegation urged
other delegations to vote in favour of the draft
resolution as amended by the main sponsors, and to
decline to support any other amendments not endorsed
by them.
64. Mr. Cumberbatch Miguén (Cuba) said that in
the wake of the changes made by the main sponsors of
the draft resolution (A/C.3/59/L.62), his delegation
wished to maintain only the fourth amendment
proposed in document A/C.3/59/L.77 but, instead of
replacing operative paragraph 5, the suggested text
should be included in the draft resolution as an
additional operative paragraph 5 bis.
65. Mr. Stamate (Romania) said that when drafting
the resolution, the sponsors had been guided by the
principles of innovation, brevity, lack of repetition and
relevance. The amendment proposed by Cuba was
relevant as it echoed paragraph 8 of the Vienna
Declaration and Programme of Action. The sponsors
were prepared to accept the amendment provided that it
reproduced the whole of that paragraph. To that end,
the amendment should therefore be supplemented by
the sentence “The international community should
support the strengthening and promoting of democracy,
development and respect for human rights and
fundamental freedoms in the entire world.”
66. Mr. Cumberbatch Miguén (Cuba) said that his
delegation would accept the proposed sub-amendment,
but it requested a recorded vote on the draft resolution
as a whole, as orally amended.
67. Speaking in explanation of vote before the
voting, he said that despite the flexibility and
constructive spirit which had permitted the inclusion of
substantive amendments in the draft resolution,
numerous remaining concerns had prompted his
delegation’s request for a recorded vote. As it stood,
the draft resolution was imbalanced in the way it
defined which societies, or nations, were deemed to be
democratic. Instead of democracy becoming a reality
for all, it was being turned into a dogma. By focusing
on the structural aspects of the political set-up, the text
stymied the right of peoples to self-determination and,
since it made no reference to that right, paragraph 1

A/C.3/59/SR.53
even denied it. Nor did the draft resolution mention the
achievement of economic, social and cultural rights or
social justice, although those factors strongly
influenced the realization of democracy. That
shortcoming was all the more counterproductive in the
light of the wording in paragraph 10 referring to the
collective defence of democracy, where it was implied
that “democratic intervention” was needed in addition
to humanitarian intervention. The history of the
peoples of the Third World, especially those in Latin
America, was a sorry illustration of that approach.
68. Furthermore, the draft resolution encouraged
certain regional and subregional organizations to
mobilize support from States which agreed with the
highly interventionist agenda shared by the main
sponsors of the draft resolution and by various bodies
of the United Nations, first and foremost the Office of
the High Commissioner for Human Rights. His
Government had no reason to be ashamed of its human
rights record or of its genuinely constructive
cooperation with many regional and subregional
organizations. Any attempt to exert pressure on the
Cuban people and negate its decision to choose its own
economic, political and social system would meet with
staunch opposition.
69. Mr. Toro Jiménez (Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela) said that his delegation would abstain,
because both the interpretation and the usage of the
concepts and terms employed in the draft resolution
were ambiguous and, in practice, could lead to
undesired effects incompatible with fundamental
provisions of his country’s constitution.
70. A recorded vote was taken.
In favour:
Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola,
Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia,
Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas,
Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize,
Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana,
Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi,
Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African
Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros,
Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia,
Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of
the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador,
Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia,
Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia,

Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea,
Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland,
India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan,
Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall
Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico,
Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco,
Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, 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, Republic of Moldova,
Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Saint
Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa,
San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro,
Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain,
Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden,
Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste,
Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu,
Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania,
United States of America, Uruguay, Uzbekistan,
Yemen.
Against:
None.
Abstaining:
Belarus, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, China, Cuba,
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Grenada,
Guinea-Bissau, Lao People’s Democratic
Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Myanmar,
Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic,
Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates,
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam,
Zambia, Zimbabwe.
71. Draft resolution A/C.3/59/L.62, as orally
amended, was adopted by 161 votes to none, with 20
abstentions.
72. Mr. Elbadri (Egypt), said that his delegation had
voted in favour of the draft resolution because the
sponsors had accommodated some crucial concerns in
a way which left the basic universal tenets of
democracy untouched. They had included a reference

A/C.3/59/SR.53
to certain principles and rights, such as the right of
self-determination, which implied the right of all
peoples to be free and to pursue their destiny in the
manner they thought fit. Such principles provided a
moral compass in the stormy seas of politics. His
delegation had supported the amendment in the belief
that freedom was indivisible and that it constituted the
essence of democracy. Locke’s dictum that man must
be free to will was reflected in the resolution, from
which controversial terms and references had been
deleted. The resultant text unequivocally upheld all the
basic principles and purposes of the Charter of the
United Nations.
73. Ms. Li Xiaomei (China) said that her delegation
had abstained because it believed that, while promoting
and consolidating democracy was of great importance
to all the countries of the world, the rich diversity of
democratic systems sprang from different social,
cultural and religious traditions. Although dissimilar
democratic systems had a common denominator, they
had no fixed pattern. The foundation of democracy was
that people could express their wishes and determine
their economic, social and political system by their
own free will.
74. Mr. Taranda (Belarus) said that his delegation
had abstained because, although it was in favour of
constructive dialogue on an equal footing in regional
and subregional organizations, it felt that some
paragraphs of the draft resolution lacked the requisite
balance.
75. Ms. Astanah Bahu (Malaysia) said that her
Government supported the general thrust of the text of
the draft resolution. In the spirit of the revitalization of
the Third Committee’s work, her delegation had not,
however, initially been in favour of tabling that draft
resolution of the Commission on Human Rights in the
Third Committee. Reassurances had been given that
such a resolution would not be submitted to the
Committee in the future and it was only on that
understanding that her delegation had agreed to the text
being submitted at the current session.
76. Mr. Manis (Sudan) said that his delegation had
voted in favour of the draft resolution, since it was
convinced that human rights, democracy and the right
to development were indivisible, interdependent issues.
There was no single recipe for democracy which could
be applied to all States. The differences and diversity

of peoples’ and countries’ cultures enriched mankind’s
civilization.
77. The Chairman suggested that the Committee
should take note, in accordance with General Assembly
decision 55/488, of the 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
(A/59/422), the report of the Secretary-General on
human rights and unilateral coercive measures
(A/59/436), the note by the Secretary-General on the
elimination of all forms of religious intolerance
(A/59/366), the report of the Secretary-General on the
right to development (A/59/255), the report of the
Secretary-General on the protection of migrants
(A/59/328), the report of the Secretary-General on the
Subregional Centre for Human Rights and Democracy
in Central Africa (A/59/403), the note by the Secretary-
General transmitting the report of the Special
Representative of the Secretary-General on human
rights defenders (A/59/401), the report of the
Secretary-General on the strengthening of the rule of
law (A/59/402), the note by the Secretary-General
transmitting the report of the Special Rapporteur on the
human rights of migrants (A/59/377) and the report of
the Secretary-General on Khmer Rouge trials
(A/59/432).
78. It was so decided.
79. Ms. Davtyan (Armenia) drew the Committee’s
attention to the letter from the Permanent
Representative of Armenia to the Secretary-General
concerning the report of the Secretary-General on
human rights and unilateral coercive measures
(A/59/436), which had been circulated under agenda
item 105 (b).
The meeting rose at 12.55 p.m.