UN Human Rights Treaties

PROVISIONAL
E/1999/SR.42
1 December 1999
ENGLISH
Original: FRENCH
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL
Substantive session of 1999
PROVISIONAL SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 42nd MEETING
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, 27 July 1999, at 3 p.m.
President: Mr. WIBISONO (Indonesia)
(Vice-President)
CONTENTS
SOCIAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS QUESTIONS (continued):
(a) ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN (continued)
(f) IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME OF ACTION FOR THE THIRD
DECADE TO COMBAT RACISM AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.
(g) PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITIES OF THE INTERNATIONAL DECADE OF
THE WORLD’S INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
(h) HUMAN RIGHTS
______________
Corrections to this record should be submitted in one of the working
languages. They should be set forth in a memorandum and also incorporated in a
copy of the record. They should be sent within one week of the date of this
document to the Official Records Editing Section, room E.4108, Palais des
Nations, Geneva.
GE.99-65158
E/1999/SR.42
page 2
The meeting was called to order at 3.15 p.m.
SOCIAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS QUESTIONS (continued)
(a) ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN (A/54/38 (Part I), A/54/123-E/1999/66,
A/54/156-E/1999/102 and Add.1, E/1999/27, E/1999/54, E/1999/57,
E/1999/105) (continued);
(f) IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMME OF ACTION FOR THE
THIRD DECADE TO COMBAT RACISM AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
(E/1999/61, E/1999/23 (Part I));
(g) PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITIES OF THE INTERNATIONAL
DECADE OF THE WORLD’S INDIGENOUS PEOPLE;
(h) HUMAN RIGHTS (E/1999/23 (Parts. I and II), E/1999/49 and
Add.1, E/1999/96, E/1999/106, E/1999/107, E/1999/113, E/1999/L.19
and L.22, E/1999/NGO/7).
Ms. ROBINSON (United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights),
submitting her report on the implementation of economic, social and cultural
rights (E/1999/96), said that efforts had been made at both international and
national levels to promote implementation of those rights. The action taken by
the international community was finding its expression in particular in the new
mandates of the Commission on Human Rights, the clarification of the content of
certain specific rights and measures designed to improve the realization of
human rights in everyday life.
Yet despite the progress made, it remained painfully clear that the
fundamental right to decent living conditions, which embraced all the rights
laid down in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
was still non-existent in practice for the majority of the inhabitants of the
planet; that fact was eloquently demonstrated by the figures contained in the
Human Development Report and other publications. The Office of the
High Commissioner therefore supported the work of the Council on the eradication
of poverty; that work was cosistent in every respect with her office’s approach
to of the right to development. Within that framework action to combat extreme
poverty had priority, since the most destitute populations were in fact denied
E/1999/SR.42
page 3
almost all their rights. Effective action to combat poverty and to make the
global system benefit everyone involved difficult decisions by Governments faced
with many economic and social priorities. However, those decisions could not be
avoided and must be placed clearly in the context of international human rights
obligations.
Action to implement the Convention of the Rights of the Child must
constitute another essential aspect of intervention by the international
community jointly with UNICEF and the Committee on the Rights of the Child.
On the basis of the elements contained in the report the Economic and
Social Council might consider the possibility of reviewing the situation at
national level in order to promote best practices, identify needs and strengthen
cooperation between Governments and the different relevant actors.
The report also discussed means of improving the enjoyment of economic,
social and cultural rights and the assistance given to States to that end. The
realization of economic, social and cultural rights remained a formidable
challenge. Although the examples mentioned in the report bore witness to the
progress made, much still remained to be done to ensure that respect for those
rights became recognized as essential for the establishment of an economic and
social order based on security, freedom and equality for all. No lasting
progress could be made in that field without wider international cooperation to
enable Governments to fulfil their obligations. The immediate task was to
develop and support innovative approaches through which that cooperation could
bring tangible results. That would require the commitment of all the active
forces in society.
Mr. FERNANDEZ (Cuba) explained that with the draft decision
published under symbol E/1999/L.33 the Cuban delegation was seeking to put an
end to the political manipulations taking place within the Commission on
Human Rights at the instigation of the United States. Its intention was not to
challenge the mandate or the credibility of the Commission, and certainly not,
as some persons had alleged, to place Cuba outside the competence of the
Commission.
Cuba had sufficiently proved its willingness to cooperate with the
mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights established on a non-discriminatory
basis and with the bodies responsible for monitoring the implementation of the
human rights instruments to which it was a party. In a desire to offer
additional proof of goodwill the Cuban delegation stated that, in response to
E/1999/SR.42
page 4
requests it had received from the delegations of various European and
third-world countries, it agreed to withdraw draft decision E/1999/L.33.
Mr. SCHALIN (Observer for Finland), speaking on behalf of the
European Union on item 14 (h) (Report of the Commission on Human Rights), stated
that the European Union was following very closely the human rights situation in
the countries under review by the Commission. However, it had not considered it
appropriate to make substantive statements on those specific situations within
the Council, but reserved the right to do so before other bodies, and in
particular the General Assembly at its fifty-fourth session.
That being said, the European Union thanked the Cuban delegation for
having shown flexibility by withdrawing draft decision E/1999/L.33. He
emphasized that consideration of human rights violations, wherever they
occurred, fell within the terms of reference of the Commission under item 9 of
its agenda. Those terms of reference were consistent with the autonomous nature
of the technical commissions, which were expert bodies. If the draft decision
submitted by Cuba had been adopted, the effect would have been to bring into
question the status of the Commission on Human Rights and ipso facto those of
all the technical commissions and other subsidiary bodies of the Council.
Turning to the question of the death penalty, raised in document
E/1999/113, the European Union reaffirmed its commitment to the universal
abolition of the death penalty. It called on countries which still had recourse
to that punishment gradually to curtail its use and, in any case, to make its
application subject to the safeguards laid down in international instruments.
The European Union intended to campaign wherever appropriate for the adoption of
moratoriums on the death penalty.
Ms. RUIZ DE ANGULO (Observer for Costa Rica), speaking on behalf of
the Group of Central American States (GRUCA) on item 14 (g), stated that the
Central American countries were in favour of the creation within the
United Nations system of a permanent forum concerned with indigenous
populations. They welcomed the reactivation of the open-ended inter-sessional
ad hoc working group which had the task of preparing, in time for the
fifty-sixth session of the Commission on Human Rights, concrete proposals for
the establishment of such a body.
At the regional level great efforts were being made to promote a better
integration of the indigenous populations while ensuring respect for their
rights and their cultural identities. A seminar recently organized in San José
de Costa Rica in cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
E/1999/SR.42
page 5
Rights had highlighted the importance of higher education as a means of
promoting indigenous knowledge and cultures.
The countries of Central America were playing an active part in the
preparation of standards for the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples
within the Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on
Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. Thanks to the
United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Populations, representatives of
those populations from different regions of the world were taking part in the
activities of the Working Group. The countries of Central America appealed to
the generosity of the international community for the continuance of
contributions to the Fund.
Turning to item 14 (a), she said that much progress had been made in the
Central American subregion to guarantee for women the enjoyment of all their
rights. Those countries were aware that the empowerment of women was a major
factor making for development and had implemented training and awareness
promotion programmes for women as well as broader programmes for the protection
of mothers and children. At the subregional level women were playing an
increased role in the national dialogue and concertation mechanisms; in
addition, the numbers of women in positions of responsibility or exercising
official functions were increasing.
The Council for Social Integration, the membership of which consisted of
the ministers of social affairs in the subregion, had undertaken to consolidate
those advances by developing education and health programmes for women, and also
to establish a database on social indicators in the region in order to monitor
the practical effect given to commitments entered into at world conferences.
The countries of Central America supported the adoption by the Commission
on the Status of Women of the draft optional protocol to the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. They were concerned
at the current situation of the International Research and Training Centre for
the Promotion of Women and supported the recommendation of the Joint Inspection
Unit to strengthen that institute without delay as well as the draft resolution
submitted by the Group of 77 containing a similar recommendation. Finally, they
welcomed with satisfaction the report of the Secretary-General on the
elimination of violence against women (A/54/69-E/1999/8) and laid stress on the
concrete measures adopted at national level to deal with the problem of domestic
violence within a context of the gradual establishment of a peace culture.
E/1999/SR.42
page 6
Ms. KING (United States of America) was ready to approve the draft
resolutions and decisions submitted by the Commission on Human Rights to the
Council for approval; they had been adopted by the Commission itself, usually by
consensus, after careful consideration. The role of the Commission was becoming
increasingly important with the increase in the numbers of violations of
individual rights throughout the world, and the Council should encourage it in
its task of seeking reform. The draft decision withdrawn by the Cuban
delegation had been deliberately aimed at preventing the Commission from doing
its job. That manoeuvre had failed thanks to the opposition of the overwhelming
majority of the members of the Council and had not succeeded in diverting the
attention of the international community from the human rights situation in
Cuba. The protection of fundamental freedoms also depended to a considerable
degree on the role of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and
the United States delegation urged all States to give effective support to that
Office and its staff in the enormous task they were performing with meagre
resources.
Mr. QIAO Zoghuai (China) approved the decision of the Commission on
Human Rights to set up an intersessional working group to continue the analysis
of the proposals for the rationalization of the work of the Commission; he hoped
that the reforms undertaken would enable the Commission to approach economic,
social and cultural rights on the one hand and civil and political rights on the
other hand in a balanced fashion. He stressed the need to reach agreement as
soon as possible on the tasks and programme of work of the World Conference
against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related intolerance
associated with the Commission and to make available all the human and material
resources necessary for the preparation and holding of that Conference.
The Chinese delegation noted with satisfaction that the Commission had
adopted a number of draft resolutions relating to economic, social and cultural
rights and the right to development and had thus contributed to redressing the
imbalance between the treatment of the two categories of rights. Some
delegations still had a selective approach to human rights and were still
exercising pressures on the developing countries. His delegation therefore
invited the country which had once again put forward an anti-China resolution -
which had been rejected by the Commission - to abandon its cold-war mentality
and to cease impairing the work of the Commission. It was quite normal that
countries should have different approaches and practices with regard to human
rights. The cornerstone of the United Nations was the principle of
E/1999/SR.42
page 7
non-interference, and no country had the right on any pretext whatsoever to
interfere in the internal affairs of other countries and to impose its own value
judgements and ideology on others. The international community should maintain
vigilance and oppose such courses of action, which only threatened the stability
of international relations. World peace and universal development were
aspirations common to all peoples and constituted the necessary preconditions
for the promotion and protection of human rights.
Mr. ZHILEVICH (Belarus) said that human rights were interdependent
and indissociable and that democracy was one of the principal preconditions for
their realization. However, he considered that democracy should be introduced
progressively in parallel with the economic capacities, mentalities and
traditions of each country. The fact that Belarus was one of the few ex-Soviet
countries not to have experienced domestic disorders confirmed the accuracy of
that assertion. The new parliament of Belarus, with the advice of the OSCE and
the Council of Europe in particular, had adopted a number of extremely important
legislative instruments concerning human rights. Belarus was cooperating with
the United Nations bodies responsible for human rights. It had acceded to all
the principale international human rights instruments and considered respect for
its commitments in that field to be a major obligation.
However, Belarus considered inadmissible the practice of "double
standards" and interference in the internal affairs of a country in order to
pursue political interests under the guise of defending human rights or
preventing international conflicts. The achievement of progress towards
universal respect for human rights by attacking the underlying causes of
violations of those rights required collective, constructive and balanced
actions by the entire international community on a basis of solidarity and
cooperation.
Mr. AMAT FORÉS (Cuba) said that the Commission on Human Rights,
which should base its action on the principles of universality, objectivity and
non-selectivity, was being paralysed by attempts at political manipulation and
polarization being made by a group of countries under the leadership of the
United States which refused to admit that there could exist models of political,
economic and social organization other than their own and were attempting to
impose their own approach to human rights on the whole world. However,
effective protection of human rights was based precisely on the recognition of
peculiar features of a historical, cultural, religious and legal character
encountered at national and regional levels. No country could claim to be the
E/1999/SR.42
page 8
supreme moral judge of the human rights situation in other countries, and least
of all the United States, where there were 45 million poor people, the majority
of them blacks, Hispanics and members of indigenous minorities; where half of
the female population was subjected to violence; where foreign nationals were
legally executed without having been able to obtain consular assistance; and
whose aggressive and terrorist policy against Cuba over the last 40 years had
made thousands of victims. Cuba was defending its integrity and its rights and
was cooperating with the third world in the fields of health and education; it
demanded an unconditional end to all action designed to overthrow its legitimate
Government and to deprive its people of their right to self-determination and
development. It demanded respect for the principles of international law and
the lifting of the embargo which the United States, flouting justice and law,
was maintaining against it.
Mr. MALGINOV (Russian Federation) observed that two contradictory
tendencies had been apparent in international cooperation in the field of human
rights for some time; that had been clearly visible during the fifty-fifth
session of the Commission on Human Rights. On the one hand, a consensus was
emerging to treat human rights problems in a more general fashion, covering
every field of activity of the UN - development, settlement of disputes,
preventive diplomacy, etc. In that connection, the strengthening of the
operational and analytical resources available to the Office of the
High Commissioner was to be welcomed, even though much still remained to
be done in that field. At the same time, certain countries were still using
human rights to bring pressure to bear on others and to justify their aggressive
manoeuvres; that was extremely dangerous. For instance, NATO, flouting the
fundamental principles of international law, had bombed the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia on the pretext of defending human rights.
The Commission had made progress in the rationalization of its agenda, but
needed to give greater importance to questions such as the protection of
minorities, indigenous peoples, migrants and war victims, and also to violations
of human rights by non-governmental entities. In the field of implementation of
human rights standards, the Commission should examine the situation of
human rights everywhere and in all its aspects. In reforming its mechanisms and
procedures it should continue to take as a basis the principle of consensus,
taking into account the interests of every group of States. It should also
ensure that the World Conference on Racism explored all contemporary forms of
racism, aggressive nationalism, xenophobia and intolerance and concluded with
E/1999/SR.42
page 9
specific recommendations. Finally, the Commission should continue consideration
of the functioning of the treaty bodies and in particular correct the
under-representation of the eastern European group of countries.
Ms. GEGA (Observer for Albania) expressed the gratitude of the
Albanian Government and people to the member States of NATO and other countries,
to the United Nations and to all the other organizations which had lent them
support and encouragement during the enormous Kosovar migration, which had
marked the climax of the gross and systematic violations of human rights by the
obscurantist Milosevic regime. The Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights had reacted immediately and vigorously; it called the attention of
world opinion to one of the most serious crimes against humanity ever committed,
generously assisted the refugees, conducted investigations on the spot and
regularly reported to the Commission, which had devoted a special meeting to the
subject. Since the Serb capitulation the Kosovars had been endeavouring to heal
the wounds - both physical and psychological - left by the crisis and had to
overcome their desire for revenge. The leaders of the Kosovar people had
repeatedly stated that they did not wish innocent Serbs to leave; that they
opposed all acts of violence towards those Serbs; and that they would take the
necessary steps to ensure respect for the rights of all the minorities in
Kosovo. It was essential at the present time that all the decisions and all the
activities of the Office of the High Commissioner and of the other international
organizations present in Kosovo should be rooted in the principles of justice,
impartiality and objectivity. That presupposed above all that every individual
with responsibility for bloodshed should be brought before the International
Penal Tribunal.
Mr. PALOUÅ  (Czech Republic) welcomed the withdrawal of draft
decision E/1999/L.33, particularly as his country had been one of the sponsors
of the resolution on human rights in Cuba which the Commission had adopted at
its fifty-fifth session. Following the statement by the representative of Cuba,
he considered it desirable to present some clarifications. The resolution in
question had been submitted, not by the United States, but by the Czech Republic
and Poland; its intent was not to criticize Cuba but to offer it help in the
promotion of human rights in a spirit of international solidarity. Both the
Czech Republic and Poland had experienced totalitarian regimes and thus knew how
important the assistance of democratic countries and the UN mechanisms was for
the protection of human rights. It was therefore their moral duty to bring the
same assistance to victims of violations on human rights in any other country.
E/1999/SR.42
page 10
It was clear that their action had not been motivated by political
considerations; that was confirmed by the number of co-sponsors of the draft
resolution and the outcome of the vote in the Commission. Draft decision
E/1999/L.33 was totally unacceptable, and in adopting it the Council would have
created a dangerous precedent for the functioning of the Commission on
Human Rights just at a time when the international community was endeavouring to
strengthen it.
Ms. JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference (OIC), stated that Islam was a religion of peace which had
enunciated the concept of human rights more than 14 centuries ago. The member
countries of the OIC had observed with grave concern that Islam was currently
being increasingly associated in certain circles with human rights violations,
terrorism and intolerance. To combat those negative trends the member States of
the OIC had sponsored the draft resolution entitled "Defamation of religions",
which the Commission on Human Rights had adopted by consensus at its fifty-fifth
session (resolution 1999/82). But it was now desirable to go further and to
place the question of Islamophobia on the agenda of the forthcoming World
Conference on Racism. It was also important that the Council should ensure that
its subsidiary bodies, and particularly the Commission on Human Rights, were not
used to attack the religious beliefs of Muslims.
The OIC was concerned about the activities of certain NGOs which were
misusing their accreditation to the Commission on Human Rights to become
standard-bearers for governments, organizations and individuals which were not
interested in the promotion of human rights but in acts of propaganda and
attacks against other countries. Such activities were not conducive to
effective participation by NGOs in the work of the United Nations. In addition,
for purchases of transparency it would be preferable for draft resolutions
submitted to the Commission to be prepared with the participation of all.
Drafts should also be examined to ensure that they meet the criteria of
objectivity and non-selectivity laid down in the Vienna Declaration. Lastly,
the OIC member States remained concerned about the gross violations of the
human rights of the Palestinians and other Arabs living under Israeli
occupation.
In conclusion, she reaffirmed the special interest of the OIC member
States in the activities of the Council and its subsidiary bodies, and in
particular the Commission on Human Rights. She hoped that her statement would
E/1999/SR.42
page 11
be distributed as an official document of the 1999 substantive session of the
Economic and Social Council under agenda item 14 (h).
Mr. AHMAD (World Muslim Congress) stated that not only trade and
markets, but also, and above all, human dignity and human rights were matters
for globalization. Gross and continuing violations of the rights of a people
were no longer a domestic concern of the State in which they were taking place
but a problem to which the international community must have the political will
to face up. The globalization of human rights must be matched by a
globalization of responsibility. In that context prevention was essential; the
atrocities committed in Kosovo had shown how important it was to act speedily to
forestall the worsening of a crisis. It was equally important that the
Commission on Human Rights should not remain inactive in face of the gross
violations of human rights which were continually being reported to it.
Fifty years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, most of the current irreducible conflicts were due to refusals to
allow peoples the democratic right of self-determination; Kashmir was an
example. In breach of the principle of non-selectivity, the United Nations was
applying the right to self-determination in one way in the cases of East Timor
and the Western Sahara and in another way in Kashmir. In conclusion, he
expressed the view that the true enjoyment of human rights demanded an
international community having "faith in fundamental human rights, in the
dignity and worth of the human person" and determined to put that conviction
into practice notwithstanding ethnic, linguistic, religious or cultural
divisions.
Mr. LITTLECHILD (International Organization of Indigenous Resource
Development), speaking on behalf of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus, said that, of
all the international decades proclaimed by the United Nations, that for
indigenous peoples was not only the least known but also, and above all, the one
with the smallest financial resources. He expressed disappointment that the
Commission on Human Rights had declined to consider the mid-term review of the
International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, which should have taken
place, like those for all the other decades, with the involvement of those
directly concerned, namely the indigenous peoples. In any case, the preliminary
review of the first five years of the Decade revealed that little progress had
been made in the improvement of the condition of the indigenous peoples.
In those circumstances, he proposed that the international community
should appoint an indigenous person as an ambassador to promote the decade
E/1999/SR.42
page 12
worldwide; to associate indigenous experts with the work of the international
bodies and the competent organs of the United Nations; to adopt a United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; to create a permanent forum for
indigenous peoples; to convene a world conference on indigenous issues; and,
finally, to recognize the World Indigenous Nations Games scheduled for 2003 as
an official International Decade activity. Finally, he invited the
international community to give a real meaning to the theme of the decade
("partnership in action") so that the indigenous peoples could attain their
rightful place at the dawn of the new millennium.
Mr. SANDOVAL BERNAL (Colombia) said that the interest in
human rights education consistently shown by the different United Nations bodies
was a major step forward in the promotion and protection of fundamental rights.
In that connection the United Nations Decade of Human Rights Education was an
essential instrument for the promotion of mutual understanding, tolerance and
peace. Colombia had devoted considerable efforts to the campaign against
illiteracy and was now seeking to improve the quality of its educational system
by including subjects such as human rights promotion, participative democracy,
the rule of law and the protection of the environment in its primary and
secondary education curricula. The Government of Colombia was convinced that
that civic education would contribute to the building of peace and the
guaranteeing of sustained development.
An educational model had been designed for members of the police and the
armed forces designed to integrate human rights into the training given to
police officers so that they would respect humanitarian values in the
performance of their duties. That model focussed on the incorporation of
human rights in the institutional reform of the police force, the adaptation of
teaching to the different levels of rank and the promotion of dialogue between
civil society and the chiefs of the armed forces. The long-term aim was the
creation of a new force responsible for the maintenance of public order and
having its roots in a genuine human rights culture.
Recommendations contained in the report of the Commission on Human Rights on its
fifty-fifth session (E/1999/23, Parts I and II)
Section A of chapter I
E/1999/SR.42
page 13
The PRESIDENT invited the Council to take action on the draft resolution
entitled "Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” and
the draft amendment contained in document E/1999/L.30.
The Council adopted the draft resolution entitled “Racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” as amended by document
E/1999/L.30.
Section B of chapter I
The PRESIDENT invited the members of the Council to take action on
draft decision 1 entitled "Situation of human rights in Afghanistan", and on
draft decision 2, entitled "Situation of human rights in Burundi”.
Draft decisions 1 and 2 were adopted.
The PRESIDENT invited the members of the Council to take action on
draft decision 3, entitled "Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of
Iran".
Ms. JANJUA (Pakistan) recalled the position her country had taken on
behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference when Commission on
Human Rights resolution 1999/13 was voted on. She regretted that that
resolution served the political objectives of certain countries; did not take
account of the political and social advances achieved in Iran in the field of
human rights; and constituted an obstacle to cooperation with the Government of
Iraq.
Mr. SCHALIN (Observer for Finland) reminded the meeting that
Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/13 had formed the subject of
protracted negotiations and that the Council was only invited to vote on the
extension of the mandate of the Special Representative on the situation of
human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. He therefore hoped that draft
decision 3 would be adopted without a vote.
Draft decision 3 was adopted.
The PRESIDENT stated that he had received a request for a roll-call
vote on draft decision 4, entitled "Situation of human rights in Iraq".
Mr. MAHMOUD (Observer for Iraq) said that his country was the
subject of a systematic campaign designed to conceal from international opinion
the human rights violations caused by the embargo of which it was a victim and
E/1999/SR.42
page 14
by the aggression committed by the United States and the United Kingdom in
contempt of international law and the United Nations Charter. He deplored the
politicization of the work of the Commission on Human Rights and the lack of
objectivity of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iraq.
The latter was exaggerating the importance of certain insignificant details
while ignoring the catastrophic effects of the sanctions and the bombardments on
the living conditions of the Iraqi people, which had been reported on in detail
by the specialized agencies of the United Nations. The Commission on
Human Rights and the Special Rapporteur should have recommended that the embargo
placed on Iraq should be lifted.
A roll-call vote was taken.
Honduras, having been drawn by lot by the President, was called upon to
vote first.
In favour: Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile,
Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, France,
Germany, Honduras, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Republic of
Korea, Latvia, Mauritius, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway,
Poland, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Spain, Turkey,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
United States of America.
Against: None.
Abstaining: Algeria, Belarus, Cape Verde, China, Comoros, Cuba,
Djibouti, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Mozambique, Oman,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Venezuela,
Viet Nam.
Draft decision 4 was adopted by 29 votes to none, with 17 abstentions.
Mr. AL-HUSSAMY (Syrian Arab Republic) had abstained because the
draft decision included considerations of a racial character and could have
adverse repercussions on the territorial integrity of Iraq. The presence of
permanent observers was an interference in the internal affairs of a member
country and contrary to the sovereignty of States and the United Nations
Charter.
Mr. DEMBRI (Algeria) explained that he had abstained because the
draft decision contained a provision deleterious to the territorial integrity of
Iraq. In addition, account should be taken of the humanitarian situation in
that country, which had been dragged down into a process of pauperization by an
E/1999/SR.42
page 15
embargo of unprecedented duration. The international community had to take into
consideration the consequences of its decisions for Iraqi society and to lift
the embargo imposed on Iraq, which needed to have access to all its resources to
improve the food and health situation of its population.
Mr. MALGINOV (Russian Federation) was in favour of the strengthening
of the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights and the introduction of
cooperation with States. He considered that as a matter of objectivity the
Special Rapporteur should pay particular attention to the repercussions of
sanctions and bombardments on the economic and social rights of the Iraqi
people.
The President invited the members of the Council to take action on
draft decision 5, entitled "Situation of Human Rights in the Sudan", and on
draft decision 6, entitled "Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar".
Draft decisions 5 and 6 were adopted.
The President invited the members of the Council to take action on
draft decision 7, entitled “Situation of Human Rights in the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and
Herzevogina”.
Mr. MALGINOV (Russian Federation) recalled that his delegation had
voted against Commission on Human Rights draft resolution 1998/18 that supported
the extension of the mandate of the special rapporteur on the situation of
human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia. He therefore did not request a vote.
Mr. KHARE (India) regretted that Commission on Human Rights
resolution 1999/18 failed to specify that Kosovo formed an integral part of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Draft decision 7 was adopted.
The President invited the members of the Council to take action on
draft decisions 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,22 , 23, 24
and 25, entitled respectively: "Situation of Human Rights in Equatorial Guinea
and Assistance in the Field of Human Rights”, “Situation of Human Rights in
Rwanda”, "Question of the realization in all countries of the economic, social
and cultural rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and study
of special problems which the developing countries face in their efforts to
achieve these human rights”, "Human rights and extreme poverty”, "Question of
E/1999/SR.42
page 16
a draft optional protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”, "Right to freedom of opinion and
expression", "Human rights of migrants", "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", "Working Group on
Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and
Protection of Minorities and the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous
People", "A permanent forum for indigenous people in the United Nations system",
"Strengthening of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights", "Situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo", "National institutions for the promotion and protection of human
rights", "Assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights", "Situation of
human rights in Cambodia", "Situation of human rights in Haiti", "Rights of the
child", and "Defamation of religions".
The Council adopted draft decisions 8 to 25.
The President announced that he had received a request for a
roll-call vote on draft decision 26, entitled "Effects of structural adjustment
policies on the full enjoyment of human rights”.
Lesotho, having been drawn by lot by the President, was called upon to vote
first.
In favour: Algeria, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros,
Cuba, Djibouti, El Salvador, Honduras, India, Indonesia,
Republic of Korea, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique,
Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic,
Turkey, Viet Nam.
Against: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, France,
Germany, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, New Zealand, Norway,
Poland, Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, United States of America.
Abstaining: Belarus, Cape Verde, Russian Federation, Venezuela.
Draft decision 26 was adopted by 25 votes to 17, with 4 abstentions.
The President invited the members of the Council to take actions on
draft decision 27, entitled "Systematic rape, sexual slavery and slavery-like
practices during armed conflicts, including internal armed conflict"; draft
decision 28, entitled "The concept and practice of affirmative action",
E/1999/SR.42
page 17
draft decision 29, entitled "Dates of the 56th session of the Commission on
Human Rights", draft decision 30, entitled "Organization of the work of the 56th
session of the Commission on Human Rights” and draft decision 31, entitled
"Rationalization of the work of the Commission on Human Rights".
Draft decisions 27 to 31 were adopted.
The meeting rose at 5.55 p.m.