Summary record of the 192nd meeting
|UN Document Symbol||E/CN.4/SR.192|
|Convention||International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)|
|Document Type||Summary Record|
|Subjects||Civil and Political Rights|
UNITED NATIONS GENERAL.
ECONOMIC 24 May 1950
COMMISSION ON HUMAN EIGHTS
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE HUNDRED AND NINETY-SECOND MEETING
Held at Lake Success, New York, on Monday, 15 May 1950, at 11 a.m.
Draft International Covenant on Human Rights
Measures of implementation (E/1371, Annex III, E/CN.4/l64/Add.1, E/CN.4/353/Add.10, E/CN.V353/Add.1, E/CN.4/35S, chapter IX, E/CN.4/366, E/CN.4/419, E/CN.4/444, E/CN.4/452,E/CN.4/457, E/CN.A/474., E/CN.4/474/Corr.1, E/CN.4/487, E/CN.4/489, 3/CN.4/L.9, E/CN.4/L.9/Add.1) (continued)
Chairman Mrs. F.D. ROOSEVELT United States 6f America
.Members; Mr. WHITLAM Australia
Mr. NISOT Belgium
Mr. VALENZUELA Chile
Mr. CHANG China
Mr. SORENSEN Denmark
Mr. RAMADAN Egypt
Mr. CASSIN France
Mr. KYROU Greece
Mrs. MEHTA India
Mr. MALIK Lebanon
Mr. MENDEZ Philippines
Miss BOWIE United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland
Mr. QRIBE Uruguay
Mr. JEVREMOVIC Yugoslavia
Representative of a specialized agency :
Mr. EVANS International Labour Organisation
Category, At Miss SENDER International Confederation of
Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)
Category B: Mr. MOSKOWITZ Consultative Council' of Jewish
Mr. HALPERIN Coordinating Board of Jewish
Mr. CRUICKSHAN] Inter-American Council of Commerce
Mr. BEER International League for the Rights
Miss SCHAEFER International Union of Catholic
Mr. SCHWELB Assistant Director, Division of
Mr. SCHACHTER Deputy Director of the General
Mr. DAS Secretary of the Commission
E/CN.SR.192 Page 3
DRAFT INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON HUMAN RIGHTS MEASURES OF IMPLEMENTATION (E/1371, Annex III. E/CN.4/164/Add.1, E/CN.4/353/Add.10, E/CN.4/353/Add.11, E/CN.4/358/chapter 3X,E/CN.4/366,E/CN.4/419, E/CN.4/444, E/CN.4/452,E,E/CH.4/457, E/CN.4/474,E/CN.4/474/Corr.1 E/CN.4/487, E/CN.4/489 E/CN.4/L.9, 3/CN.4/L.9/Add.1) (continued)
1. The CHAIRMAN requested the Commission to consider the United Kingdom proposal for an additional article to be inserted after article 23 of the measures of implementation (E/CN.4/487)
2. Miss BOWIE (United Kingdom) said that it would he important for the human rights committee in the course of its work to be able to obtain legal opinions on the cases before it. Inasmuch as the details of such cases should be kept secret until a decision had been reagered, she thought it would be wiser to transmit requests through the Secretary-General in his capacity as an organ of the United Nations rather than to act through the intermediary of the Economic and Social Council or the Commission on Human Rights. The last phrase of the United Kingdom proposal, beginning with the words "upon such questions" would ensure that the committee would retain the initiative in such matters and that
the Secretary-General would merely forward the committee's requests for an advisory opinion to the Court.
3. Mr. KYROU (Greece) was in favour of the United Kingdom proposal. Before
voting on the text, however, he wished the Secretariat to assure him that his
interpretation of Article 96, paragraph 2 of the Charter was correct. He under
stood that text to mean that fresh authorizations to request advisory opinions
would not be required in every case and that any authorization granted to an organ
or specialized agency by the General Assembly would be permanent.
4. Mr. SCHACHTRR (Deputy Director of the General Legal Division) said it
was clear that an authorization from the General Assembly to request advisory opinions might be permanent and might extend to a whole class of cases. In that connation he cited the general authorization granted by the General Assembly to the Economic and Social Council in 1946, to the Trusteeship Council in 1947 and to the Interim Committee in 1948. The only necessary limitation on the authorization was
that such requests for advisory opinions of the Court might only be made in respect of legal questions arising within the scope of the activities of the organ or agency making the request.
5. Mr. NISOT (Belgium) observed that, according to the United Kingdom proposal, the right to request the opinion of the Court would belong not to the proposed committee but to the Secretary-General. The latter would thus decide with. full authority when it was appropriate to consult the Court and would be the sole Judge of the questions to be put to it. The committee's decisions in that respect would not be binding on him nor would, he be able to justify himself by them. He. would be as free to consult the Court on his own initiative as to abstain from complying with a request for an advisory opinion addressed to him by the committee. The system proposed by the United Kingdom would not only be unsuited to the committee's purpose but would even put the committee at the mercy of the Secretary-General. who would be competent to invite quasi-Judicial decisions which the committee would be unable to disregard
6. The CHAIRMAN, speaking as the representative of the United States of America, thought the United Kingdom proposal raised questions of grave concern. Article 96, paragraph 2 empowered other organs of the United Nations than the General Assembly and the Security Council, and the specialized agencies, to reques' advisory opinions if so authorized by the General Assembly, but only on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities. As the legal questions which would arise out of the committee's work would not come within the scope of the Secretary-General's tasks, the United Kingdom proposal would conflict with the provisions of the Charter.
7. The Secretariat was a principal organ, under the terms of Article 7 of the Charter, and could request advisory opinions on questions arising on matters which were Within its competence, but the United States delegation felt that it could not ask for a legal opinion on questions arising out of matters which were within the scope of any other United Nations organ or agency, whether authorized to request such opinions 01* not. If that were not the case, there would be no need for the General Assembly to issue specific authorizations. The United States delegation thought that the Charter could not be amended in that fashion and was . therefore opposed to the United Kingdom proposal.
/8. The Commission
8. The Commission had decided that the human right3 committee should not be a legal body and that is should not discuss legal matters. Accordingly, there was be need for it to" request advisory opinions from the International Court Moreover, States signatories to the Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice were free to proceed in accordance with the provisions of those instruments and consult the Court when they wished. It seemed, therefore, that the additional article proposed by the United Kingdom was unnecessary.
9. Mr. VALEMZUEIA (Chile) observed that Article 65, paragraph 1 of the Statute provided that "the Court may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body may be authorized by or in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to make such a request". The human rights committee was clearly not authorized by any United Nations body to request such opinions. The question remained whether the Charter authorized the committee to do so. Article 96, paragraph 2 of the Charter referred to "other organs" which could be authorized to request advisory opinions. That paragraph was linked to Article 7 which cited the principal organs of the United Nations, mentioning "subsidiary organs" in its second paragraph. For the United Kingdom proposal to have a sound legal basis, therefore, the Commission would have to proclaim the committee's character as a subsidiary organ. Only when that decision had been approved by the Economic and Social Council and by the General Assembly would the committee be competent, from the legal point of view, to request advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice. 10. As it stood, however, the United Kingdom proposal was not wholly in harmony with the provisions of the Charter. He wondered whether the United . Kingdom representative felt that the committee could request advisory opinions even if it were not considered a subsidiary organ of the United Nations.
11. Miss BOWIE (United Kingdom) considered that under the Charter the human rights committee would have no power to request advisory opinions, and that if it were to be called a subsidiary organ, the Charter might have to be amended* For that reason, she felt the United Kingdom proposal offered a solution which would enable the Commission to circumvent that constitutional difficulty.
/l2. Mr. CASSIN
12. Mr. CASSIN (France) thought the United Kingdom proposal most interesting It was of particular importance in view of the membership of the committee. 13. The questions raised in that proposal were too complex, however, to permit of an immediate solution. For example, the proposal to request the necessary authorization to consult the International Court of Justice immediately posed the question of the nature of the Secretariat as an organ of the United Nations under the provisions of Articles 7 and 96 of the Charter, as well as the nature of the human rights committee. The further question whether the authorization" granted under the provisions of Article 96 was permanent, as well as the nature of the right to request opinions and to formulate questions, would also have to be considered.
14. The United. Kingdom proposal was directly connected with the question of the committee's relation to other United Nations organs, and the possible reper cussions of any decision on that proposal should be taken into account. The French delegation would abstain from voting on the proposal, as it felt that it was inextricably linked to the other legal, questions which had been discussed the previous week.
15. Mr. RAMADAN (Egypt), did not consider that the. United Kingdom proposal.. ,
would guarantee that infringements of human rights would be punished. Moreover,
the human rights committee would not come under the provisions of Part A of;
General Assembly Resolution 171(II). For those reasons the Egyptian delegation.
would abstain from voting on the proposal.
16. Mr. SORENSEN (Denmark) did not fully support the French representative's
contention that the United Kingdom proposal was closely linked to the decisions
which had been taken by the Commission during the previous week. Furthermore,
if it were possible to obtain an advisory opinion on the committee's work, it
might not be necessary to limit the right of States: Parties to submit their
cases directly to the Court.
17. The United Kingdom proposal was intended to achieve the same purpose as the. proposals which had been, rejected at the l91st meeting,. The United Kingdom
text would make it possible for the committee to obtain an advisory opinion on the legal questions which were within its competence. For that reason he would support the United Kingdom proposal.
18. Turning to the legal questions arising out of that proposal, he referred to the Belgian representative's remarks The Danish delegation did not feel that it would be a disadvantage if the Secretary-General were free to exercise some discretion in Such matters. He was under no obligation to forward requests for opinions, but, on the other hand, he could have no interest in refusing to comply with the committee's wishes. Mr. Sorensen could not see how the Secretary-General's attitude towards the committee's work would be compromised if he were made the intermediary through whom requests for advisory opinions were to be transmitted to the Court.
19. The United States representative had raised a very serious obstacle in questioning whether it would be within the scope of the Secretary-General's activities to request advisory opinions On matters concerning the committee. It should be recalled, however, that the Secretary-General would fulfil very important duties in connation with the organisation and functioning of the committee and that its activities might properly be said to fall within the scope of his work. The question should be decided by the General Assembly. He suggested therefore that the best course might be to forward the United Kingdom proposal to the General Assembly and ask that body to decide whether it contravened the provisions of the Charter.
20. If that legal obstacle appeared insurmountable, another solution might be to forward the committee's requests for advisory opinions through another organ, which was competent to deal with questions of human rights, such as the Economic and Social Council. He had not fully considered the implications of that proposal, however, and it might prove inadvisable as some of the members of the Council might not ratify the covenant.
21. If the United Kingdom wished to maintain its proposal, therefore, he would support it.
22. Mr. KYROU (Greece) wondered whether the United Kingdom representative would be willing to defer her proposal in order to give members time to study it more thoroughly.
23. Miss BOWIE (United Kingdom) thought it would be better to act on her proposal at that time so that, if adopted, it could be forwarded to Governments for their consideration together with the other measures of implementation.
/2k, Mrs, MEHTA
24. Mrs. MEHTA (India) said that the Commission had been informed that States could not bring cases involving violations of human rights before the International Court and it was for that reason that some implementation machinery would have to be devised for the Covenant. Accordingly, the Commission had proposed that a permanent human rights committee should be established to deal with such matters, The only two questions for the Commission to decide therefore were whether the committee would be a subsidiary organ of the United Nations, and, if SQ, whether it would have the power to approach the Court for a legal opinion.
25. Mr. SCHACHTER (Deputy Director of the General Legal Division)said that hitherto Article 7 of the Charter had been interpreted to mean that only organs established by the principal organs of the United Nations, with terms of reference laid down by those bodies, could be considered as subsidiary organs. According to that: conception, the human rights committee would not be a subsidiary organ, as it would not be established by a principal organ, but rather by an international instrument separate and distinct from the Charter. He added that that conclusion was based only on the draft articles on implementation which had so far been drawn up, and did not of course take into account other measures that might possibly
be taken by the General Assembly in regard to the proposed committee.
26. Mr. ORIBE (Uruguay) said that the United Kingdom proposal raised two distinct questions. On the one hand there was the question of principle whether the Commission on Human Rights did or did not wish the proposed committee to be empowered to request advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice, either directly or indirectly, through some person or body. On the other hand, there was the question of the means by which the committee could request such advisory opinions.
27. The Uruguayan delegation supported the view that the proposed committee on human rights should have the power to request advisory opinions on legal matters. .
/28. The proposed
23, The proposed committee could not be considered as an organ of the United Nation or a specialized agency. That fact had been emphasized by the representative of the Legal Department of the Secretariat. Some organ must therefore be found through which the proposed committee could transmit its requests for advisory opinions to the International Court. As it was open to controversy whether the protection of human rights came within the scope of the Secretary-General's activities, he felt there were only three organs through which the . proposed committee could submit requests for advisory opinions, namely the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Commission on Human Rights.
29. Mr. MALIK (Lebanon) said that he would be inclined to consider the proposed committee as an organ of the United Nations. He emphasized, however, that the draft International Covenant on Human Rights would be promulgated by the General Assembly and that the proposed Committee on human rights would come into being only after the requisite number of signatures had been deposited. The committee would therefore only be indirectly set up by the General Assembly, and it was that fact which caused difficulties.
30. The CHAIRMAN, speaking as the United States representative, said that it did not seem to her delegation that the question of human rights came within the scope of the activities of the Secretary-General. She reiterated her original statement that States parties to the Covenant would be free, if they so desired and so agreed, to submit to the International Court of Justice any questions that they wished. It therefore seemed that it would be simpler not to include in the measures on implementation a provision such as that suggested by the United Kingdom delegation.
31. Mr. MENDEZ (Philippines) felt that the proposed committee would be a subsidiary organ of the Economic and Social Council and therefore a subsidiary organ of the United Nations.
32. Referring to the question of the scope of the activities of the Secretary General, he noted that the Secretary-General was mentioned at least seven times in the measures on implementation (E/CN.4/474) and that he would become part of the machinery of the committee on human rights. When legal questions of a serious
nature arose and the committee wished to ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion, he considered that the committee should do so as a whole and not simply ask the Secretary-General to pass on such a request to the Court.
33. Mr. KYROU (Greece) felt that the question of the status of the committee on human rights was even more complicated than the representatives of Lebanon and the Philippines thought. If the measures of implementation were approved by the Economic and Social Council and by the General Assembly they would be included in a resolution of the latter body. The committee on human rights would, however, be set up only after a certain number of ratifications of the Covenant on Human Rights had been deposited, and would therefore be established by the States parties to the Covenant and not by the Economic and Social Council. He was inclined, therefore, to share the opinion of the representative of the Secretaria
34. Kiss BOWIE (United Kingdom), referring to the statement of the French representative that the United Kingdom proposal was linked with the discussion on whether or not the Commission wished the proposed committee to be composed primarily of persons of high judicial experience, said that as the Commission had-decided that it did not wish the committee to be a Judicial body, it was all the more important that when a legal question arose the committee should be in a position to obtain a consultative opinion. Even in the investigation of facts, the committee might be confronted with the question of whether a human right had been violated. It was important, therefore, that it should obtain a legal opinion as to whether there had been such a violation.
35. She felt that the French representative's three questions had been largely answered by the statements of other representatives as well as by her first statement.
36. Referring to the question as to which body should formulate the request for an advisory opinion, she pointed out that the United Kingdom delegation had been careful to state in its proposal that the committee should do so. It was clear from Article 7 of the Charter that the Secretariat was an organ of the United Nations. The Secretary-General would, moreover, have
certain duties in connation with the committee, and the United Kingdom delegation thought that it should be possible to add a special definition of his powers when the General Assembly agreed to give him the right to transmit requests for an advisory opinion to the International Court of Justice.
37. Some representatives had suggested that requests for advisory opinions should be tronsmitted through the Economic and Social Council and the Commission on Human Rights, but there world be a danger of serious delay in the transmission of such requests, view of the fact that those organs met very infrequently...
38. Referring to the statement by the representative of India that discussion in the Commission had shown that States parties to the Covenant would not. have the right to request the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion, she did not think that that statement was corrects States Members of the
United Nations which were parties to the Covenant would still have the right to ask the International Court of Justice to settle any case they wished to submit to the Court. But they had not the right to ask for advisory opinions. The point. brought out during the discussions in the Commission on Human Rights was that the Commission wished the questions brought before the committees to be settled in. a friendly way whereas the International Court of Justice could only deliver judgments if cases wire referred to it by the parties.
39. As regards the statement by the Lebanese representative, she pointed out
that the committee would be set up only when the Covenant on Human Rights had
entered into force. She agreed that under Article 57 of the Charter it might be
argued that the committee on human rights could be regarded as a specialized agency
. of the United Nations.
40. The United Kingdom delegation thought it would be wise for a vote to be taken on its proposal immediately The -report of the Commission might mention-that there should be further Consideration of the question of whether the committee's requests for advisory opinions should be transmitted to the International Court of Justice through the Secretary General.
41. Mr. NISOR (Belgium) said in answer to the Philippine representative that in hi3 opinion The right to consult the Court could not usefully be conferred on the Secretary-General.
/42. Mr. VALENZUELA
42. Mr. VALENZUELA (Chile) said his delegation felt that the proposed
committee on human rights could request an advisory opinion of the International
Court of Justice only if it was considered as a subsidiary organ of the
United Nations, Although the Chilean delegation agreed in principle with the
United Kingdom proposal, it would prefer the question to be covered by a
resolution rather than by an additional article in the draft International
Covenant on Human Rights, When the Covenant had been ratified by a sufficient
number of States Members the Commission on Human Rights could again consider
the question of the character of the committee on human rights, and in a
resolution could ask the Economic and Social Council to request the General
Assembly to grant the committee the status of a subsidiary organ of the United Nations.
43, Mr. CASSIN (France) remarked that agreement might be reached on the
principle involved in the United Kingdom proposal: opinion was divided, however,
on the question whether the committee would be a subsidiary organ which might
be authorized to ask the International Court for an advisory opinion. The representatives of Denmark and the United Kingdom appeared to have misunderstood his reference to the decision adopted during the preceding week regarding the membership of the committee; he had meant, and continued to believe, that that decision was structurally linked with the issue under discussion. If the membership of the committee was to be determined by the States Parties to the Covenant, the problem of establishing a relationship between such an organ and the International Court was obviously a very complex one. He did not wish to pre-judge his Government's position on the question and he would therefore be obliged to abstain.
44. Mrs. MEHTA (India) remarked, in reply to the United Kingdom representative, that she was fully aware that States were free to consult the International Court on all problems: it was true nevertheless that no machinery existed as yet for bringing disputes connected with the observance of human rights before the Court, and the point at issue was how such machinery should be devised,
45. The committee would be a permanent body; the article constituting it would eventually be adopted by the General Assembly within the framework of the Covenant, Since the Secretary-General was to participate in the selection of its members, it would not be an organ serving only the States
parties to the Covenant but, rather, an organ of the United Nations within the meaning of Article 96 (l). She was therefore unable to vote for the United Kingdom proposal.
46. Mr. CHANG (China) thought that insertion of the United Kingdom text
would be superfluous at that stage. The International Court usually took from several months to a year to issue an advisory opinion: such a lengthy procedure was hardly appropriate for resolving the points of law likely to come up in the course of the committee's work. If fundamental differences of . . . opinion requiring international arbitration should arise, the States concerned would in any event be free to put them before the Court.
47. Mr. MENDEZ (Philippines), replying to the representative of Belgium,
drew attention to Article 98 of the Charter, which provided that the Secretary-General, besides acting in that capacity in all meetings of the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, and the Trusteeship Council, should "perform such other functions as are entrusted to him by these organs". The function contemplated in the United Kingdom proposal would be entrusted to the Secretary-General by the General Assembly by virtue of the latter's adoption of the covenant as a whole. There was there-for no reason why the chief administrative officer of the United Nations should not ask the International Court for an advisory opinion on legal questions as formulated by the committee.
48. Miss BOWIE (United Kingdom) amended her delegation's proposal to
read as follows:
' "The committee may transmit through the appropriate organ duly
authorized by the General Assembly a request for an, advisory opinion
of the International Court of Justice on legal questions, and that
organ may ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory
opinion upon such questions, as formulated by the committee."
49. That text would ensure that advisory opinions of the Court could, if
necessary, be obtained from the International Court regarding matters dealt
with by the committee," while leaving it to the General Assembly to decide upon
the controversial Issue which organ was competent to make the actual request
to the International Court.
/50. In the
50. In the event of the United Kingdom proposal, as amended, being rejected by the Commission, she submitted the following draft resolution for its considerations
"The Commission on Human Rights
"Considers that it is desirable that the human rights committee should be
able to obtain from the International Court of Justice advisory opinions on questions of law arising in the course of its work, and
"Request the Secretary-General of the United Nations to report to the Economic and Social Council upon the means by which this can be secured in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations,"
51, The CHAIRMAN drew attention to article 23 (2) of the Covenant as adopted
by the Commission at its preceding meeting.
52. Mr. NISOT (Belgium) could not accept the new proposal of the United Kingdom
delegation. First the committee would be neither an organ of the United Nations
nor a specialized agency. Article 96 of the Charter therefore precluded its
being empowered to consult the Court, or, what came to the same thing, finally
determining the questions on which it would be consulted. Secondly, whatever
authority capable of approaching the Court was commissioned at the request of the
committee to consult it, would be neither bound by such a request nor able to
justify itself by it. Consequently, there again the system might prove as
ineffective as he had shown it to be if action were taken through the Secretary-
General, He then referred to the possibility that had been suggested of making
the committee into a subsidiary organ He was afraid that that method was not
very practicable. As an organ of the United Nations, the subsidiary organ ought
to have authority over all the Members of the United Nations, In principle, that
would not be the case for the committee, which would be the creation of a
particular treaty to Which only those Members who wished to do so would accede,
53. Miss SENDER (international Confederation of Free Trade Unions) remarked that, after its entry into force, the Covenant would still be open for signature and ratification by Members of the United Nations. The committee should not, therefore,, be regarded as a body controlled by a limited number of States parties to the Covenant, but as a proper organ of the United Nations.
54. Following a suggestion by Mr. SORENSEN (Denmark), Miss BOWIE
(United Kingdom) agreed to submit to the vote the draft resolution she had
introduced in her preceding speech regardless of whether the original
United Kingdom proposal (E/GN.4/487/Rev.1) was adopted by the Commission Even1
if that proposal were adopted, a further study of the question would be of
55. Mr. ORIBE (Uruguay; welcomed that decision of the United Kingdom representative, and expressed appreciation of her initiative in raising the important I sue of advisory opinions. It was highly' desirable that the committee should be enabled to discharges its functions as freely arid as adequately as possible.
56. Mr. KYROU (Greece) felt that the two United Kingdom proposals were mutually contradictory:. adoption of the first one (E/CN.4/487) would render it impossible for the Economic and Social Council to take alternative action. He would therefore vote against the new draft resolutions
57. Mr. CHANG (China) remarked that the second United Kingdom proposal was still less acceptable than the first, since it tended even more to confuse the character of the committee's functions. In creating the committee? the Commission had not intended to get up a juridical organ but a body of statesmen . whose court of appeal would be the public opinion of the worlds Both the United Kingdom proposals allowed that original intention to become obscured.
53. Mr. NISOT (Belgium) wished to know whether the Secretary General would be prepared to draw up the report suggested in the second United Kingdom proposal, and what would be the nature of such a report.
59. Mr. SCHACHTER (Secretariat) replied that the report would deal with the
organs which the General Assembly might authorize to request advisor opinions
from the International Court in accordance with Article 96 (2) and also with the
conditions which might be included in such authorization. The Secretary-General
which would endeavour would be prepared to draw up such a report/to answer the various questions raised
during the discussions,
60. The CHAIRMAN, speaking as the representative of the United States of America, said that her delegation considered the second United Kingdom proposal superfluous on the grounds already stated in connation with the first United Kingdom proposal.
/6l. Mr. ORIBE
61. Mr. ORIBE (Uruguay), referring to the remarks made by the representative of China, remarked that by requesting the Court for an advisory-opinion the committee would not be appealing to a higher legal instance, but merely clarifying such legal points as might arise in the course of its work,
62. In reply to the statement made by the Chairman as representative of
the United States of America, he pointed out that some members might vote
against the first United Kingdom proposal only because they were-doubtful about
the means of obtaining the Court's advisory opinions those members would
particularly appreciate having the Secretary-General's views on the matter,
63. The CHAIRMAN put to the vote the United Kingdom proposal for an
additional article, as amended, (E/CN.4/487/Rev.1).
The proposal was rejected by 6 votes to 5, with 4 abstentions,
64 Mr. NISOT (Belgium) said that he had voted against the proposal for the reasons he had already stated.
65. The CHAIRMAN put to the vote the further draft resolution submitted verbally by the United Kingdom delegation.
The draft resolution was adopted by 6 votes to 2, with 6 abstentions.
The meeting rose at 1 P.M.