ECOSOC/6174
26 July 2005
Economic and Social Council Adopts 43 Texts Recommended by 61st Session of Human Rights Commission
Rejects Text on Human Rights and Responsibilities; Reparations, Country-Specific Situations among Wide Range of Issues
NEW YORK, 25 July (UN Headquarters) -- The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) this morning adopted of a number of decisions recommended by its main human rights subsidiary body, with texts ranging from country-specific human rights situations to reparations and the enjoyment of individual and collective rights.
Acting on the recommendations of the sixty-first session of the Commission on Human Rights, the Council took up one draft resolution and 43 draft decisions contained in that body’s report. Sixteen of the texts required a recorded vote, and one was rejected.
By a vote of 23 in favour and 25 against, with 2 abstentions (Azerbaijan, United Republic of Tanzania), the Council rejected a text on human rights and human responsibilities, by which it would have endorsed the Commission’s decision to request Miguel Martinez, author of a study on the subject, to prepare a new version of the pre-draft declaration on human social responsibilities. (See Annex XV for details.)
Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the representative of the United Kingdom said he called for the vote because he rejected the idea that States might determine the rights individuals could enjoy, which undermined the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ECOSOC, as the parent body of the Commission, had the duty to examine the decisions of the Commission and, if necessary, reject resolutions that undermined the fundamental principles of the United Nations.
Among the other texts voted on was a resolution on principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law, which Chile’s representative stressed was a useful tool to help victims and to help States in designing their public policies in the areas of recourse and reparations to benefit those who suffered violations of fundamental human rights. The text was adopted by a vote of 43 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Australia, Germany, India, Nigeria, United States) (see Annex I).
In adopting a decision regarding the Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, the Council authorized the Group to meet for five working days prior to the fifty-seventh session of the Subcommission. The Council took that action by a vote of 32 in favour to 17 against, with 1 abstention (Denmark) (see Annex VII). Speaking before the vote, the representative of the United States said that, while she appreciated the work of the Group’s experts, “its day was done” since the Group had outlived its usefulness.
Likewise, she said the work of the Commission’s Working Group to elaborate a draft declaration on indigenous issues should have been completed in the 10 years that had been allotted to it. What was needed now was not an open-ended mandate, but a clear commitment by States to bring the talks to a conclusion before next year’s session of the Commission. A decision authorizing that Group to meet for a period of 10 days prior to the sixty-second session of the Commission was adopted by a vote of 49 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention (United States). (See Annex VIII.)
Other decisions voted on today related to: the use of mercenaries to violate human rights and impede the right to self-determination; the right to development; the effects of economic reform policies; the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; human rights and international solidarity; the World Conference on Racism; human rights and transnational business; the staff of the Human Rights High Commissioner’s Office; the right to drinking water and sanitation; terrorism and human rights; and indigenous peoples’ permanent sovereignty.
Acting without a vote, the Council adopted texts on enforced or involuntary disappearances; the independence and impartiality of the judicial system; the right to freedom of opinion and expression; torture and related treatment; elimination of violence against women; human rights of migrants; human rights and indigenous issues; rights of minorities; protection of human rights while fighting terrorism; corruption and human rights; non-discrimination as enshrined in the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; responsibility with regard to crimes of sexual violence; discrimination based on work and descent; and a convention on prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide.
Country-specific decisions were adopted relating Myanmar, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Belarus, Sudan, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Nepal, Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghanistan and Haiti.
Some speakers expressed concern at the continuing practice of adopting country-specific decisions, which they said sought to exert political pressure on developing countries through confrontation and humiliation. It was recommended that the international community promote human rights through dialogue with the concerned parties instead. The politicization of human rights within the United Nations, noted China’s representative, would only further enhance its credibility crisis and would not help to promote the healthy development of international human rights.
The Council also adopted decisions regarding reinforcing the effectiveness of the Commission’s special procedures, and dates for the Commission’s next meeting. A text on the Commission’s organization of work for that meeting was adopted by a vote of 48 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions. (See Annex XVI.)
In addition, the Council was informed that no action was required on draft decision 40 of the Commission’s report, since the Council, at its resumed organizational session in June, took action on a draft decision on reform proposed by the Secretary-General in the area of human rights, submitted by the Council President.
In other action, the Council took note of reports by: the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Commission on Human Rights; the High Commissioner for Human Rights; and the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
Also speaking in today’s meeting were the representatives of Germany, Myanmar, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Thailand, Japan, Switzerland, Venezuela and Colombia.
The Council will reconvene at 3 p.m. tomorrow, 26 July, to continue its work.
Background
The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) today continued the general segment of its current substantive session by taking action on recommendations in the report of the Commission on Human Rights, a Council subsidiary body. Programme budget implications of the recommendations are also before the Council (document E/2005/L.34). For background on the current session, see Press Release ECOSOC/6154 issued 23 June.
The report of the Commission on Human Rights (documents E/2005/23-E/CN.4/2005/134 and Corr.1) contained one draft resolution on remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law. It also contained 43 draft decisions on matters the Commission had approved. Those were: the use of mercenaries to violate rights; the right to development; human rights in Myanmar, those in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and in Belarus; effect of economic reforms on human rights; the right to the highest attainable health; non-voluntary disappearances; independence of judicial systems; the right to freedom of opinion; torture and related treatment; elimination of violence against women; and migrant human rights.
Further, the draft decisions in the Commission’s report concerned: the working group on indigenous populations and another to elaborate a declaration on their rights; human rights in relation to indigenous issues and to international solidarity; the World Conference on racism and follow-up to the Durban outcome; human rights and transnational business; composition of the Human Rights Commissioner’s staff; assistance for Burundi, for Sierra Leone and for Nepal; minority rights; protecting rights while fighting terrorism; human rights in Sudan and human rights assistance to Somalia; assistance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; the impact of corruption on human rights; study on non-discrimination; the right to drinking water and sanitation; terrorism and human rights; and responsibility for sexual crimes.
Drafts also dealt with: discrimination based on work and descent; sovereignty of indigenous peoples over natural resources; human rights and responsibilities; fortifying the Commission’s special procedures; the dates and the organization of work for the Commission’s sixty-second session; human rights reform; human rights in Afghanistan and in Haiti; and a convention on genocide.
Action on Drafts
The Council took up the report of the Commission on Human rights containing one draft resolution and forty-three draft decisions. It was noted that a draft decision on reform proposed by the Secretary-General in the area of human rights (draft decision 40) had been submitted by the Council President and, therefore, required no further action.
The Council then took up the draft resolution on principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law.
Making a general statement, Chile’s representative said that last May, the Commission on Human Rights adopted the text, presented by his delegation, without a vote. The process leading up to the adoption was transparent and the text had support delegations from all regional groups. The text maintained references to international human rights law and international humanitarian law, which were equally important in terms of State obligations and obligations in bringing about reparations. It was a text that did not create new international obligations. The non-binding nature of the text gave States broad flexibility regarding their obligations. He appealed to States to vote in favour of the text, which was a useful tool to help victims and to help States in designing their public policies in the areas of recourse and reparations to benefit those who suffered violations of fundamental human rights.
In explanation of vote, the representative of Germany said that reparations remained an issue of utmost importance for his country. For the reasons his delegation gave in the Commission on Human Rights, he would abstain again in the vote on the text.
The draft and its annex were adopted by a recorded vote of 43 in favour and none against, with 5 abstentions (Australia, Germany, India, Nigeria, United States). (For details of the vote, see Annex I).
After the vote, the representative of the United States said that she regretted that her delegation had to call for a vote on the text, which was an important statement in condemning impunity. It merited support. She recognized the important principles in the text and underscored that principle did not create any legal obligations. Chile’s effort for the provision was appreciated, but it had not been possible to arrive at a neutral text on the International Criminal Court. Therefore, she had to call for a vote and abstained in the vote. She noted that non—parties to the International Criminal Court had no legal obligations with regard to that treaty unless otherwise directed by the Security Council.
The Council then took up the draft decision on the use of mercenaries to violate human rights and impede the right to self-determination.
The draft was adopted by a recorded vote of 29 in favour and 18 against, with no abstentions (Annex II).
Next, the draft decision on the right to development was taken up.
The draft was adopted by a recorded vote of 46 in favour and 2 against, (Australia, United States) with 1 abstention (Japan) (Annex III).
The draft on human rights in Myanmar was taken up.
Speaking before the vote, Myanmar’s representative said his country attached significant importance to promoting universal respect for and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. Human rights issues must be addressed in a global context through constructive dialogue with respect for the principles of objectivity, respect for national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States. The text was not based on those principles. Before the text was passed in the Commission, Myanmar had stated that it had no choice but to reject the text in its entirety. He stood by that position.
China’s representative noted that the Myanmar Government and people were engaging in national reconstruction and reconciliation. He supported and appreciated Myanmar’s efforts to protect and promote human rights. He had consistently advocated that the international community try to promote and protect human rights through dialogue, and not exert political pressure on developing countries by confrontation and humiliation. He hoped the relevant countries would show more tolerance and try to resolve their issues with the Myanmar Government.
The text was then adopted.
After the vote, Cuba’s representative requested that he be allowed to explain his vote. He would not participate in the consensus for drafts that showed the double standards in the area of human rights. There was no vote on this text, but that did not mean that he approved it, which only aggravated the situation between developed countries and the third world. He requested that his statement be reflected in the record as an explanation of vote before the vote.
The text on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was then taken up.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea regretted that the draft was taken up again in ECOSOC. The text was an extreme example of politicization, selectivity and double standards in the field of human rights. In its entirety, it contained false information. By tabling the resolution, its sponsors had taken sides with the hostile policy of the United States against his Government. He rejected the resolution and made it clear that any attempt to offend his State and its policies, and to infringe on its sovereignty, would not be tolerated. He did not recognize the Special Rapporteur appointed by the Commission. Human rights could not be the monopoly of a specific country or group. There was no single model of human rights.
Countries with so-called human rights problems were inevitably developing countries that did not share the same values as the western bloc, he said. Human rights were used by those to pursue illegal purposes. The text was an example of that negative trend. The slogan of protecting human rights was nothing but hypocrisy. He did not care that action was being taken on this draft which was full of old-fashioned lies. Such a “game” of adopting country-specific resolutions would not help in promoting and protecting human rights.
China’s representative said that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had undertaken efforts to improve the livelihood of its people. The international community should encourage that country and not condemn and humiliate it. To adopt a country-specific resolution on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would not help promote human rights in that country, but only aggravate confrontation. As for the human rights mechanisms of the United Nations, politicization of human rights would only lead to further enhance its credibility crisis and would not help to promote the healthy development of international human rights.
In explanation of position, Cuba’s representative said he would not participate in any so-called consensus on this type of resolution. Some delegations worked with double standards on such resolutions. The adoption without a vote did not mean he approved this type of behaviour.
The draft was adopted without a vote.
The text on human rights in Belarus was taken up.
Making a general statement, the representative of the Russian Federation said that, currently, one of the most actively discussed problems was United Nations reform, particularly the human rights section of the Organization and more specifically the Commission on Human Rights. Regarding the special procedures of the Commission, he said the activities of the Special Rapporteur showed how one Special Rapporteur could compromise the entire special procedures of the Commission.
In explanation of vote, Cuba’s representative said he would vote against the text, which served the political interest of its authors. It was necessary to put an end to double standards, selectivity and hypocrisy, which some countries had introduced in the Commission and was a disgrace to that important functional commission.
China’s representative said that he would vote against the draft.
The draft was adopted by a recorded vote of 23 in favour to 11 against with 15 abstentions (Annex IV).
The text on effects of economic reform policies was taken up.
The draft was adopted by a recorded vote of 29 in favour to 18 against, with 4 abstentions (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Costa Rica, Mexico) (Annex V).
Next, a decision on the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of health was taken up.
In explanation before the vote, the representative of the United States said the text decided to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for three years. She did not support the report of the Special Rapporteur or renewal of his mandate. Among other things, he treated public and private sector obligations as the same. For those and other reasons, she had requested a vote on the text.
The draft was adopted by a recorded vote of 50 in favour to 1 against (United States), with no abstentions (Annex VI).
A draft on enforced or involuntary disappearances was taken up.
That draft was adopted without a vote.
Next, a draft on the independence and impartiality of the judicial system was taken up.
The draft was adopted without a vote.
A draft on the right to freedom of opinion and expression was taken up.
The draft was adopted without a vote.
The decision on torture and related treatment was taken up.
The draft was adopted without a vote.
The draft on elimination of violence against women was taken up.
The draft decision was adopted without a vote.
The draft on human rights of migrants was taken up and adopted without a vote.
The decision on the Working Group on indigenous populations was taken up.
In explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of the United States said that the Working Group had outlived its usefulness. Standard-setting was being done by an appropriate body, and there was also the work done by the Indigenous Forum. Also, the Special Rapporteur was helping States in areas in which they could make progress. She was grateful to the experts of the Working Group, but “its day was done”. It would be better to replace the two-week sessions of the Working Group with time for the Working Group on an indigenous declaration, so the latter could finish its work.
The draft was adopted by a recorded vote of 32 in favour to 17 against, with 1 abstention (Denmark) (Annex VII).
The draft on the Commission’s Working Group elaborating a draft declaration on indigenous issues was taken up.
Before the vote, the representative of the United States said the text authorized the Working Group to meet, when its work should have been done in the 10 years allotted to it. What was needed now was not an open-ended mandate, but a clear commitment by States to bring the talks to a conclusion before next year’s session of the Commission on Human Rights. She was abstaining on the decision, because the commitment to a swift outcome should have been made clearer in the text. She was prepared to work for a consensus declaration, but was not prepared to negotiate for another 10 years.
The decision was adopted by a recorded vote of 49 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention (United States) (Annex VIII).
The draft on human rights and indigenous issues was taken up. It was adopted without a vote.
The draft on human rights and international solidarity was taken up.
It was adopted by a recorded vote of 32 in favour to 18 against, with no abstentions (Annex IX).
The World Conference relative to racism and follow-up to the Durban outcome was taken up and adopted without a vote.
After the vote, the representative of the United States said she had joined consensus on the text because it focused specifically on the Special Rapporteur.
The draft on human rights and transnational business was taken up.
The representative of the United States said her country had the strongest business regulatory environment in the world. Corporations had the responsibility to obey the law and to honour the human rights of all individuals with whom it had contact. She had requested that the co-sponsors make two small changes. It was incumbent on States to adopt national laws that addressed the obligations of national actors. Since the changes had not been made, she was unable to support the text. Therefore, she had called for a vote and would vote no.
The draft was adopted by a recorded vote of 47 in favour to 3 against (Australia, South Africa, United States), with no abstentions (Annex X).
Next, the draft on the staff of the Human Rights High Commissioner’s Office was taken up.
The draft was adopted by a recorded vote of 32 in favour to 18 against, with no abstentions (Annex XI).
The texts on Burundi, Sierra Leone and Nepal were taken up and adopted without a vote.
The text on the rights of minorities was taken up and adopted without a vote.
The text on protection of human rights while fighting terrorism was taken up and adopted without a vote.
The draft on human rights in the Sudan was taken up and adopted without a vote.
The text on human rights assistance to Somalia was taken up and adopted without a vote.
The draft on technical cooperation and advisory services in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was taken up and adopted without a vote.
The representative of the United States said her delegation had dissociated itself from the overall text on technical cooperation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo during action on the text in the Commission, due to unacceptable language on the International Criminal Court. She noted that that language was not before the Council here on this specific resolution.
The text on corruption and human rights was taken up and adopted without a vote.
A draft on non-discrimination as enshrined in the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was taken up and adopted without a vote.
The text on the right to drinking water and sanitation was taken up and adopted by a recorded vote of 47 in favour and 2 against (Japan, United States), with no abstentions (Annex XII).
A draft on terrorism and human rights was taken up and adopted by a recorded vote of 33 in favour and 2 against (Australia, United States), with 14 abstentions (Annex XIII).
Continuing, the Council took up the draft on responsibility with regard to crimes of sexual violence and adopted it without a vote.
The decision concerning discrimination based on work and descent was taken up and adopted without a vote.
The draft on the report on indigenous peoples’ permanent sovereignty was taken up and adopted by a recorded vote of 33 in favour and 2 against (Australia, United States), with 15 abstentions (Annex XIV).
The text on human rights and human responsibilities was then taken up.
Before the vote, China’s representative said those colleagues that had attended last year’s ECOSOC meeting might remember that his delegation had told an ancient Chinese story. The purpose of the story was to try to persuade the European Union to match its actions with its words, so as to demonstrate its respect for human rights and not to say one thing and do another, and thus become a laughing stock. Apparently, China’s effort might have been an exercise in futility, for the Union had not learned from its defeat last year and had, once again, voiced its opposition to the draft resolution.
China’s position on the draft was clear, he said. Rights and duties were relative. The Commission had adopted a decision to authorize Mr. Martinez to engage in his study. The majority of countries supported his efforts. He hoped the Union would respect the majority view. Also, Mr. Martinez was a world renowned expert in the field of human rights, and had for many years worked diligently in the field of human rights and indigenous peoples. His study had no programme budget implications, demonstrating that that elderly gentleman was fully devoted to the cause of human rights. Considering his selflessness, it was necessary to give him more encouragement and support and not criticize him. He would vote in favour of the draft and called on all States to support the text.
The representative of the United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said he had asked for a vote on the issue. The Union supported the idea that individuals had obligations towards society. While States might impose duties on individuals for social cohesion, those duties must not interfere with inalienable rights and should be consistent with fundamental human rights.
He said he rejected the idea contained in the draft that States might determine which rights individuals could enjoy, which undermined the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Of the 27 States that responded to the consultations held on the text, only two had favoured continuing work on that declaration. The Union would call for a vote and hoped States would vote against attempts to restrict human rights. The ECOSOC, as the parent body of the Commission, had the duty to examine the decisions of the Commission and, if necessary, reject resolutions that undermined the fundamental principles of the United Nations. He would vote against the decision and urged others to do the same.
The decision was rejected by a recorded vote of 23 in favour and 25 against with 2 abstentions (Azerbaijan, United Republic of Tanzania) (Annex XV).
After the vote, Thailand’s representative said he attached great importance to the promotion and protection of human rights. His vote in favour was on the basis of the understanding that the declaration was being drafted in full respect for the principles of international human rights.
A text on reinforcing the effectiveness of the Commission’s special procedures was taken up. The draft was adopted without a vote, as was the draft on dates for the Commission’s next meeting.
A draft on the Commission’s organization of work for that meeting was taken up.
Before action, the representative of the United States said she had requested the vote and would vote no, due to the associated programme budget implications. She hoped the additional meetings would not be necessary or that the additional costs would be absorbed.
The draft was adopted by a recorded vote of 48 in favour and 1 against (United States), with no abstentions (Annex XVI).
After the vote, Japan’s representative said she had voted in favour of the text. The Commission should consider the rationalization of its work, to conclude its work in the time allotted. She was concerned about additional budgetary implications.
A draft decision on technical cooperation on human rights in Afghanistan was taken up and adopted without a vote.
A draft on human rights in Haiti was adopted without a vote.
A decision concerning a convention on prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide was taken up and adopted without a vote.
Concluding Remarks
In concluding remarks prior to taking note of reports, the representative of Switzerland said her delegation had introduced two resolutions at the Commission, both of which were adopted by consensus. The text in document E/2005/23 contained certain differences with the text adopted at the Commission. She brought the modifications of substance to the attention of the Council.
Cuba’s representative said his delegation dissociated itself from the text E/2005/12 on alleged human rights violations in his country, drafted by the primary violator of human rights in the world, when it found no puppet to work for it. The self-appointed champion of human rights had imposed certain ideas on the Commission. Cuba did not accept a single letter of that text. United Nations reform and reform in the Commission on Human Rights must eliminate that kind of behaviour. The Commission was in a crisis due to the politicization and double standards which had emerged in its work, as a result of the work of some countries that sought to assert their own political interests.
The representative of the United States said it was her understanding that the Council was taking note of the reports before it.
Venezuela’s representative said that, before taking note of the report of the fourth session of the Indigenous Forum, she wanted to reiterate her country’s commitment to the Forum. That commitment was expressed in chapter 45 of her country’s Constitution, which respected the rights of indigenous peoples. At the same time, she had reservations on some of the recommendations put forward by the Forum. States exercised sovereignty over their resources. She requested that her statement appear in the Council’s records.
Colombia’s representative said the Indigenous Forum and some of its recommendations had gone beyond its mandate. She had reservations on several paragraphs of the Forum’s report and requested that her statement be reflected in the record.
The Council then took note of reports by: the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (document E/2005/22); the Commission on Human Rights; the High Commissioner for Human Rights; and the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (document E/2005/43).
(annexes follow)
ANNEX I
Vote on Reparations for Human Rights Violations
The draft resolution on principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law (document E/2005/23) was adopted by a recorded vote of 43 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions as follows:
In favour: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Guinea, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Namibia, Nicaragua, Panama, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania.
Against: None.
Abstain: Australia, Germany, India, Nigeria, United States.
Absent: Benin, Chad, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, Pakistan.
(END OF ANNEX I)
ANNEX II
Vote on Use of Mercenaries
The draft decision on the use of mercenaries to violate human rights and impede the right to self-determination (document E/2005/23) was adopted by a recorded vote of 29 in favour to 18 against, with no abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belize, Brazil, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Namibia, Nicaragua, Panama, Russian Federation, Senegal, South Africa, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania.
Against: Albania, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Korea, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstain: None.
Absent: Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia.
(END OF ANNEX II)
ANNEX III
Vote on Right to Development
The draft decision on the right to development (document E/2005/23) was adopted by a recorded vote of 46 in favour to 2 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guinea, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Panama, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania.
Against: Australia, United States.
Abstain: Japan.
Absent: Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Pakistan.
(END OF ANNEX III)
ANNEX IV
Vote on Human Rights in Belarus
The draft decision on human rights in Belarus (document E/2005/23) was adopted by a recorded vote of 23 in favour to 11 against, with 15 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Mexico, Panama, Poland, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States.
Against: Armenia, China, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Namibia, Pakistan, Russian Federation, South Africa.
Abstain: Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belize, Brazil, Colombia, Congo, Ecuador, Guinea, Jamaica, Mauritius, Mozambique, Senegal, Thailand, Tunisia, United Republic of Tanzania.
Absent: Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nicaragua, Nigeria.
(END OF ANNEX IV)
ANNEX V
Vote on Effects of Economic Reform Policies
The draft decision on the effects of economic reform policies (document E/2005/23) was adopted by a recorded vote of 29 in favour to 18 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Bangladesh, Belize, Brazil, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania.
Against: Albania, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Korea, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstain: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Costa Rica, Mexico.
Absent: Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
(END OF ANNEX V)
ANNEX VI
Vote on Right to Health
The draft decision on the right to highest standards of physical and mental health (document E/2005/23) was adopted by a recorded vote of 50 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guinea, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania.
Against: United States.
Abstain: None.
Absent: Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo.
(END OF ANNEX VI)
ANNEX VII
Vote on Working Group on Indigenous Populations
The draft decision on the Working Group on indigenous populations (document E/2005/23) was adopted by a recorded vote of 32 in favour to 17 against, with 1 abstention, as follows:
In favour: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belize, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania.
Against: Albania, Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstain: Denmark.
Absent: Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria.
(END OF ANNEX VII)
ANNEX VIII
Vote on Working Group on Indigenous Declaration
The draft decision on the Working Group to elaborate a draft declaration on indigenous populations (document E/2005/23) was adopted by a recorded vote of 49 in favour to none against, with 1 abstention, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guinea, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania.
Against: None.
Abstain: United States.
Absent: Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria.
(END OF ANNEX VIII)
ANNEX IX
Vote on Human Rights and International Solidarity
The draft decision on human rights and international solidarity (document E/2005/23) was adopted by a recorded vote of 32 in favour to 18 against, with no abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belize, Brazil, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Thailand, Tunisia, United Republic of Tanzania.
Against: Albania, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Korea, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstain: None.
Absent: Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, United Arab Emirates.
(END OF ANNEX IX)
ANNEX X
Vote on Human Rights and Transnational Business
The draft decision on human rights and transnational business (document E/2005/23) was adopted by a recorded vote of 47 in favour to 3 against, with no abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guinea, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Spain, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania.
Against: Australia, South Africa, United States.
Abstain: None.
Absent: Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria.
(END OF ANNEX X)
ANNEX XI
Vote on Staff of Human Rights Office
The draft decision on the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (document E/2005/23) was adopted by a recorded vote of 32 in favour to 18 against, with no abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belize, Brazil, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania.
Against: Albania, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Korea, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstain: None.
Absent: Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria.
(END OF ANNEX XI)
ANNEX XII
Vote on Right to Drinking Water
The draft decision on the right to drinking water and sanitation (document E/2005/23) was adopted by a recorded vote of 47 in favour to 2 against, with no abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guinea, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania.
Against: Japan, United States.
Abstain: None.
Absent: Australia, Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria.
(END OF ANNEX XII)
ANNEX XIII
Vote on Terrorism and Human Rights
The draft decision on terrorism and human rights (document E/2005/23) was adopted by a recorded vote of 33 in favour to 2 against, with 14 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belize, Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania.
Against: Australia, United States.
Abstain: Albania, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Korea, Spain, United Kingdom.
Absent: Benin, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria.
(END OF ANNEX XIII)
ANNEX XIV
Vote on Indigenous Sovereignty
The draft decision on a study on indigenous peoples’ permanent sovereignty (document E/2005/23) was adopted by a recorded vote of 33 in favour to 2 against, with 15 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belize, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania.
Against: Australia, United States.
Abstain: Albania, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Korea, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom.
Absent: Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria.
(END OF ANNEX XIV)
ANNEX XV
Vote on Human Rights and Human Responsibilities
The draft decision on human rights and human responsibilities (document E/2005/23) was rejected by a recorded vote of 23 in favour to 25 against, with 2 abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Bangladesh, Belize, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates.
Against: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lithuania, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Poland, Republic of Korea, Senegal, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstain: Azerbaijan, United Republic of Tanzania.
Absent: Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria.
(END OF ANNEX XV)
ANNEX XVI
Vote on Human Rights Commission Work Organization
The draft decision on the organization of work for the Human Rights Commission (document E/2005/23) was adopted by a recorded vote of 48 in favour to 1 against, with no abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Germany, Guinea, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Namibia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Spain, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania.
Against: United States.
Abstain: None.
Absent: Australia, Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria.
* *** *
